So there are tits you didn't care about and Ryan Gosling you do like. Thanks for the shit non-review. nice to see the old guard still putting in their A effort.

"That nothing will have changed by 2049, women-in-Hollywood-wise?"

Actually things have changed... for the worse. The original Blade Runner featured Harrison Ford, shirtless, coming out of his shower.

Holy shit what a terrible movie. I'm a straight guy and I found the useless, extraneous tits every few minutes made it even less watchable. Awful dialogue and terrible acting. The "plot", to the extent it had one, was painfully slow. They could have cut half of the movie and not lost a single moment of value from the story.

@2, I don't know, you could argue things have gotten a little better for women since the original. At least this one didn't have a rape scene that apparently led to a long term relationship and the first hybrid child. So, um, hooray for not glorifying rape?

The original blade runner is unbelievably boring. in my opinion.

Interesting. When I viewed this article, it was accompanied by two large banner ads for the Stranger's HUMP film festival, which consist primarily of a bound, topless woman featured from the rear.

Seems to be like largely pointless gratuitous sexuality is pretty much commonplace, both here in the present and in the fictionalized future depicted in this film. Anyhow, carry on.

Ridley Scott hasn't been involved in a decent movie for decades.

Vox has an absolutely fascinating review that's totally worth reading in order to unpack the many themes and messages of the film. SPOILER ALERT!

I sort of enjoyed the movie. I was thoroughly baked, which cranked up the "oh, WOW" factor of the special FX by like 1,000. However, I just couldn't connect with any of the dead-inside characters, so the film had no sense of urgency and left many unanswered questions despite its long running time (#1: Why did Luv, the replicant assassin, enjoy killing people so much? Sure, she had a job to do, but that made no sense).

The stale plot didn't do the flick any favors, either. That said, the directing, acting, and cinematography are good, and the FX are the best I've ever seen (though that could also be the Maui Wowie talking).

I've never been a huge fan of The Goz, but I did go home and downloaded his killer workout. It was frustrating as hell to see him so jacked up under all those damn dreary clothes. They could've at least thrown us a shirtless shot!

At least the original had terrific German Expression style mise en scene and Joanna Cassidy in her prime as a replicant.

I think you missed an important part of this movie: he does not have the insides of an iphone. Replicants are genetically modified humans. Hence all of the talk about DNA.

Not that this makes the movie any more interesting.

It's pretty easy to link the female nudity in the movie to criticism of the male gaze and, more broadly, how the desire to subjugate the feminine (a proxy for nature) leads to disaster (like the sand-blasted hellscape of Las Vegas 2049).

There have already been think pieces written about the feminist message. I suppose one could argue Villenueve was seeking to have his cake and eat it too. But if you can't think about it because ewww titties are gross, then you won't make it very far into an analysis of the movie.

Also: Kinda hard to say Gosling's character isn't objectified when it's clear Robin Wright's character has been using him as a sex slave.

Sorry you didn't get to see all of Gosling, Christopher.

He is not objectified like the women are, even though he's literally an object.

I believe that right there was meant to be the central question posed by the films.

And yeah, I joked with a female friend who I saw this with, that one of the editors must have been on a "time since last boobies" clock and had to make sure it never went over about 8 minutes, because there are A LOT of them in this. Even so much that I, a boob-lovin' thirsty straight dude, started laughing at it. I still enjoyed it, but I still feel like Blade Runner films are a rather acquired taste that you can only really enjoy after you've watched some critical reviews and artistic post mortems on them.

@17: That last point, about fitness = beauty, has changed over the years. That's why the ladies in Renaissance paintings tend toward plumpness, after all. I suspect it's more about difficult-to-obtain/maintain body types being seen as more desirable (in general), but I slept through most of my Art History class, so I'm no expert.

...that must be why the republican platform endorses creationism and espouses anti-science/evolution denying politicians who think the world is less that 20,000 years old (like Betsy DeVos).

You know. Because "evolution" is such and important fact.

Back to the topic at hand and away from these did shit sock puppets.

The movie was lovely but totally nonsensical. They made these slaves illegal on earth because they rebelled. And then, suddenly, once sentence later made them legal again for no discernible reason.

The villain was dull and perfunctory and it made no sense why a die hard capitalist would somehow want to lose the means and control of production of his slaves and give them back the one thing they dissed for their revolution.

It was boring, insipid, and cynically coasted on the vision of the original without adding anything interesting except a superficial layer of inexplicably contradictory motives of the antagonist and protagonists.

disse = desired (stupid auto correct).

We should also note that anti-density NIMBYs must be shitting bricks over future Hell-LA's lack of single family zoning.

San Diego however, remains unchanged.

I actually thought this movie and the original blade runner was pretty good and not too bad,actually! Been a long time secret fan of the cyberpunk genre and this wasn't a train wreck...

@3 yeah, I thought it might have been better as a 90 minute movie. I got up in the middle to get coffee I was so bored. Got home to discover The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Vox all liked it. So what do I know? No LGBT? No wonder it was so fucking bleak.

FUCK ALL OF YOU EXCEPT FOR 23 and 24 LOL.

Diehard fan of the original and I do not think that they could have made a more perfect sequel. ABSOLUTELY loved it.

@25, agreed, A masterpiece...

... I must have seen a different movie than the writer of this shit storm article.
I found Blade Runner 2049 to be a masterpiece in every way.
I'm not sure what others saw, but, in my opinion, this movie could not have been any better. This comes from a devoted original BR fan.
I didn't find the artistic beauty of tits on screen offensive, and I'm a girl. I mean come on, hasn't anyone else noticed how other movies are full of explicit sex these days? For me, I thought the storyline was well written and thought provoking. The actors were perfect in each character they portrayed. I am still in awe of Luv's (Sylvia Hoeks) acting skills. She was fantastic. I had some concerns about Gosling before I saw the movie. Those fears were quickly dispelled. And, Ford as the 'ole blade runner was top-notch. Robin Wright too.
The cinematography was stunning. Denis Villeneuve's vision was Perfect. I loved it.

Yes. It was pretty. Very pretty. But it made no sense at all. And I guess that's what the world wants in it's entertainment. Easy, comfort food stories that vanish the second you leave the theater.

The glaring pot holes and lack of character development were just a small part of the crippling idiocy of this movie. Jared Leto might of well had "BAD GUY" tatted on his forehead it was so subtle.

The dialogue was single syllable aphorisms so clearly prepped to run through a google translate algorithm so as to make any uniqueness or poetry impossible.

The plot? God, the so-called plot. There was no reason for Leto to want to have self-reproducing replicants. Why in gods name would a serial killing megalomaniac uber-capitalist want to lose control of his product and allow his product to be able to make itself? The stupid plot effectively makes the antagonist and protagonist have exactly the same motives and neither outcome even matters.

Replicants are so deadly they outlaw them. But then - for no explicable reason they "un" outlaw them again and they are literally EVERYWHERE. Plotting revolution on a desolate shit hole nobody want to live on.

For some reason they even have a replicant cop going around killing replicants, that are legal but not legal but... what?

Who cares.

And why did they need to find Decker again? Oh. Yeah I guess so we could have yet another stupid sci-fi cliche of "Luke, I am your father..."

The only thing missing was "I have a bad feeling about this" Oh. Wait. They did say that.

Not to mention suddenly everybody knew who Rachel's daughter was... because of course they did, because there weren't any other characters.

I swear, so-called "block-busters" are made for morons. Flavorless red meat for internet fan boys and girls.

In summation: If you like this movie you're a bad person and you should feel bad.

Forget Gosling, Christoper F. Go watch the original. Because RUTGER HAUER! Yes, he's probs a thousand years old now, but he was hot, hot, HOT!

Takes a real mental midget to only see tits in this movie, and then write an article about it. This movie is about existentialism; not feminism.

@17 You’re a fucking idiot. Obviously women enjoy looking at Ryan Gosling’s pretty face. The difference is that Ryan Gosling isn’t required to show his dangling dick to land a huge Hollywood role.

I loved this movie, and like the original, was very literary and probably requires repeated viewings to get everything. Ads for Joi were throughout the movie, culminating in the giant naked Joi ad with the blue hair. K had just suffered a tremendous loss, and the patronizing tone of the ad when she spoke to him was particularly traumatizing. K rising from these nihilistic depths of insignificance gave real power to the triumphant climax of the movie.

#29: PLEASE, for the love of whatever fucking thing you believe in (God, Krishna, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot), learn to write correctly! "Gaping pot holes"? I believe what you meant was "PLOT" holes. And your grammar in the rest of your screed wasn't any better. Have you ever heard of punctuation? I'm betting not. When you pose a question, it's usually followed by a symbol that is known as a question mark. You don't seem to understand sentence/paragraph structure either. Good grief, consider enrolling in a basic college course to learn English grammar and writing.

I love it when DrummerGrrl talks like that.

Your article is trash and your weak attention span is showing Chrissy Boy.

Hint,

There are no Hero's in Phillip K Dick stories, and the objectification was intentional as the movie was exploring how making real connections was more human than memories or experiences.

Joi was there as a turning point, showing how empty and shallow that relationship was, so that the anti hero protagonist could have one last bit of heroics.

But you can't bitch about objectification, and then complain about how there weren't enough of the type of people on screen to objectify that you wanted to objectify.

It is a world where humans make other biological humans to enslave, the only difference being one is made in a lab and is a slave, and the ones who are made in bedrooms are the masters, at the cost of their own souls.

Not to mention that the first film is completely known for being heady and subtle, as a reviewer what did you expect? I am guessing something like the Jersey Shore?

Dear author: social justice doesn't exist in dystopian futures.

Amazing how much can be revealed about an author through a mere 350 word “review”. Most people, upon realizing they have no comprehension of, or appreciation for the subject matter they’re trying to write about, would simply stop and look for a different topic that they could comment intelligently on. Not this guy! It’s like he was eager to put his ignorance out there for all to see. I suppose there are readers out there that actually mistake stupidity for ballsy self-confidence. I honestly felt embarrassed for him.

Dear Dr.Zaius, what the fuck are you talking about, you mumbling? And who the fuck is Decker? I believe you got way too ahead of yourself, Dr. Pretentious-Film-Critic-Wannabe.

I meant to type "you mumbling cretin", just so we're on the same page.^

So this is now the...third (?) article you've published (2 by Charles of course) about how much your joyless staff hates this movie? Must be nothing else important going on to write about in this city.

"This movie is about existentialism; not feminism."

Existential-splaining.

Wasn't bored, my mind engaged for the entire film -- but I've seen the original Blade Runner a dozen times.

Still prefer the original, but the sequel holds up.

As for the giant sculptures, they're from the future world of the movie A.I., it's "pleasure city."

Literary references easter egged throughout are a poor subtitute for actually examining themes or questions with any depth. Not a terrible movie, just boring and nowhere near as deep as some give it credit for.

@29
What leads you to believe Wallace is the bad guy? Wallace through his innovations in bio-engineering saved humanity. Just because he wants to make as many replicants as he can, this does not make him bad.

It wasn't a review of the film. Instead it was a thinly disguised monologue about himself. We learn nothing much about the film from this "review" and everything about the author of it, someone in whom we have not a shred of interest. Yawn.

Hello, Stranger? You need to dump this doofus and get a reviewer who's more interested in film than himself.

What a load of rubbish. The film was only boring if you're a total idiot with the attention span of a bewildered toddler. Which you obviously are. ANYONE not thinking the film had depth, that it wasn't a masterpiece - wasn't paying attention, and probably has a pretty low IQ. It bombed in America for obvious reasons, and was a smash hit in the UK and Europe - probably because we are cultured and able to deconstruct cinema, and enjoy intelligent film... Anyone not liking this film is simply too stupid to understand it.

Both Blade Runner movies are engrossing. You're a shallow little shit aren't you.

Fabulous visual style, but completely empty of emotion or feelings. And no moments of humor! Deadly dull, for all 14 hours or however long it was. For those of you who have not seen the movie -- the future has a problem. Remember the ending of 'Blade Runner' from 25 years ago? Ok, there were about 14 release versions of Blade Runner, but the ending that I prefer is the one where Harrison Ford (Deckart) runs away with Rachael the Replicant and they go into hiding somewhere and live happily ever after. But then, apparently, the impossible happened! Harrison was pumping his penis into that hot and moist prosthetic pussy over and over, and -- guess what? Rachel became pregnant! But NO.... she is a Replicant, not a real human! Replicants can't get pregnant! No!! But apparently Rachel did. This is a big problem for the world in subsequent year 2049, because if androids can become pregnant by fucking human mammals, it will only be a matter of time before they start demanding their rights as equal citizens! Best to nip this in the bud before things get out of hand.
At least I think that is what happened.... So that means, in 2049, we need to track down and finally find Harrison Ford, the dad, so that he can tell us who and where this human/android spawn offspring is. Then we can kill him. And then we will find the hybrid child, kill him or her or it, and dissect it, to find out what happened, and what we can do with genetic engineering to make sure that it never happens again. Or do we actually want them to reproduce. Again, I'm confused by the storyline in 2049! Whatever. And how did they find out that the girl-in-the-bubble makin memories was the spawn, after all? Also -- Ryan G. is too young, too thin, and too pretty to be a tough, 'blade runner' cop. Bad miscast! Also, why is he a replicant? Harrison Ford was human! Oh that's right.... for the 'red herring' plotline.

This purely reactionary non-review lacks only one thing: thinking. Which, of course, is fatal if you are reviewing a thinking person’s film.

Why are there tits everywhere? Because fertility is a central theme in the film—in fact, the entire plot hinges on it. And in a dystopian future, of course objectification of women is going to be worse. It’s a fallen world, complete with a screwed-up climate. If you bothered to view the film outside of your narrow agenda-based lens, you would see it is replete with themes, such as identity, memory, and what makes us human. You’re welcome.
As for you, commenter #29/Dr. Zauis: The film makes perfect sense if you give it a repeat viewing and let it sink in. There are no “glaring plot holes.” Leto’s character says clearly that replicant reproduction would be a boon to creating a slave workforce in the trillions and thus another leap in civilization (in his view). Replicants were allowed to come back to Earth because Wallace found a way to manufacture obedience into them—no more revolts (or so he thinks). K needs to find Deckard to get to the truth of the miracle birth, which is tied to Deckard.

Bottom line: Blade Runner 2049 is a dense film, not a dunce film. Considering the degree of difficulty its makers faced, it’s an amazing follow-up to the original. Dennis Villeneuve is one of the best directors working today; if you saw any of his other films you’d recognize that. He hasn’t missed yet and he didn’t with BR2049.

Sorry it went over your head. But hey, there’s always the next TRANSFORMERS film to look forward to.

It's truly disappointing to see people that are so thick they aren't able to absorb art. This movie, every aspect of it, is art. The stunning visuals, the powerful sound, and, yes, the gripping story line. If you were paying attention, you would have found so much more suspense in the plot than is immediately apparent. It wasn't an action movie, and just because it was set in a dystopian future doesn't mean you should expect an action movie. It was a captivating mystery, with many heart-wrenching twists. The best movie I have ever seen, and btw, I too, am gay.