Actually, the “her eyes were green” line is kind of brilliant. Her eyes were, in fact, correct, and to me it seems that Deckard is trying to cover up his pain in seeing a copy of his deceased lover by throwing a jab at Wallace’s competence so that he won’t use her against him further.
They used Rachel’s original bones to recreate her. Of here Iris was correct. I think it was the intention of his message. Thinking up a cheap excuse to hide his real pain from the others
@Black Pill pretty sure she was more of a clone(of tyrells niece) than a replicant (originally created), which would explain why she was able to have children, and emotions, but no other replicant ever did
One of my only problems with this movie is actually a pretty big one. I didn't care for the Deckard/Rachel storyline at all. I care about what happened to K and Joi. Harrison Ford has stopped trying long ago and I never bought their relationship in the original, they had 0 chemistry and their "love" scene was very rapey. Not surprising that Harrison Ford and Sean Young didn't get along on set.
The water droplets weren’t landing on her skin. They were passing through her hologram and her AI then changed the hologram to look like she had water on her skin. She adjusts to fit the environment.
What’s cool is that in k’s memories he has hair, something that should have tipped off viewers if we were attentive. When he visits the orphanage early in the plot only the girls are allowed to have hair, something that we all should have noticed.
Idk the movie not making the protagonist be the “child” killed it and didn’t seem as wholesome as it was because of that, at that point I didn’t give shit about this movie and it’s outcome.
we were attentive for nearly 3 hours. It was the question I asked, but movie gave no answer. In fact it gives no answer to many other questions. How come everywhere the MC goes there's only one character working? -hundreds of children - one person -archive - one person -police - one person -memory creation - one person -Ford's hiding place - one person one guy can't control and ensure compliance of so many children. Plus, how do you know there are girls among them? Does movie care to explain anything at all?
It's really confusing the first time you see it, I had to rewind to figure out that was what happened. At least the movie did show the drops going through her at first so you can deduce what she did.
um, it's pretty fucking obvious that the drops on her hand are also holographic, the movie doesn't need dialogue explaining that nor should it. show don't tell dumBy. did people seriously not pick up on that?
You sort of didn’t get the horse memory thing. Deckard’s daughter was giving all the replicants her own memories. That was the flaw she built into every single one of them so that eventually, they would rebel.
Yes, he could have just said it was too long, relied too much on nostalgia and used someone else's ideas. it had nothing to offer a female audience, just teenage boys a lot of tits, tedium and technology. The original novel had the replicants as sad, scared losers who knew they were going to be hunted and killed. There was no "superhero" killing power, no stupid fights and torture porn (belly slashing a woman, even a fake one, really?) they were all dispatched easily. The original ideas are what made the BR good, not this sequel. Loved the cinematography though. Just need it used on an original idea.
+ how DID Luv get back into the LAPD building all the way to the Chiefs office when she had already killed the lab tech? woudn't they have tech to recognise her the second time? and no other officers around at all, slices her up and then saunters off? Not buying that.
Regarding the flower on Rachel's grave.... Morton obviously put it there. And K noticed it because he's a replicant with superhuman skills of observation and memory (which he demonstrates later when he's manually comparing the DNA records without computer assistance).
The rain on her skin is obviously her program adapting to the outside environment. It’s just simulating her being rained on. Precipitation landing/not landing on characters is one of the biggest visual themes of the film.
While that does make sense the sin is for the fact that if you’re watching this for the first time you’d have no idea whatsoever. Ie, half the point of this channel
horselove161298 But ... no, though. The scene specifically shows what's happening, visually, you can see the rain phasing through her and causing 'artifacts.' The movie demonstrates what's happening pretty well.
HorseLover161298 No you're wrong, they spent about 30 seconds staring at her hand, purposely showing you her program is at first not being affected by the rain then gradually making it look like the rain is hitting her when it really isn't. You're dumb, bud.
My exact thoughts (among others that I outlined in a comment). Many sins feel forced. Yeah yeah we need to laugh and they need something to say about the film but it was funnier when the errors were actual continuity or logic errors.
14:06 but basically why Joe went and decided to rescue Deckard is because he wanted to be more than just “another replicant”. So then reflecting on the events that happened throughout the movie, Joe did the most human thing to do, and saved Rick to help him reunite with his child. At the conclusion of the movie, Joe ended up becoming a lot more than just “another replicant”. Despite being a replicant, Joe proved he was more human than a lot of humans, and that’s why I love his arc and his character. It’s just so deep and poetic :)
Blade Runner is probably one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever, whose impact on the genre is immeasurable, and I'm very happy with the sequel. Phenomenal film, wish I'd seen it in theaters.
Ana de Armas is not my fake holographic girlfriend in this scene. Sylvia Hoeks is not my psycho girlfriend in this scene. Mackenzie Davis is not my freaky hooker girlfriend in this scene.
I always enjoy CinemaSins videos as they're consistently hilarious, and in most cases, dead on point. However this might be the ONLY video I've seen where I seriously believe Jeremy did NOT get this movie. I'd say at least 90% of the sins given to this weren't even actual film sins.
Are you seriously playing the "huuuh you just didn't get it" card? Let's be honest, the movie is great but the plot is seriously problematic and weak as hell
@@andrewcgs The plot is strong and has great writing. It doesn't have many action scenes cause it doesn't need to. And there is no save the world threat, yet this film still manages to have better writing than 95% of today's blockbuster movies.
@@andrewcgs most of the shit he mentions and says there is no reason for or why is it there is literally explained in the movie with no further digging needed
I think the sins mentioned for this movie are so minor that they are really misdemeanors. So if that’s the best you can do, it must be an admission that the movie is pretty good.
It was definitely not a bad movie, not by a long shot, but some of these issues aren't minor. I don't want to replay this video to double check which sin it was, but the sin about when he's trying to find the toy horse in his memory. The entire movie has many parts where it unnecessarily takes forever. My friend went to the bathroom at the beginning of that scene where he's looking for the horse, and he missed literally nothing. K was asked to sit down by the memory creating girl and it takes him like 30 seconds to actually just sit down, like he had to stare down the chair or something. The pacing is weird in some scenes. Doesn't make it a bad movie, but it doesn't live up to the hype and excitement.
I watched this movie for 2 hours before I realized how long it is. I had no idea I had been watching a movie for that long. Try watching 2001: A Space Odyssey - which is undeniably a classic and a feat of 20th century film-making - and talk to me about how this movie has slow shot-pacing.
Aye Jaye Maybe is because this is a movie about a lot of visual emotions and.. you know, for adults. A lot of mysteries are going on. If you would bother to watch the movie you would understand it.
I was so goddamn sick and delirious when I first saw this film, laying in my bed barely able to move, with the surround sound and bass up loud, I just remember being completely mesmerized by the visuals and music and the way all the characters practically whisper when talking, it basically took me out of my body for the duration of time, I was afraid to watch it for so long because sequels usually suck, but I had nothing better to do and nothing left to watch and would have totally regretted skipping over this.
I was a bit hesitant too because the original is so iconic and we all know how sequels can turn out...This movie is epic and you are so right about the stunning visuals, brilliant performances and the films score. ❤
Its a shame they relied so much on unnecessary darkness though. Killed the visuals in my opinion. So many scenes with tons of lights turned on or daylight pouring through windows yet i couldn't see jack shit what was happening
I don't think the farmer loved Rachel, just it was part of the miracle reverence. Farmer says he grows garlic for himself, so he might also grow some flowers for her grave.
I'm going to guess that the flower was left by Deckard. In his apartment he has the same liquid found on the farm for the protein insects so he might go to Sapper every time he's in need of food, leaving a flower each time. His bees would've probably been used to pollinate the flowers too. That was my takeaway from it at least
13:36 the black eyes meant she had no soul, and when you “customize” her and bring her to “life” she gets a soul, this movie is full of symbolism about eyes if you analyze it. “Kroft talks about movies” did a great video on the subject.
@@orinanime He forgets plenty of them as well. I thought this sequel was overly pretentious, boring and ultimately going nowhere, but plenty of people seem to love it, so to each their own
Jared leto was the only thing i didnt like. He seemed really out of place to me. If i re write his character in my head this movie is my all time favorite
Horseshit, there is plenty wrong with it. Is it still enjoyable? Yes, but there were many obnoxious parts, the last fight scene was one of the most cringe fight scenes I've ever seen.
You know...for almost a 3 hour move, 114 sins really isn’t all that much. I’ve seen more sins on shorter movies. Edit: Okay... for those of you who think I take the sins seriously, I don’t. I’m 100% aware that these sin videos are satire. I was just stating that I’ve seen more sins from shorter movies..meaning..that the movie was obviously good since they didn’t have a lot of jokes to make of it.
it doesn't matter how many sins a movie has. What matters is what the sins are for example: "Villain not killing the hero' is a big sin but a" thunder sound during dialogue" or things like "this scene doesnt contain a lap dance" are nothing big. This movie is not perfect but it's still damn good and really worth watching.
Movie was not good, in my teacher legit almost everyone else feel asleep cause it was so boring. I stayed awake since I didn't watch the first one, but I got nothing, and no one there who watched the first seemed to get it.
Seriously? You didn’t get the part about joy eyes? It’s a metaphor. You know what they say, the eyes are the windows to the soul and by showing joy eyes black it means she is just a mass produced sex toy with no soul so in the end we don’t know if she did loved k or she was programmed to do so. Man that movie was awesome
Actually this part was really important because at this moment it answered your question perfectly. Not only "she" did everything what K wanted to. "She" also was what K wanted to. This also explains hooker stuff and all :D
I disagree. It's just a different Joi look. The Joi K has actually appears in one of the digital billboards. In case you might have missed it: www.fxguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/e_dtr_080_0010_comp_v079_PR_v003.1001.jpg The likeliest reason for the large Joi hologram to have blue hair and black sclera eyes is that its look is in line with one of the styles the original Blade Runner movie kept in its interpretation of the future, which is still very 80s inspired. BTTF did the same in BTTF2. And hell, in case you also didn't notice it, look at 1:22. Tell me that's not inspired by a DeLorean.
J I guess we can't know for sure what the creators of the films meant with that scene, everyone can give it their own meaning but I don't think it's just a "different look", the picture you sent is from before joi "died", we see her on a billboard and she look human and all the scene in the video is after K lost her and instead of looking like a human, she's a weird pink chick with black eyes, soulless and cold
6:15 "Why did THIS specific memory end up in K?" If I recall correctly, it's strongly implied in the film that the memory maker Ana Stelline gave that memory to *all* Nexus-9 replicants.
It's not. It was told by one eyed Jennie that they all thought they were the child. That was the only mention and wasn't explained or explored. People could figure it out but it was really just thrown in there weirdly.
@@Ailsworth Exactly. My main issue with this movie, it looked pretty but lacked consistance, meat, almost everything that happened felt very dull, shallow, nonsensical or pointless, sometimes all of the above.
JaKBaLL TV I would think he knows something about it since he gets quite a bit advertisements and money from doing this. He also gets paid to watch these movies so he knows what he's talking about and worked on a set.
13:00 This is Deckard's way of saying "She may be perfect physical copy in your eyes, but she will never replace my Rachel". She had the same eyes as original Rachel. She just wasn't her, she was another person for him
We all know that "something in the eyes" always reveals a replicant (a copy), lol. Although I do agree that the movie tries to play it too hard in this scene - a little bit too convenient, too contrived, too obvious.
She could not be a perfect physical copy of Rachel. Rachel had a fully functional reproductive system designed by Tyrell Corp. and had given birth to Deckard's child. Rachel was "more human than human." Her copy was not. Too bad Tyrell was killed by Roy. But, wait, didn't Tyrell have the tech to give himself a second life?
In the Voight-Kampff scene she devinately has green eyes, but Sean Young has brown eyes. It is an inconsistancy in the first film, so it is more or less a joke in 2049. You can argue if it is actually true, that "her eyes where green".
I have yet to watch it, but there's an anime called Blade Runner Black Lotus, and there's a short, very short movie of about 12-14 minutes named Blade Runner 2022, which is also an anime styled video (made by the same person as the anime series prior to it being announced)
Funny, but it gets really annoying sometimes. I feel as if you don't even know the context of the movie, you just see start pressing it with your own judgement. Gaff did speak English at the end of the original. Get it right
@@hollt693 yeah cinemasins constantly gets stuff wrong, sins stuff for the sake of a joke or just chooses to ignore context or even cut singular scenes to mislead their audience into thinking they're right. The thing is: people judge movies based on these videos. They watch them and feel reassured to never go and see the movie. Which is a shame cause they sin some freaking masterpieces and make them look like generic hollywood bullshit. And i don't know, but i get annoyed by a lot of their reoccurring sins. The logo thing by itself gets me every time. You're here to watch a movie, if you can't take a moment to see who worked on it, why are you watching a movie? What are you, a small child? Seriously. They state it's to "point out the common mistakes in hollywood productions" but let's be real, it's to make popular videos above all else, otherwise you wouldn't use sins for jokes and the like...
@@FancyTophatDude Your perspective is a valid one, but I see things differently. If someone chooses to watch these *before* they see a movie, then decides not to watch it because of that, it's kind of like only reading the one-star reviews on a product before deciding whether to buy it. Personally, I watch these for entertainment, and only *after* I've seen the movie. If I hated a movie, they make me feel validated, and if I loved a movie, they help me notice things I didn't before, without making me like it any less. I mean, their freaking tagline is "no movie is without sin" (or something like that), so of course they're going to sin popular movies. I like to chuckle at the people who get all butthurt because their love for their favorite movie was so delicate and fragile as to be ruined by a few minutes of humorous criticisms.
I'd disagree with anyone calling it bad, but to call it a masterpiece is giving it way too much credit. It has the weirdest pacing issues. He gets told to sit down, and he takes like 30 seconds to actually sit down, without really doing anything substantial to justify that slight filler of time. That scene where he finds the horse toy takes FOREVER. My friend went to the bathroom, and when he was back, he had just found the horse toy and my friend missed absolutely nothing. A lot of these oddly paced scenes are spread throughout the movie and add up despite some of them seeming to be insignificant. It makes it feel like the movie was purposefully being dragged out as long as possible. Also Jared Leto is insufferable.
It is beautiful and it HAS lot's of cgi When do you people get, that cgi is not a thing by itself that makes a movie look good or bad It's HOW you use that technology Saying that, it's already stated many times, that when cgi works at its best you will barely know it was there
@@OnionKnightRises I agree, I watched this movie, becouse my brother told me that I had to see it, 'cose it's a masterpiece. But while the film wasn't bad it was not anything special either. It had pacing problems and the charactrs didn't really capture my attention, so I was quiet bored by the end of it. And I don't just have issues with long movies in general (I wached extendet versions of LOTR more than once and was never bored). The visuals were great though, I have to give them that.
but thats the point OF cinemasins, its nitpicking for the hell of it. not to mention the movie isn't for everyone. i mean, it may be bad timing in my case but my dad decided my family watch it at 8:30 and by the end i was somewhere between falling asleep and SOMEWHAT interested. was real tired by that rate
Slava Bosl Kevin Spacey has been accused of sexually assaulting people, and in that scene Robin Wright character almost implied sex with K if she finished the bottle
William Donovan the point is, the explanation of the blackout was purely for the viewer. It's obvious both people know what the blackout was. This is bad storytelling when a character says things without any in-universe reason to do so, just to tell it to the audience. Good storytelling is when you find a way to explain things that makes sense. It isn't an easy storytelling feat, but Hollywood doesn't hire me, it hires people who were studying this shit and have been doing it for years.
Remove 100 sins for the cinematography who is imaculate and perfection in this movie...Roger Deakins is a mad genius and deserve an Oscar for this masterpiece !!
CinemaSins isn't a review channel. I agree the movie was brilliant and so much MORE love and respect was given to this project than that newest Star Wars disaster. If only all sequels were made with so much care. That said, I try to just enjoy CS as good humor. I don't think this is meant to be a serious review.
I think they liked the movie anyway...it's just for fun like with Baby Driver...i hope Roger Deakins will work again with Denis Villeneuve on his Dune movie...they work magic together !
You can't really criticise the film for putting in words at the start or giving long pauses without dialogue because I think that's it just trying to stay true to the original and I like the long cinematic takes without any talking tbh
I understand that this is not a review but a kind of ironic interpretation of the movie. Still you shouldn't make up/fabricate sins that are clearly untrue. Like Gaff not speaking "city speak" he did, you just cut to the part where he was speaking english.
Right back at you. There is not much precedence of false claims. There is a difference between nitpicking, and outright lying about events in a movie. Previously when they were wrong about a sin it was traceable to lack of knowledge about a subject, but this is outright and wilful distortion of events. Which only works on those who haven't actually seen the movie.
Well, I'm sorry if your attention span is too little to get trough four lines. No, I truly am sorry. Not for you, but for how far humanity has fallen. I'm a bit baffled now, because you present a new low to me, one I didn't even know existed. So let me get this straight. You're not even concerned with what the comment says, you're just asserting that the existence of the comment is dumb? I wish you all the best, and hope you get better.
Steven Chabot yep, I commented the same thing. At that point we didn't even know she was Rachael, much less that Deckard was somehow involved. Sometimes I feel like Jeremy is really not paying attention.
Yea he flubs facts for the video. Hes done this too many times on different videos for it to be by accident. Not sure why though, he should be able to find at least 15 minutes of legit sins in any movie, good or bad.
Why sin off the police officer for being racist? This correctly portraits the book's original settings as well as current events in the real world. Also, racists **are** casually racist.
I haven't seen the first movie. But this movie in my opinion, was one of the most visual stunning film's I have ever watched. And a fantastic movie overall.
This is imo one of the few examples of a sequel surpassing the original. The original is technically more impressive for its age, but nothing is explained and the story is kinda flat. And while CinemaSins complains about the fighting at the end of the movie, the same thing happened in the original, but more stupid.
He's not under arrest for going to the memory bank he's under arrest for becoming too emotional and going off his "baseline" when he finds out the memory is real
Sin 70 "why is he being arrest...as far as Joshi know K's been following leads" I think this sin is not warranted since he's being arrested for a valid reason, not being a compliant replicant.
She says in the next scene, “You’re supposed to be following leads and we find you fucking around at an upgrade center?!” It’s also shown when Luv comes to see Joshi that Joshi keeps track of the location of K. She probably thought it was weird that he was there, and sent a unit out to arrest him and bring him in to check his Baseline, which she finds out, is all out of whack.
I have my own list of everything wrong and bad about 2049 : The visuals in 2049 is very underwhelming to me when compared to the first original Blade Runner. The problem with 2049's camera works is that it fails to take into account how the laws of physics work in reality. The camera movement and the flying car just zooms too evenly through everything, in contrast, the original first movie felt a lot more realistic because the flying cars and camera works feels like they are moving through wind and atmospheric resistance ... The first original movie makes you feel like you're really there in the dystopian world .. why? because the laws of physics feels more tangible in the first movie. But 2049 failed to take into account for the natural laws of physics to make things look realistic for example, when K's flying car crashes through the junks, it looks very fake because it just bulldozes too evenly through everything like the junks are ping pong balls ... its like there is no such thing as tangible resistance in the movie.. Also the director and cinematographer of 2049 overdid the heavy fogging that totally overpowered the artistically rendered textures and modelling details of the miniature buildings ... the visuals just look way too soft like everything is put through a soft lens. The original first movie felt more real because the fogging is done just enough , just right that you can still see the beautiful details that the artists painstakingly applied onto the models .. Other aspects like the music and story line also disappoints. They took the cool complex characters in the first movie and make them into dowdy uncles and aunties involved with a family drama about a long lost child in the sequel .. gosh the mysterious cool Gaff is now a retiree sitting in an old folks hospital home in the sequel ... And Deckard in a Tshirt and jeans ? how mundane can it get ? And why would Deckard suddenly refer to Rachel as "my wife" ? Did they got married in a ceremony while on the run ?? I would have thought that they would be smart enough not need to use such conventional terms since they are a couple of runaway renegades trying to escape as far away from the clutches of human conventions of human society ... And the whole plot feels like a derivative of The Matrix (the hunt for the "chosen one" who will alter the course of a rebellion's resistance against the "enslavers") and HER (virtual girlfriend), even the clothing design and set designs (especially the junk yard/orphage scene) looks like its taken from The Matrix ..
"-So how are these water drops landing on her skin?" ... It's not. You can clearly see the drops phasing through her hologram. It's just the programming in the hologram interacting with the environment. I need to come up with a show sinning these sins for blatantly not paying attention.
@@zanneon385 no, he sinned the fact that Joi is not actually connected to the car's systems but got affected anyway. He said he don't know if it should affect her, but sinned it anyway.
It is impossible for a lightning strike of this nature to affect the internal systems of a car due to the Faraday cage effect : all electrical charge flows over the OUTSIDE of a hollow metal conductor. This was a major screw-up on behalf of the screenwriters and shows a total lack of research and basic scientific knowledge.
Did you REALLY just sin the opening scenes that were clearly an homage to the original movie?? White and red opening exposition followed by the shot of an eye?? Maybe you should go back and watch the original again...
Try watching it from a non-fan POV. I like these videos even if I like the movies they make fun of. I liked BR2049. It's more than I was expecting it to be. That said, 1940s film noir/dystopian scifi isn't everyone's taste. You gotta let people be a little, "WTF did I just see?" in their opinions.
On sin 28: I don’t think that cop meant Deckard when he said “He didn’t seem like the saving type”. I think he was referring to Sapper Morton. No one even remotely knows who Deckard is at that point in the film
I like cinemasins, they're funny and sometimes point out valid flaws in films. But they were really REALLY stretching for this one. Sorry guys, but this movie was awesome
I’m surprised you didn’t take off sins for the reveal that his hologirl was legitimately programmed to say exactly what he wanted to hear, thereby asserting that he WANTED to hear that he was the chosen one, and that he WANTED to hear his girlfriend say that she loves him. Basically, the character’s life sucks so hard, and he constantly has little to no choice in his life, being bossed around by everyone. And in the end, he dies making his own choice and doing what HE and he alone thinks is right.
Portable energy weapons wouldn't make any sense at all given how, uh, all of physics. Of course the guns still use regular bullets less than 35 years from now. As for holographic displays and AI? We're actively developing those. Replacements for the incredibly energy and cost efficient explosive propulsion of heavy bits of solid mass? We haven't even started thinking of a viable and fiscally reasonable alternative. I feel like a lot of the more recent videos are sort of losing their edge...perhaps that's just the norm for parody as a medium.
"We haven't even started thinking of a viable and fiscally reasonable alternative." that's not true at all. we already have guided 40mm grenades, and with advances in miniaturization and sensor tech i'd expect guided small/intermediate caliber bullets (using fins or tiny explosives around the circumference or smth else). then there are possible advances people have been working on in the 90s like caseless ammo or liquid propellant (where a future smart gun might tailor the load of every shot on the fly). and i haven't even touched on things that might be done with the bullet itself if you live in a society where you need to retire replicants. my point is, sure i agree with you that slug throwers will be with us for a long time yet, but there is no reason they shouldn't also evolve in your sci-fi worlds.
Guided 40mm grenades are incredibly impractical though. They are just too expensive and have a reduced explosive payload to fit in the machinery. They work fine for special forces applications, but would never be distributed among regular soldiers in any quantity. They also require special hardware to work, and in the sort of combat regular infantry are expected to see, that is a bad idea. That shit will break down and quit working and then you have a really expensive grenade with less power than a normal cheap one. The regular gun and bullet are hear to stay for the next century at least. There will be some upgrades, but nothing really game changing. Guns just use bullets too fast for fancy ammunition to be practical. That stuff will see use in heavy weapons like tank guns and warship cannons and missiles, but it won't find its way into small arms (at least not in any regular use sort of way).
These are lazy 'why this and why that' plot and character motive complaints rather than the actual film aesthetics. You would have a field day with virtually of all Hitchcock's films.
The odds of a flower being over a grave? Pretty high if you consider it was placed there on purpose - like people do at graves. Also, the water isn't landing on Joi, her projector is creating the water droplets to match the rain (which in itself is a sin and a waste of processing power). The combat medic mentioned in the autopsy scene isn't Deckard, it's the guy K just killed. It wasn't a coincidence that K got the horse memory, the movie implies that K was created to serve as a distraction for anyone hunting Deckard's real daughter - a purpose bred red herring. The daughter didn't tell K the memory was hers for that same reason. Here's a big sin you missed: If Deckard never met his daughter, never knew where she went, and left her BEFORE going to Vegas, how did the horse he left for her when he left for Vegas have the radiation from vegas? It's not like he mailed it to her from Vegas lol
At 3:10, I don’t think he’s talking about Deckard, he’s talking about Sapper Morton, Dave Bautista’s character; right before that K is talking about how he was a combat medic, that’s in reference to Sapper.
I remember the movie finishing, me staring starry eyed and saying that was amazing, and the two people beside me looking at me incredulously because they thought it was boring. I still think they're wrong.
Experience is personal. I can appreciate the visuals, but to me this film is a pale imitation of the original, but that probably is a function of my life experience and does not invalidate your experience...such is art.
@@abdullahiqbal1110 Movie forces you to think and unravel the mysteries yourself, which for some low intelect individuals like you is too much to ask for.
I will never understand how so many people can say this is a great movie when its so completely sexist and has soooo many boring scenes that go way too long for no fucking reason and that pretentious god complex bad guy that had no purpose other than to show more naked girls.
I think he means, what are the odds that a fresh flower would be there that day? Did that replicant place a flower there every day? (Where does he even get flowers? Same place all those bees go to feed, I suppose...)
It’s implied that Sapper Morton was a “sentimental skin-job”. He may lay a flower down above the grave every morning. We don’t know. It was obviously some kind of ritual for him. That’s how most people took it, I think.
The talk in the morgue about "he didn't seem like the saving type" they weren't talking about Deckard, it was Sapper Morton (Bautista) who was the combat medic. If you watched the movie, you'd know that.
First of all, if the cgi here is bad. Then any movie which has used cgi is basically horrendous. Second of all, most of the movie didn't take place in the desert, making your point obsolete. And you wish it was cheap looking. It makes black panther look like a 1920's movie and that cost 200 million dollars.
In your top 5! Dude....you need to watch more movies. This doesnt even break in my top 50. Story is so lame it took me out of the movie. If they actualy read the book they would see that there are so many better themes in it then this crap they put out. Wasted opportunity. :(
@@gideonstix This movie is extremely hit or miss. Either you love it, or you felt unequivocally bored. it all comes down to subjectivity, not the amount of movies someone has watched.
2:23 if u look closely the water actually appears after the rain drop, the bot is trying to mimic what she is experiencing in the environment so the whole experience can be more immersed
![Blade Runner 2049 - Empathy Propaganda [Video Essay]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WTKmaJa3Ci0/mqdefault.jpg)
Actually, the “her eyes were green” line is kind of brilliant. Her eyes were, in fact, correct, and to me it seems that Deckard is trying to cover up his pain in seeing a copy of his deceased lover by throwing a jab at Wallace’s competence so that he won’t use her against him further.
Drew M-R cinemasins is not intelligent, don’t bother
They used Rachel’s original bones to recreate her. Of here Iris was correct. I think it was the intention of his message. Thinking up a cheap excuse to hide his real pain from the others
Yeah, that's kind of the point - not something cinemasins always gets
@Black Pill pretty sure she was more of a clone(of tyrells niece) than a replicant (originally created), which would explain why she was able to have children, and emotions, but no other replicant ever did
One of my only problems with this movie is actually a pretty big one. I didn't care for the Deckard/Rachel storyline at all. I care about what happened to K and Joi. Harrison Ford has stopped trying long ago and I never bought their relationship in the original, they had 0 chemistry and their "love" scene was very rapey. Not surprising that Harrison Ford and Sean Young didn't get along on set.
The water droplets weren’t landing on her skin. They were passing through her hologram and her AI then changed the hologram to look like she had water on her skin. She adjusts to fit the environment.
thank you!
Most of these sins can be easily explained, don't think i saw one actually that i agreed with
Joi Devision..ha ha!
how did my reply get put in this thread?????????? Doh!!!!!
Even I got that. Seems pretty obvs
What’s cool is that in k’s memories he has hair, something that should have tipped off viewers if we were attentive. When he visits the orphanage early in the plot only the girls are allowed to have hair, something that we all should have noticed.
I noticed that while I was watching it, but I discarded it immediately, thinking he had hair because he was the protagonist or something like that
Ah, so much (missed) details!
Idk the movie not making the protagonist be the “child” killed it and didn’t seem as wholesome as it was because of that, at that point I didn’t give shit about this movie and it’s outcome.
@@dova238 you are a bland and boring person. you tastes in storytelling reflects this.
we were attentive for nearly 3 hours. It was the question I asked, but movie gave no answer. In fact it gives no answer to many other questions.
How come everywhere the MC goes there's only one character working?
-hundreds of children - one person
-archive - one person
-police - one person
-memory creation - one person
-Ford's hiding place - one person
one guy can't control and ensure compliance of so many children. Plus, how do you know there are girls among them?
Does movie care to explain anything at all?
*logo appears for 0.3 sec*
CinemaSins: "This is an avengers level threat"
I agree but this movie was 59 seconds which anyone can agree is annoying.
@@uh1801 you sat through the entirety of this dogshit video. I dont think 59 seconds is that bad..
@@uh1801 nah doesnt bother me
I believe that no rain drop touches Joi's hand, but that she recreates them to look like they do
This. The hologram adapts to look like what would be expected of its environment, but isn't catching the real droplets.
If you look closely as she steps out it takes a few moments for her program to render the wetness/rain.
I thought this was pretty obvious.
This. Lazy sinning is lazy. I guess complaining drains all your imagination.
It's really confusing the first time you see it, I had to rewind to figure out that was what happened. At least the movie did show the drops going through her at first so you can deduce what she did.
"How did the water drop on her skin" - easy. Because realizing she's standing in the rain, her AI simulates it. Don't be lazy with your complaints!
MforMovesets don't be a dunbass. Stop making an excuse for something that wasnt explained in the movie
um, it's pretty fucking obvious that the drops on her hand are also holographic, the movie doesn't need dialogue explaining that nor should it. show don't tell dumBy. did people seriously not pick up on that?
If they explained it in the movie then he'd just sin it for explaining it.
Yes, it's pretty obvious especially considering the program also simulates her hair and clothes getting wet.
There's a bright blue flash and a delay when the water hits her hands. You can even see it in the clip 2:23
"How many sins did you count?"
"Cells"
Interlinked.
Interlinked
Dreadfully distinct
Chicken and watermelon
Interlinked
Interlinked. Alexa play Kings and Queens. Interlinked.
You sort of didn’t get the horse memory thing. Deckard’s daughter was giving all the replicants her own memories. That was the flaw she built into every single one of them so that eventually, they would rebel.
Why would she tho
When did they say she gave all of them the same memories? Youd think someone would've realised they had the same memories before K found out.
You can tell how much he had to stretch to find issues
Proof that the movie was so nearly perfect.
Joseph Muir total immersion. I loved everything about it
I only made it to 14 counts. The flower was the only thing I could barely agree with but it didn't make the story any less well told.
Yes, he could have just said it was too long, relied too much on nostalgia and used someone else's ideas. it had nothing to offer a female audience, just teenage boys a lot of tits, tedium and technology. The original novel had the replicants as sad, scared losers who knew they were going to be hunted and killed. There was no "superhero" killing power, no stupid fights and torture porn (belly slashing a woman, even a fake one, really?) they were all dispatched easily. The original ideas are what made the BR good, not this sequel. Loved the cinematography though. Just need it used on an original idea.
+ how DID Luv get back into the LAPD building all the way to the Chiefs office when she had already killed the lab tech? woudn't they have tech to recognise her the second time? and no other officers around at all, slices her up and then saunters off? Not buying that.
13:04 Wallace did not get her eye color wrong. Decker lied to throw him off, and achieve an 'easy out' to justify not caring about her.
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Actress’ eyes are brown. But her eye on the interview screen in the original were green.
Decker should have said: "Her eyes were a different shade of green."
Yeah, my buddy pointed that out when we saw it.
Her eyes are green in the first movie. Very much brown in the sequel..
99% of the sins you mentioned weren't actually sins and at least 80% of these 99% actually make the movie a lot better because they're in there.
Regarding the flower on Rachel's grave.... Morton obviously put it there. And K noticed it because he's a replicant with superhuman skills of observation and memory (which he demonstrates later when he's manually comparing the DNA records without computer assistance).
And flowers are rare. I swear 90 percent of the sins are made up and he doesnt understand the movie.
Aaaà!
The rain on her skin is obviously her program adapting to the outside environment. It’s just simulating her being rained on.
Precipitation landing/not landing on characters is one of the biggest visual themes of the film.
While that does make sense the sin is for the fact that if you’re watching this for the first time you’d have no idea whatsoever. Ie, half the point of this channel
sheldon pereira
*Insert witty comment about irony and political irrelevance here*
horselove161298
But ... no, though. The scene specifically shows what's happening, visually, you can see the rain phasing through her and causing 'artifacts.' The movie demonstrates what's happening pretty well.
Fact
HorseLover161298
No you're wrong, they spent about 30 seconds staring at her hand, purposely showing you her program is at first not being affected by the rain then gradually making it look like the rain is hitting her when it really isn't.
You're dumb, bud.
At 2:23 the rain is falling through the hologram but the technology is simulating rain droplets. Makes perfect sense to me.
And it makes perfect sense to everyone else. I guess this movie is just hard to sin, so some had to be forced.
Count Zero as with any movie that they sin (nice name btw)
My exact thoughts (among others that I outlined in a comment). Many sins feel forced. Yeah yeah we need to laugh and they need something to say about the film but it was funnier when the errors were actual continuity or logic errors.
Yeah I was able to explain that one pretty well. Honestly a lot of these sins were forced or just meh. Great movie.
This honestly felt like, make a joke and add it to the counter instead of actual issues with the movies.
Blade runner made the eye opening a cliché, that doesn’t count
first thing I thought too lol
"Call-back to trendsetting cliché" cliché?
ConRon totally counts.
They didn't make it a cliché, their followers / copycats did.
What other films have done it though? I can't think of any
14:06 but basically why Joe went and decided to rescue Deckard is because he wanted to be more than just “another replicant”. So then reflecting on the events that happened throughout the movie, Joe did the most human thing to do, and saved Rick to help him reunite with his child. At the conclusion of the movie, Joe ended up becoming a lot more than just “another replicant”. Despite being a replicant, Joe proved he was more human than a lot of humans, and that’s why I love his arc and his character. It’s just so deep and poetic :)
Blade Runner is probably one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever, whose impact on the genre is immeasurable, and I'm very happy with the sequel. Phenomenal film, wish I'd seen it in theaters.
1:02
Regular bullets? There were no shells ejected. Those are caseless projectiles!
ghostdog2041 or they’re fancy revolvers
@@willkroll8094 it actually is a fancy revolver
@John R just take a good look at the replica
Still not a photon laser
65% more bullet per bullet
Ana de Armas is not my fake holographic girlfriend in this scene. Sylvia Hoeks is not my psycho girlfriend in this scene. Mackenzie Davis is not my freaky hooker girlfriend in this scene.
Robin Wright isn't my scolding boss in this scene.
Carla Juri isn't my cute hippie girlfriend in this scene
Damn the women in this movie 👌
I always enjoy CinemaSins videos as they're consistently hilarious, and in most cases, dead on point. However this might be the ONLY video I've seen where I seriously believe Jeremy did NOT get this movie. I'd say at least 90% of the sins given to this weren't even actual film sins.
you can clearly tell he didn't get it lol
Are you seriously playing the "huuuh you just didn't get it" card?
Let's be honest, the movie is great but the plot is seriously problematic and weak as hell
@@andrewcgs The plot is strong and has great writing. It doesn't have many action scenes cause it doesn't need to. And there is no save the world threat, yet this film still manages to have better writing than 95% of today's blockbuster movies.
@@andrewcgs most of the shit he mentions and says there is no reason for or why is it there is literally explained in the movie with no further digging needed
Look at the original blade runner he didn't get that one either.
I think the sins mentioned for this movie are so minor that they are really misdemeanors. So if that’s the best you can do, it must be an admission that the movie is pretty good.
If they're minor to you, that's good for you.
It was definitely not a bad movie, not by a long shot, but some of these issues aren't minor. I don't want to replay this video to double check which sin it was, but the sin about when he's trying to find the toy horse in his memory. The entire movie has many parts where it unnecessarily takes forever. My friend went to the bathroom at the beginning of that scene where he's looking for the horse, and he missed literally nothing. K was asked to sit down by the memory creating girl and it takes him like 30 seconds to actually just sit down, like he had to stare down the chair or something.
The pacing is weird in some scenes. Doesn't make it a bad movie, but it doesn't live up to the hype and excitement.
I watched this movie for 2 hours before I realized how long it is. I had no idea I had been watching a movie for that long.
Try watching 2001: A Space Odyssey - which is undeniably a classic and a feat of 20th century film-making - and talk to me about how this movie has slow shot-pacing.
Aye Jaye
Maybe is because this is a movie about a lot of visual emotions and.. you know, for adults. A lot of mysteries are going on. If you would bother to watch the movie you would understand it.
Lmao they are just as sinny as the rest of the sins. You just don't want to admit this movie you like has flaws
One of the best movies of the last 10 years, a rare gem.
within cells interlinked.
Interlinked
Cells
Within one step.
Combo breaker!!!
@Mr Skexzi "within cells interlinked, within cells interlinked, within cells interlinked"
I was so goddamn sick and delirious when I first saw this film, laying in my bed barely able to move, with the surround sound and bass up loud, I just remember being completely mesmerized by the visuals and music and the way all the characters practically whisper when talking, it basically took me out of my body for the duration of time, I was afraid to watch it for so long because sequels usually suck, but I had nothing better to do and nothing left to watch and would have totally regretted skipping over this.
I was a bit hesitant too because the original is so iconic and we all know how sequels can turn out...This movie is epic and you are so right about the stunning visuals, brilliant performances and the films score. ❤
Its a shame they relied so much on unnecessary darkness though. Killed the visuals in my opinion. So many scenes with tons of lights turned on or daylight pouring through windows yet i couldn't see jack shit what was happening
Same with me, except I watched in the cinema... I like it better then the original.
How high were you? Oh I can tell. 🤣
Yep
Gee what are the odds that someone would put a FLOWER ontop of a BURIAL site of a loved one....
Dwarfurious In world where flowers aren't a thing anymore very fucking low
I don't think the farmer loved Rachel, just it was part of the miracle reverence. Farmer says he grows garlic for himself, so he might also grow some flowers for her grave.
And that flower can apparently live longer than it takes a human corpse to decompose underground in a world where plants seem to be nonexistent.
"He went through the trouble of burying it, a sentimental skinjob"-Coco
I'm going to guess that the flower was left by Deckard. In his apartment he has the same liquid found on the farm for the protein insects so he might go to Sapper every time he's in need of food, leaving a flower each time. His bees would've probably been used to pollinate the flowers too. That was my takeaway from it at least
13:36 the black eyes meant she had no soul, and when you “customize” her and bring her to “life” she gets a soul, this movie is full of symbolism about eyes if you analyze it. “Kroft talks about movies” did a great video on the subject.
It is creepy as hell- you gotta give him that.
@@TimTE01 and nothing else
Combat medic was referring to Dave B. Character and not Deckard.
Yup
@@orinanime For real, this is the worst eww i've ever seen, dude just does not get the movie what so ever.
@@iloldthough6611
Meh. He gets some. Misunderstands some as well.
This movie is still veeerrry flawed.
Regular of CinemaSins incorrect criticisms.
@@orinanime He forgets plenty of them as well. I thought this sequel was overly pretentious, boring and ultimately going nowhere, but plenty of people seem to love it, so to each their own
@@enzocrespin5806 indeed
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Blade Runner 2049.
@Matthew Fisher His "comedy" is probably just a shit excuse for this channel
Matthew Fisher the comedy defence is lame. It’s not even funny anymore. It’s just cashing in.
Jared leto was the only thing i didnt like. He seemed really out of place to me. If i re write his character in my head this movie is my all time favorite
You could cut out almost every Jared Leto scene and the movie is tighter. Wallace would work as a voice over intercom.
Horseshit, there is plenty wrong with it. Is it still enjoyable? Yes, but there were many obnoxious parts, the last fight scene was one of the most cringe fight scenes I've ever seen.
"Do androids dream of electric hookers?" I had to pause the video specifically so that I could savor the magnificence of the reference to the book.
Such a good book
The book is do androids dream of electric sheep and is the book that blade runner is based on.
O
You know...for almost a 3 hour move, 114 sins really isn’t all that much. I’ve seen more sins on shorter movies.
Edit: Okay... for those of you who think I take the sins seriously, I don’t. I’m 100% aware that these sin videos are satire. I was just stating that I’ve seen more sins from shorter movies..meaning..that the movie was obviously good since they didn’t have a lot of jokes to make of it.
it doesn't matter how many sins a movie has. What matters is what the sins are for example: "Villain not killing the hero' is a big sin but a" thunder sound during dialogue" or things like "this scene doesnt contain a lap dance" are nothing big. This movie is not perfect but it's still damn good and really worth watching.
Don’t take this shit that seriously.
Especially because 2/3 of the sins are completely retarded and bs
+Neo Joto It's supposed to be a joke
Movie was not good, in my teacher legit almost everyone else feel asleep cause it was so boring. I stayed awake since I didn't watch the first one, but I got nothing, and no one there who watched the first seemed to get it.
Seriously? You didn’t get the part about joy eyes? It’s a metaphor. You know what they say, the eyes are the windows to the soul and by showing joy eyes black it means she is just a mass produced sex toy with no soul so in the end we don’t know if she did loved k or she was programmed to do so. Man that movie was awesome
Actually this part was really important because at this moment it answered your question perfectly.
Not only "she" did everything what K wanted to. "She" also was what K wanted to.
This also explains hooker stuff and all :D
In our own present, all-black contacts are a common enough prop in kinky porn.
I disagree. It's just a different Joi look. The Joi K has actually appears in one of the digital billboards. In case you might have missed it:
www.fxguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/e_dtr_080_0010_comp_v079_PR_v003.1001.jpg
The likeliest reason for the large Joi hologram to have blue hair and black sclera eyes is that its look is in line with one of the styles the original Blade Runner movie kept in its interpretation of the future, which is still very 80s inspired. BTTF did the same in BTTF2. And hell, in case you also didn't notice it, look at 1:22. Tell me that's not inspired by a DeLorean.
J Of course it's a metaphor and it's done on purpose, many things on this film are, it's rather contemplative...
J I guess we can't know for sure what the creators of the films meant with that scene, everyone can give it their own meaning
but I don't think it's just a "different look", the picture you sent is from before joi "died", we see her on a billboard and she look human and all
the scene in the video is after K lost her and instead of looking like a human, she's a weird pink chick with black eyes, soulless and cold
6:15 "Why did THIS specific memory end up in K?"
If I recall correctly, it's strongly implied in the film that the memory maker Ana Stelline gave that memory to *all* Nexus-9 replicants.
No it isn't.
It's not. It was told by one eyed Jennie that they all thought they were the child. That was the only mention and wasn't explained or explored. People could figure it out but it was really just thrown in there weirdly.
@@AttilaVoices like everything else
@@Ailsworth Exactly. My main issue with this movie, it looked pretty but lacked consistance, meat, almost everything that happened felt very dull, shallow, nonsensical or pointless, sometimes all of the above.
@@enzocrespin5806 I feel the same way
“Have you ever sinned a good movie by mistake?”
No.
Just intentionally.
Jani SIr is a bladerunner reference
But in your line of work that is a risk
this jerk does it with every video. the dude's a fkn jerk, and always will be.. all he does is talk shit about movies he knows nothing about
JaKBaLL TV I would think he knows something about it since he gets quite a bit advertisements and money from doing this. He also gets paid to watch these movies so he knows what he's talking about and worked on a set.
13:00 This is Deckard's way of saying "She may be perfect physical copy in your eyes, but she will never replace my Rachel". She had the same eyes as original Rachel. She just wasn't her, she was another person for him
We all know that "something in the eyes" always reveals a replicant (a copy), lol. Although I do agree that the movie tries to play it too hard in this scene - a little bit too convenient, too contrived, too obvious.
She could not be a perfect physical copy of Rachel. Rachel had a fully functional reproductive system designed by Tyrell Corp. and had given birth to Deckard's child. Rachel was "more human than human." Her copy was not. Too bad Tyrell was killed by Roy. But, wait, didn't Tyrell have the tech to give himself a second life?
He lied about the eye color...
DrRisen - ......damn. You are right. That changes his intent. Good eye for detail 😐😬
Her eyes are brown, and always were. The testing scene is misleading due to lighting effects.
It's Deckard's kick-ass way of saying "fuck you, not interested"
GERTY correct its a "im not intrested so fuck you but im gonna say it in the most unnesesarily badass way posible"
Its also a DAAAAAM SON moment.
In the Voight-Kampff scene she devinately has green eyes, but Sean Young has brown eyes. It is an inconsistancy in the first film, so it is more or less a joke in 2049. You can argue if it is actually true, that "her eyes where green".
If had enough money, I would produced Blade Runner 3 .
Harisson Ford is getting old , they need to hurry before he retires .
I have yet to watch it, but there's an anime called Blade Runner Black Lotus, and there's a short, very short movie of about 12-14 minutes named Blade Runner 2022, which is also an anime styled video (made by the same person as the anime series prior to it being announced)
or you know.......the books
@@Mangaka-ml6xo there are more shorts made by the film team to fill in the gaps
What make you think he is allowed to retire?
… or is retired.
"All these comments will be lost, like. .tears in rain."
Hahahaha, live footage of Apple manufacturing plant, best sin of the whole video.
"Deus Ex Manicure" - Missed opportunity.
Tainted Luv was still pretty good at least.
Hard to make an high level sequel of the original Blade Runner. I think this is really close to the best possible. I like it very much.
Funny, but it gets really annoying sometimes. I feel as if you don't even know the context of the movie, you just see start pressing it with your own judgement. Gaff did speak English at the end of the original. Get it right
I feel as if you don't even know the context of Cinema Sins. He knows Gaff spoke English in the first Blade Runner; he sinned it for chrissake.
@@hollt693 let me guess, satire?
@@Winged_Snek I prefer to think of it as "parody". I will accept satire however.
@@hollt693 yeah cinemasins constantly gets stuff wrong, sins stuff for the sake of a joke or just chooses to ignore context or even cut singular scenes to mislead their audience into thinking they're right. The thing is: people judge movies based on these videos. They watch them and feel reassured to never go and see the movie. Which is a shame cause they sin some freaking masterpieces and make them look like generic hollywood bullshit.
And i don't know, but i get annoyed by a lot of their reoccurring sins. The logo thing by itself gets me every time. You're here to watch a movie, if you can't take a moment to see who worked on it, why are you watching a movie? What are you, a small child? Seriously.
They state it's to "point out the common mistakes in hollywood productions" but let's be real, it's to make popular videos above all else, otherwise you wouldn't use sins for jokes and the like...
@@FancyTophatDude Your perspective is a valid one, but I see things differently. If someone chooses to watch these *before* they see a movie, then decides not to watch it because of that, it's kind of like only reading the one-star reviews on a product before deciding whether to buy it. Personally, I watch these for entertainment, and only *after* I've seen the movie. If I hated a movie, they make me feel validated, and if I loved a movie, they help me notice things I didn't before, without making me like it any less. I mean, their freaking tagline is "no movie is without sin" (or something like that), so of course they're going to sin popular movies. I like to chuckle at the people who get all butthurt because their love for their favorite movie was so delicate and fragile as to be ruined by a few minutes of humorous criticisms.
It's a masterpiece, _especially_ a visual one in such an over-saturated market for CGI. Luckily, it's beautifully able to combine the two.
I'd disagree with anyone calling it bad, but to call it a masterpiece is giving it way too much credit. It has the weirdest pacing issues. He gets told to sit down, and he takes like 30 seconds to actually sit down, without really doing anything substantial to justify that slight filler of time. That scene where he finds the horse toy takes FOREVER. My friend went to the bathroom, and when he was back, he had just found the horse toy and my friend missed absolutely nothing.
A lot of these oddly paced scenes are spread throughout the movie and add up despite some of them seeming to be insignificant. It makes it feel like the movie was purposefully being dragged out as long as possible.
Also Jared Leto is insufferable.
It is beautiful and it HAS lot's of cgi
When do you people get, that cgi is not a thing by itself that makes a movie look good or bad
It's HOW you use that technology
Saying that, it's already stated many times, that when cgi works at its best you will barely know it was there
Василий Пушкин The thing is though, there ISN'T a lot of cgi. Most of the sets are practical, including a heavy use of miniatures.
@@OnionKnightRises I agree, I watched this movie, becouse my brother told me that I had to see it, 'cose it's a masterpiece. But while the film wasn't bad it was not anything special either. It had pacing problems and the charactrs didn't really capture my attention, so I was quiet bored by the end of it. And I don't just have issues with long movies in general (I wached extendet versions of LOTR more than once and was never bored). The visuals were great though, I have to give them that.
@@OnionKnightRises
It's not oddly paced it's called suspense. Finding the wooden horse was huge.
Everything Wrong With Blade Runner 2049.. Nothing
Ranescape everything wrong with this video... a lot.
GREATEST FILM EVER MADE
but thats the point OF cinemasins, its nitpicking for the hell of it.
not to mention the movie isn't for everyone. i mean, it may be bad timing in my case but my dad decided my family watch it at 8:30 and by the end i was somewhere between falling asleep and SOMEWHAT interested. was real tired by that rate
Yes and with what cinemasins knows about movies I look forward to their Citizen Kane masterpiece
LunarServant Really? 8:30 is too late to watch a movie?
(15:24) the black eyes represents the model that yet to personalize by the user.
*BREATHE IN*
Therewasntactuallywaterdropletsonherskintherainwasphasingthroughherandshecreatedholographicwatertomakeitseemmorereal
other people have said the same thing but you get a thumb up from me for saying it best :)
Yeah the cinemasins guys don't know how to use their heads when it comes to scenes like that
benepic
Howdoyoukeeptalkinginonelongcontinuoussentencewithoutanybreakorpauseforbreathdontyouneedtoexhalecarbondioxideatsomepointbutimustadmitthisisreallyquitehypnotic
"Robin Wright character nearly Kevin Spaceys a robot cop."
OH MY GOD
exactly what I said at that point lol
Dok Asov could you explain this one to me?
Not unlike when Deckard totally Harvey Weinsteined Rachel in his apartment.
Slava Bosl Kevin Spacey has been accused of sexually assaulting people, and in that scene Robin Wright character almost implied sex with K if she finished the bottle
Also worth mentioning that Robin Wright plays Kevin Spacey's wife on House of Cards
I love how you give a sin for when the File clerk is explaining the blackout, and you give sins because the movie doesnt explain other things...
William Donovan Explaining through exposition and explaining (through sfory telling) are two very different things.
Miłosz Michałowski-Żuk How would you explain a past event like that through 'story telling'?
William Donovan huh?
William Donovan the point is, the explanation of the blackout was purely for the viewer. It's obvious both people know what the blackout was. This is bad storytelling when a character says things without any in-universe reason to do so, just to tell it to the audience. Good storytelling is when you find a way to explain things that makes sense. It isn't an easy storytelling feat, but Hollywood doesn't hire me, it hires people who were studying this shit and have been doing it for years.
It's almost like Cinema Sins doesn't actually point out valid criticisms at all...
Jeremy: This movie is too long
Lord of the Rings: *Allow me to introduce myself*
Remove 100 sins for the cinematography who is imaculate and perfection in this movie...Roger Deakins is a mad genius and deserve an Oscar for this masterpiece !!
Ji-pi Doyon remove 100 sins for the sound design too!
CinemaSins isn't a review channel. I agree the movie was brilliant and so much MORE love and respect was given to this project than that newest Star Wars disaster. If only all sequels were made with so much care. That said, I try to just enjoy CS as good humor. I don't think this is meant to be a serious review.
I think they liked the movie anyway...it's just for fun like with Baby Driver...i hope Roger Deakins will work again with Denis Villeneuve on his Dune movie...they work magic together !
Great visuals
Great music and sound
Terrible movie
Its a sad day
Watch Deakins lose to Hoyte Van Hoytema.
It's really annoying that so many of your sins are genuinely a misunderstanding of the basic plot.
Why would that be annoying? Do you honestly care what parts of the movie he sins?
It's annoying that the creators don't even give enough of a shit about their content to understand the plot of the movies they're making videos about.
Rin Exactly! I could explain half of the sins.
butt hurt kid
The word Police A butt hurt kid who can follow the plot of a movie more coherently than Cinema Sins, apparently.
3:13 They're talking about Sapper Morton, not Rick Deckard.
Moar liek Dick Reckard amirite
You can't really criticise the film for putting in words at the start or giving long pauses without dialogue because I think that's it just trying to stay true to the original and I like the long cinematic takes without any talking tbh
I understand that this is not a review but a kind of ironic interpretation of the movie. Still you shouldn't make up/fabricate sins that are clearly untrue. Like Gaff not speaking "city speak" he did, you just cut to the part where he was speaking english.
mumia76 are you new here or something :/ literally the entire channel, they're assholes not critics 😂
Right back at you. There is not much precedence of false claims. There is a difference between nitpicking, and outright lying about events in a movie. Previously when they were wrong about a sin it was traceable to lack of knowledge about a subject, but this is outright and wilful distortion of events. Which only works on those who haven't actually seen the movie.
😂💀 the fact you actually took time to reply all that ^ is so, well dumb.
Well, I'm sorry if your attention span is too little to get trough four lines. No, I truly am sorry. Not for you, but for how far humanity has fallen. I'm a bit baffled now, because you present a new low to me, one I didn't even know existed. So let me get this straight. You're not even concerned with what the comment says, you're just asserting that the existence of the comment is dumb? I wish you all the best, and hope you get better.
mumia76 yikes dude, might wanna go check yourself in at a mental hospital. Oh and if you’re gonna rant, learn to spell.
'Pregnant Replicant' would also be a great band name.
New Message I clicked your profile pic desperately wanting to remove the notification
Stealing it.
how does your comment make sense?
the bell icon hasn't been solid grey for 4 years.
such original, so creative
What good is this garbage? it's all just opinion.
The pronoun game wasn't for Deckard, it wasn't even the pronoun game as it was referring to the replicant on the farm that K had just retired...
Steven Chabot yep, I commented the same thing. At that point we didn't even know she was Rachael, much less that Deckard was somehow involved. Sometimes I feel like Jeremy is really not paying attention.
Also, racheals eyes weren green but brown. Deckard just said it to fuck with jared leto and not get baited
Yea he flubs facts for the video. Hes done this too many times on different videos for it to be by accident.
Not sure why though, he should be able to find at least 15 minutes of legit sins in any movie, good or bad.
It is possible that he misses things.
The same Video has joke 'sins' too, so don't get too worked up.
its all a joke, dont take it to serious.
Why sin off the police officer for being racist? This correctly portraits the book's original settings as well as current events in the real world.
Also, racists **are** casually racist.
I haven't seen the first movie. But this movie in my opinion, was one of the most visual stunning film's I have ever watched. And a fantastic movie overall.
See the 1st movie asap. See the Final Cut, not theatrical, other cuts, etc.
it makes me want to see the first one
If this doesn't win the Oscar for best cinematography the academy will catch my hands
This is imo one of the few examples of a sequel surpassing the original. The original is technically more impressive for its age, but nothing is explained and the story is kinda flat. And while CinemaSins complains about the fighting at the end of the movie, the same thing happened in the original, but more stupid.
Watch the Final Cut version of the original Blade Runner, thank me later and forget the sequel
I think underused Jared Leto is a running gag from now on
I still really want to see this movie. Do I need to watch the first 2048 Blade Runner movies to understand it?
Me too
yes all of them. Well other than Blade Runner 1896. Its kind of just filler
CinemaSinsSins you don’t need to but it definitely helps
You can skip the 1742 one,its the worst
you dont need to see the first
Everything Wrong With Blade Runner 2049: The fact that our heads were so far up our asses that we didn't understand the film
yup the movie forces you to use the brain, which pperently for many people is a hard thing to do.
2:23 it imitates the water on the skin.
and continue watching
or it gets the hose again, right?
Youmu Konpaku
Beat me to it!
Lights cig by concentrating projector light
Also you can make a laser out of a blue ray diode that can start fires.
I was wondering how she did that when I first saw it. Thank you!
He's not under arrest for going to the memory bank he's under arrest for becoming too emotional and going off his "baseline" when he finds out the memory is real
Fel T Did they actually miss that?
Sin 70 "why is he being arrest...as far as Joshi know K's been following leads" I think this sin is not warranted since he's being arrested for a valid reason, not being a compliant replicant.
Fel T Well yes . Ofc it was made pretty clear by the movie. I was just wondering if they fail to understand that.
She says in the next scene, “You’re supposed to be following leads and we find you fucking around at an upgrade center?!”
It’s also shown when Luv comes to see Joshi that Joshi keeps track of the location of K. She probably thought it was weird that he was there, and sent a unit out to arrest him and bring him in to check his Baseline, which she finds out, is all out of whack.
If they understood, why are they adding a sin for K being arrested?
My favorite part about these videos is that over 60 of the sins are always shitty jokes or misunderstandings.
Everything wrong with "Everything Wrong With Blade Runner 2049"
Kevin K I’m sure the guy who’s does Everything Wrong with “Everything Wrong With ......” will do this video.
Cinema sins sins
I’d prefer CinemaSinsSins over bobvids. bobvids is too spiteful.
Kevin K cinemasinception
I have my own list of everything wrong and bad about 2049 :
The visuals in 2049 is very underwhelming to me when compared to the first original Blade Runner.
The problem with 2049's camera works is that it fails to take into account how the laws of physics work in reality. The camera movement and the flying car just zooms too evenly through everything, in contrast, the original first movie felt a lot more realistic because the flying cars and camera works feels like they are moving through wind and atmospheric resistance ...
The first original movie makes you feel like you're really there in the dystopian world .. why? because the laws of physics feels more tangible in the first movie.
But 2049 failed to take into account for the natural laws of physics to make things look realistic for example, when K's flying car crashes through the junks, it looks very fake because it just bulldozes too evenly through everything like the junks are ping pong balls ... its like there is no such thing as tangible resistance in the movie..
Also the director and cinematographer of 2049 overdid the heavy fogging that totally overpowered the artistically rendered textures and modelling details of the miniature buildings ... the visuals just look way too soft like everything is put through a soft lens. The original first movie felt more real because the fogging is done just enough , just right that you can still see the beautiful details that the artists painstakingly applied onto the models ..
Other aspects like the music and story line also disappoints.
They took the cool complex characters in the first movie and make them into dowdy uncles and aunties involved with a family drama about a long lost child in the sequel .. gosh the mysterious cool Gaff is now a retiree sitting in an old folks hospital home in the sequel ... And Deckard in a Tshirt and jeans ? how mundane can it get ?
And why would Deckard suddenly refer to Rachel as "my wife" ? Did they got married in a ceremony while on the run ??
I would have thought that they would be smart enough not need to use such conventional terms since they are a couple of runaway renegades trying to escape as far away from the clutches of human conventions of human society ...
And the whole plot feels like a derivative of The Matrix (the hunt for the "chosen one" who will alter the course of a rebellion's resistance against the "enslavers") and HER (virtual girlfriend), even the clothing design and set designs (especially the junk yard/orphage scene) looks like its taken from The Matrix ..
"-So how are these water drops landing on her skin?"
... It's not. You can clearly see the drops phasing through her hologram. It's just the programming in the hologram interacting with the environment. I need to come up with a show sinning these sins for blatantly not paying attention.
Lykose Crest please now he's just half assing now
bobvids does this occasionally.
No sins removed for Roger Deakins' cinematography
10:30 genius
Gaff spoke English in the original film. "It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?"
5:57 Is he describing how I lost my virginity?
Oof
You ... eh ... you got something you wanna say?
@@artlover5060 ... I think he said what he had to say.
😂😂☠️😂
The harpoon that took the car down had a kite that conducted the lightning strike into the car.
yes, an ingenious method/invention AND HE SINNED IT!!!1
@@zanneon385 no, he sinned the fact that Joi is not actually connected to the car's systems but got affected anyway. He said he don't know if it should affect her, but sinned it anyway.
1.21 gigawatts!
It is impossible for a lightning strike of this nature to affect the internal systems of a car due to the Faraday cage effect : all electrical charge flows over the OUTSIDE of a hollow metal conductor. This was a major screw-up on behalf of the screenwriters and shows a total lack of research and basic scientific knowledge.
@@brians132 Doesnt the fact the harpoon pierced the outer body affect that reasoning?
Everything wrong with “Shutter Island”
Nothing is wrong with shutter island lol
starship troopers
It's too hard to do because everything up until the end is faked
YDK Marshall yeah!!!! I really want to see that
Cole Comedy That twist had me reeling. Everything was just an act. And in his head.
Did you REALLY just sin the opening scenes that were clearly an homage to the original movie?? White and red opening exposition followed by the shot of an eye?? Maybe you should go back and watch the original again...
2 years to late, but nearly everything he does is supposed to be extremely nit picky. It’s essentially satire
I can't bare to watch him sin one of my favorite movies.
Try watching it from a non-fan POV. I like these videos even if I like the movies they make fun of. I liked BR2049. It's more than I was expecting it to be. That said, 1940s film noir/dystopian scifi isn't everyone's taste. You gotta let people be a little, "WTF did I just see?" in their opinions.
I prefer it when he sins my faves.
Then don't watch lolol
I like how blade runner fans can't take a criticism
On sin 28: I don’t think that cop meant Deckard when he said “He didn’t seem like the saving type”. I think he was referring to Sapper Morton. No one even remotely knows who Deckard is at that point in the film
"Even the thunder knows this is ominous"
Jeremy, you're so awesome XD
Coraline Parmentier - Pianist for Peace that’s his name?
Nadinani 777 yes
Yes, yes I'am.
Coraline Parmentier - Pianist for Peace how did you get 500 likes on this
I like cinemasins, they're funny and sometimes point out valid flaws in films. But they were really REALLY stretching for this one. Sorry guys, but this movie was awesome
I’m surprised you didn’t take off sins for the reveal that his hologirl was legitimately programmed to say exactly what he wanted to hear, thereby asserting that he WANTED to hear that he was the chosen one, and that he WANTED to hear his girlfriend say that she loves him. Basically, the character’s life sucks so hard, and he constantly has little to no choice in his life, being bossed around by everyone. And in the end, he dies making his own choice and doing what HE and he alone thinks is right.
that is actually a beautiful fucking take on the film right there. Props :)
There's indications she grew way beyond her programming and progressively achieving sentience.
Really? Where is that? I’m pretty sure I missed it when I watched the movie.
The director commented that he left it ambiguous.
Rachel's eyes were not green in the original blade runner. Deckard just said that to piss Wallace off
green... Green... GREEN
ruclips.net/video/g-DkoGvcEBw/видео.html
TaphocIzzis omg i missed that 😂😂😂
Green in that one closeup but in the entirety of the film her eyes are brown.
Portable energy weapons wouldn't make any sense at all given how, uh, all of physics.
Of course the guns still use regular bullets less than 35 years from now.
As for holographic displays and AI? We're actively developing those. Replacements for the incredibly energy and cost efficient explosive propulsion of heavy bits of solid mass? We haven't even started thinking of a viable and fiscally reasonable alternative.
I feel like a lot of the more recent videos are sort of losing their edge...perhaps that's just the norm for parody as a medium.
"We haven't even started thinking of a viable and fiscally reasonable alternative."
that's not true at all. we already have guided 40mm grenades, and with advances in miniaturization and sensor tech i'd expect guided small/intermediate caliber bullets (using fins or tiny explosives around the circumference or smth else). then there are possible advances people have been working on in the 90s like caseless ammo or liquid propellant (where a future smart gun might tailor the load of every shot on the fly). and i haven't even touched on things that might be done with the bullet itself if you live in a society where you need to retire replicants. my point is, sure i agree with you that slug throwers will be with us for a long time yet, but there is no reason they shouldn't also evolve in your sci-fi worlds.
I totally agree, their criticism doesn’t make sense now
Guided 40mm grenades are incredibly impractical though. They are just too expensive and have a reduced explosive payload to fit in the machinery. They work fine for special forces applications, but would never be distributed among regular soldiers in any quantity. They also require special hardware to work, and in the sort of combat regular infantry are expected to see, that is a bad idea. That shit will break down and quit working and then you have a really expensive grenade with less power than a normal cheap one.
The regular gun and bullet are hear to stay for the next century at least. There will be some upgrades, but nothing really game changing. Guns just use bullets too fast for fancy ammunition to be practical. That stuff will see use in heavy weapons like tank guns and warship cannons and missiles, but it won't find its way into small arms (at least not in any regular use sort of way).
Gamn yeah he literally made a dumb joke about seeing the movie miracle and that was counted as a sin, so dumb
Gamn yeah he literally made a dumb joke about seeing the movie miracle and that was counted as a sin, so dumb
These are lazy 'why this and why that' plot and character motive complaints rather than the actual film aesthetics. You would have a field day with virtually of all Hitchcock's films.
I want to hate this comment but i genuinely dont understand anything you said
Movie of the year .. Such a shame it wasnt nominated in the major categories
Actually the opening eye scene is not unoriginal. It holds a lot of meaning and is an homage to the original.
Half of these aren’t even sins
Sins here are not necessarily real mistakes or criticisms.
This is about satire more than actual criticism
Jihem S. Its entertainment not satire
Johnnyk You must be new here. Welcome.
butt hurt kid
The odds of a flower being over a grave? Pretty high if you consider it was placed there on purpose - like people do at graves. Also, the water isn't landing on Joi, her projector is creating the water droplets to match the rain (which in itself is a sin and a waste of processing power). The combat medic mentioned in the autopsy scene isn't Deckard, it's the guy K just killed. It wasn't a coincidence that K got the horse memory, the movie implies that K was created to serve as a distraction for anyone hunting Deckard's real daughter - a purpose bred red herring. The daughter didn't tell K the memory was hers for that same reason.
Here's a big sin you missed: If Deckard never met his daughter, never knew where she went, and left her BEFORE going to Vegas, how did the horse he left for her when he left for Vegas have the radiation from vegas? It's not like he mailed it to her from Vegas lol
At 3:10, I don’t think he’s talking about Deckard, he’s talking about Sapper Morton, Dave Bautista’s character; right before that K is talking about how he was a combat medic, that’s in reference to Sapper.
Someone gets it.
Blade runner 2049 had great cinematography
And in two weeks, it is going to be official
Even if it wasn't the best looking film of the year (which it is), give Deakins his damn Oscar already!
If Roger Deakins doesn't get the oscar we will riot
Did You Ever Watch First One? This One Just Using The Same Patterns.
Shaq IS The Best Soccer Player IN NFL. I watched the first one both have good cinematography
If I could summarise this movie, it's that a fake human is still human.
I remember the movie finishing, me staring starry eyed and saying that was amazing, and the two people beside me looking at me incredulously because they thought it was boring. I still think they're wrong.
Well they are wrong because this movie is amazing, a masterpiece!
Experience is personal. I can appreciate the visuals, but to me this film is a pale imitation of the original, but that probably is a function of my life experience and does not invalidate your experience...such is art.
Still this movie is GREAT and my fav of 2017
God damn is it the year 2049 already?! I have to throw out that yogurt.
Well yeah this movie doesn't tell you everything. Subtlety is part of the beauty of this movie.
"Haha not knowing is part of the fun"
Some idiot
@@abdullahiqbal1110 Movie forces you to think and unravel the mysteries yourself, which for some low intelect individuals like you is too much to ask for.
The thing about tech in Blade Runner 2049, it's just like Fallout Universe, if you do not get it, than it's not for you.
The irony in your comment is that in Fallout New Vegas there is a gun that is called "That Gun" that pays homage to the original Blade Runner
“Super strong and impervious to pain” it’s almost as if he’s a robot or something
This is one of my favorite movies
MegaSoulHero My sixth. Best film of tge decade.
I wasn't a big fan, but I see why others like it
*when its painfully obvious everyone in this convo is male*
maryann ferrara what? 😂
I will never understand how so many people can say this is a great movie when its so completely sexist and has soooo many boring scenes that go way too long for no fucking reason and that pretentious god complex bad guy that had no purpose other than to show more naked girls.
The odds that a flower is right on the spot? Wasn't that obviously put there intentionally?
I think he means, what are the odds that a fresh flower would be there that day? Did that replicant place a flower there every day? (Where does he even get flowers? Same place all those bees go to feed, I suppose...)
The flower was prolly put there by deckard that’s why there’s bees in vegas
It’s implied that Sapper Morton was a “sentimental skin-job”. He may lay a flower down above the grave every morning. We don’t know. It was obviously some kind of ritual for him. That’s how most people took it, I think.
Jimmie Hicks
>Implying that mindless Cinema Sins fans think things through.
The talk in the morgue about "he didn't seem like the saving type" they weren't talking about Deckard, it was Sapper Morton (Bautista) who was the combat medic. If you watched the movie, you'd know that.
I enjoyed this movie as much as I enjoyed the 1st one.
Visually such a beautiful movie.
Nastassia, stop your bullshit.
First of all, if the cgi here is bad. Then any movie which has used cgi is basically horrendous. Second of all, most of the movie didn't take place in the desert, making your point obsolete. And you wish it was cheap looking. It makes black panther look like a 1920's movie and that cost 200 million dollars.
pretty sure every movie ever made will have some holes. blade runner 2049 sits in my top 5 of all time however. i found it brilliant. worth the wait.
None of the mentioned in this shitty video are holes, he just is ignorant and definitely not smart, he did not undestand a single scene in this movie
In your top 5!
Dude....you need to watch more movies. This doesnt even break in my top 50. Story is so lame it took me out of the movie. If they actualy read the book they would see that there are so many better themes in it then this crap they put out. Wasted opportunity. :(
@@gideonstix it's just his opinion, everyone has different taste in movies
@@kakuwave you realize that hes not serious in all these videos right, hes not trying to be smart, hes just trying to make a comedic vid
@@gideonstix This movie is extremely hit or miss. Either you love it, or you felt unequivocally bored. it all comes down to subjectivity, not the amount of movies someone has watched.
I thought this movie was a great vision of the future. These guys come over like total dweebs sometimes.
2:23 if u look closely the water actually appears after the rain drop, the bot is trying to mimic what she is experiencing in the environment so the whole experience can be more immersed