Lol she always does that. "I don't understand this at all...." Proceeds to predict every beat of the movie and then has insights into the movie I hadn't even considered.
Yes every single thing she didnt understand was because Villeneuve was misdirecting the audience, she understood the movie just as he intended so that the revelations have meaning. This is not a movie where youre supposed to figure stuff out before they happen just let the movie tell you its story.
Part of that is Cassie not trusting herself enough. Part of it is some incredibly well written films trying to throw people off. Yeah, there's a lot of fluff out there, but at our insistence she's been watching some truly well written films. No shame in getting fooled by them. :D Though she does always manage to grasp the gist fairly early on and put it together intuitively. If the mark of a good story is feeling real, then Cassie intuiting it is a compliment as she has connected with the story.
@@j0k3r2k Exactly. One thing I would tell people about this movie is to not overthink while watching it. Just pay attention to the story and you will understand it.
In “Blade Runner 2049,” I’m moved by the apparent smallness of the victory at the end. Like K, we all sometimes have self-aggrandizing dreams. We wish we were more consequential than we are. We may not be able to fix the world, but we can help the people in our sphere of influence, no matter how small that may be. K was not the miracle child. He did not defeat the Tyrell Corporation and liberate the replicants. Instead, he did the good thing that was within his power to do; he reunited a father and daughter. Even in a dystopian society, we can live lives of grace, kindness, and self-sacrifice. In fact, that’s when those things are most needed.
Exactly. He could have followed the path that fought directly for his kind. It would have been a logical choice. Then there's doing the LAPD's bidding. Either way he isn't a free agent. Instead he chooses the most moral choice and with his own agency. He chooses to reunite a father with his daughter; he chooses love. In some way it is less consequential, but in other ways it is the most powerful choice of all. I do so love it when I see somebody really gets it. For me this film is a masterpiece.
I think K wanted to be human or at least seen equal to humans, but in the end he was happy enough doing the moral thing and that undoubtably is the most human thing one can do. So in my eyes K died succeeding at becoming equal to a human.
Yes, I agree.... he was the conduit, and maybe his last realization and some kind of "peace" or "meaning" was he acknowledged it, which makes him much more "human" than many people, especially in the world depicted in this movie.
One thing i liked is at the start when JOI is with K making him food and she says she's getting 'cabin fever'. Then you realise afterwards that she basically is programmed to say that to advertise the Emmenator and to get clients buying that. Such cool world building done in a flawless and seamless way. You realise early on that JOI is just a product (like a s3x doll, but for emotionally lonely individuals), and companies will try make money off these people. The whole relationship between K and JOI makes you think, what is love and can it be real if one of them is programmed to behave in a certain way? Maybe not JOI, but K was definitely in love.
We are all programmed to feel love and fall in love, at a biological level (except psychopaths). Narcissists only developed a mentally warped grandiose form of self-love. Food for thought.
@@alejandro_vallejo_calvo exactly, human love is basically biologically programmed in to us. This also builds on the movies idea that there basically isnt a difference between humans and replicants... i mean besides the extra strength. But philosophically they should be considered equals. Makes you think in hundreds of years time (or way beyond any of our lives) when cyborgs are real with humanlike emotions and behaviour, theres definitely going to be some sort of split in society, angry that these cyborgs shouldnt get the same rights as us while another group will be fighting that they should.
Joi's 'death' was the only one I cared about in the film. I think they did a FANTASTIC job of getting us to love an AI; even with the ads in the background, and then DESTROYING our attachment to her after her death and making us feel stupid for the attachment; how must K feel about that? she was real to him, and thats what mattered, but is that 'real' enough?
@@guyinreallife6035 You summed up pretty well the main purpose of Joi being in this movie. In a nutshell, you described exactly what the script-writer/s wanted us to think about “her” during the whole movie. Joi represents the “inverse Replicant”, the one that looks like it’s becoming human, but is most probably just programmed to fool humans to think it is. In a way, it makes me sort of sad to think about it: many people in the near future will fall in love with “perfect” advanced AIs instead of with real, imperfect humans.
Ryan Gosling does hidden rage and a torrent of emotions below a stoic, calm expression as good as anyone in Hollywood. With this film and "Drive" he's absolutely phenomenal.
I love when people call his stoic and closed off characters wooden, like they think every human being is programmed to wear every emotion on their sleeve. Ryan's subtle facial ticks and physical acting is so underrated. Especially in this and First Man. You get so many emotional gut punches from so little.
@@abovewater6918 Commander Adama was not just responsible for his crew. He was tasked with saving the last remnants of the human race against an enemy that couldn't die.
He wasn't a major character in the original, it wouldn't make sense to make his role bigger. (apart from a certain dream hinting obsession with origami animals)
This is one of the best movies to come out in modern times. The music, the silence, the mystery, the reveals, the acceptance, the characters, the love, the dialogue, the body language. Everything. It's fucking beautiful
@@_MrToast_ Seawall really hits you with proper surround sound. In the theaters it was impactful! If you ever get the chance again, I'd go see it again
K and Joi's relationship is basically there to ask what is real when it comes to love. They're two synthetic people (Joi being more synthetic) having a synthetic relationship. She is mass produced to be exactly what every guy wants. She tells him exactly what he wants to hear. She always agrees with him, and always acts as though she admires him. For his part, he's a lonely man going through the motions, probably to fill an otherwise empty life. Or that's what it looks like at first. Nothing is real... but as it goes on, she actually does risk herself and make a real sacrifice for him. And he acts as though she really matters to him. Who's to say it isn't real. That's kind of actually the way it is in real life. It feels real because you believe it feels real, and a lot of daily life kind is just going through motions. The person we love is something in our heads, regardless of what's physically real. And the person who knows you, and has grown with you could have a million identical twins, but none of them will be the same person.
Joi is exactly how modern, feminist woman should behave. Imogen how much happiness young girls and women today would be if the just knock off all of their "don't need no man" behavior, and embrace what nature intended for them. Submissive, agreeable, appreciative, peaceful, soft, attractive, feminan. These are rare qualities in these These modern times.
Replicants aren't synthetic. People make this mistake ALL the time. They're humans...just genetically engineered. They have DNA, blood, emotions. Think of the "superior" people in Gattaca, or the clone troopers in Star Wars. One of the biggest points of both Blade Runner movies is how human society has so degraded the image of replicants that they aren't even thought of as human anymore--but they are.
@@rikk319 They're people in the moral sense that they are self-aware, think for themselves, etc. But they are not born from another human. They do not have parents in a biological or social sense. They also don't have childhoods, or other stages of development that all humans experience, physically and psychologically. Until the child was born, they couldn't reproduce. They were individually deigned by a person. Those things are are a big deal when defining a "species". The question is whether a scientific definition misses the real point, or if it's just used as a disingenuous deflection from moral questions. If humanity is defined by having humanity (which replicants obviously do, then using the replicants as slaves is just as wrong as it is for humans. In real life, real slave owners denied actual human slaves had human for the exact same self-serving reason. Our definitions are often determined by our intentions more than anything else.
2049 is one of those rare sequels that managed to build on it's predecessor while standing on it's own two feet. I was soooo relieved and blown away walking out of the theater. In a film world that's littered with unnecessary sequels and reboots, I don't think anybody expected Blade Runner 2049 to be as mesmerizing as it was. That's Denis Villeneuve for ya! 🤯💗❄
One of the things that impressed me was how realistically loud the gunfire was. I shoot a lot and that has always bothered about movies. The gunfire is not as loud as it should be. Heat is the only other movie I've seen where the gunfire is loud enough.
"2049 is one of those rare sequels that managed to build on it's predecessor while standing on it's own two feet" Play it back again and look for the similarities rather than the differences. You'll find it's depressingly familiar to the superior original. They even rub in how lacking their imagination was by using the same death theme for K as Roy Batty. I did like BR2049 - but only until it gets to Deckard, at that point it's just a garbage film where you wasted 2/3 of the film building up a protagonist only to turn around and say "SURPRISE! The real protagonist is Deckard and he's just been getting drunk doing nothing in a radioactive desert for decades! Isn't that more interesting than following K and his journey of self discovery?!" It's just like the end of Terminator Salvation - just when you actually start to think they might be on to something they kill the new character to serve the same old John Connor narrative instead of actually trying something new. (and this is me really not a fan of Sam Worthington here, his character just seemed like a more interesting plotline than yet more John Connor) Baring in mind that I do truly, truly love the original Blade Runner film - but the slapshod ending to BR2049 just ends up making it more like a bad reboot of Blade Runner than a true sequel.
@@mnomadvfx "...only to turn around and say "SURPRISE! The real protagonist is Deckard" Uhh, no. K is the protagonist for the entire movie. If you didn't understand that simple fact, I think you need to watch the movie again...
@@mnomadvfx I think it’s true that the movie shifts gears toward action after Deckard is found and there’s less time to focus on K’s thoughts. I think I would’ve liked a scene after the revelation, to see how he comes to the decision to save Deckard and help him meet his daughtern, instead of killing him. I don’t think there was really a doubt he’d actually kill Deckard at this point, but a reaction to that knowledge that he isn’t ”special” could’ve been nice. Then again, the slight ambiguity in certain motivations feels to me like the hallmark of Bladerunner.
Denis villeneuve’s body of work is exceptional. Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival, Blade Runner 2049 & now Dune. King of Sci-Fi & Suspence Filled Thrillers
I generally do like Denis Villeneuve’s movies but this one definitely my least favorite of his films. Mainly I feel like the Blade Runner films kind of misinterpreted Phillip K. Dick’s original novel,
@@thedeepfriar745 It was never their intention to make a faithful adaptation of _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ so if that's what you were expecting, you set yourself up for disappointment. In my opinion, all movies should be judged purely on their own merits. Basically go into a movie as if the book does not exist, and see if the movie stands on its own.
But in-world, unlike the replicants, she isn't real. She's a mental construction. This is inspired (I think) by Finnegans Wake, the relationship between HCE and ALP.
@@mattsell2361 I don't think her character was so set in stone. She was not "real" but neither was K to a degree. Yeah she does things like, change her mind and say read/dont read to me based on his own reactions, gives him the default attraction mode name of Joe, but she also makes a fuss for dinner, despreately tries to wake him in the crash, and tells him to break the connection of her projector compromising her own existence, so he wouldn't be hunted down. That is the sole reason K isn't killed by Luv, who believes K is the killer of the miracle child. Joi stops Luv by making her presence known, sacrificing her own existence when Luv decides to give K a fate worse than death: leaving him alive after she kills Joi in front of him, knowing that the connection is severed to her projector. It's just damn was it real, or was it just a programmed ad campaign to make him buy an emminator? Did she sacrifice herself to save him, the same way K did the same, saving Deckard's life and reuniting him with his daughter? my interpretation was that Joi was his miracle, and allowed him to make a third option, beyond what he'd been programmed to do himself, "kill" deckard, keep the child "dead" and stop a war, while reuniting a father and his child.
You really got it. K wasn’t special, he wasn’t chosen. But he chose to save Deckard, he chose to risk death, he chose to lead Deckard to his child. In the end his choices made K unique and powerful.
Whether Joi is self-aware and has her own thoughts and feelings, or whether she's just an incredibly sophisticated simulation, is one of the great unanswered questions of the film.
I think it's better if she just meant to be "the fake guide" of K. Because in the end he is no one but yet still choose to do the right thing for someone else.
The main thing with K's narrative is that he did the most human thing possible by making the moral choice (or as you say 'the right thing'). Yeah, K died but he died achieving what he wanted, being human, being seen as an equal to humans instead of being sworn at and derogatively called a 'skinjob' all the time.
"To die for the right cause is the most human thing we can do." As it turns out, sometimes the right cause can be something as small as helping a father reunite with his long-lost child
I love how at the end he's outside and catches the snowflakes in his palm and she's inside and the holographic snowflakes just disappear without trace when they touch her palm. K's not "real", yet he's free and able to experience reality while she's real, yet she's trapped inside and unable to experience reality. Just a beautiful little detail.
For the longest time I really didn't want a sequel to Blade Runner, especially because I felt they would have to resolve the issue of whether or not Deckard was a replicant, which I thought was better left as a question than an answer. You can imagine how pleased I was that the sequel actually managed not to confirm it either way, showing that the makers of the film understood and respected what made the original great. This is definitely one of the most worthy sequels ever made. I loved Deckard's final line to K, "Who am I to you?" K can't really explain, but he obviously thought, even if for only a short time, that Deckard was his father, and it made him the closest thing to family he'd ever had.
In fact i'd say Villeneuve _restored_ the ambiguity that the Final Cut more or less removed (sure, we can mentally contort our way around it but the unicorn dream/memory is pretty conclusively Ridley Scott saying "I want Deckard to be a replicant so i'm going to remove any wiggle room"). Something which, as a fan of the Deckard being human perspective (but more than that, that it should remain a matter of interpretation), I really appreciated (among many other things about this IMO excellent sequel).
I thought it kinda does confirm that he is not, simply going by the fact that he's in the movie at all. They sidestep the question of how long Rachael lived by having her die in 2021, which if we assume she's quite "new" in November, 2019 would mean she died within the 4 year time frame afforded to Nexus 6 replicants. If you think about it, it would not make sense to not include this fail-safe in Rachael. Deckard is still alive in 2049, so he's either human or for some reason the Tyrell Corp just released a replicant with an open ended lifespan that does not know it is a replicant into the world unsupervised. I would have left him out of the film entirely and kept Deckard's ultimate fate ambiguous.
@@michaelbuick6995 They're pretty careful to explicitly state that Rachael died in childbirth though so that says nothing about when her "expiration date" is or if she even has one. It's left ambiguous in other words (in keeping with the original film). Rachael is _definitely_ an experimental prototype though, we _know_ she's not like other replicants so not including fail-safes etc. is entirely plausible. And if Deckard _is_ a replicant he's _also_ unusual in a few ways so having no expiration date, ageing "normally" etc. are all possibilities - he'd be experimental too in other words (an experiment is the only way it even vaguely makes sense to me in 'Blade Runner' - and even then it's pretty thin IMO - because otherwise, why give a replicant a gun, why put him in a job that _requires_ empathy and intuition, why, frankly, make him so useless at hunting replicants that he only survives - on at least two occasions - because a replicant saves him ? Etc.).
It is fun indeed to have the ambiguity, but now we can settle this. Hamilton Fancher, who wrote the Blade Runner script, and Harrison Ford, who portrayed him, both said that Deckard is human. That settles it for me. I've read that the director *wanted* Deckard to be a replicant, so he kept spinning out cut after cut to try to make it seem so. One last thing: if Deckard would have been a replicant, then they would have given him some of the speed and strength that the replicants have. He was NOT even close to Roy Batty....
@@alanparsonsfan Even more important than that: Philip K. Dick (the writer of the original novel and which predates both films) clearly stated that Deckard is human. Ridley Scott was smart enough to implant in our minds that doubt without answering it at all. So that wouldn't contradict the novel but still keep us wondering.
A bit of trivia about this film. Roger Deakins was the cinematographer for this film. Between 1994 and 2015 he was nominated for an Oscar 13 times for best cinematography, including twice in 2007, and came away winless each and every time. His 14th nomination was for this movie, Blade Runner 2049, for which he finally won his Oscar. He got a standing ovation when he took the stage to accept the award (you can watch it on RUclips). He was since won a second Oscar, for 1917.
The whole reason why replicants are given real memories is to give them human like responses. While, yes, they are basically used as slaves humans still interact with replicants and so making it more comfortable for humans is the key. Its the reason why today Apple's Siri sounds like a human woman. Its all about making the usability for the humans feel more natural and comfortable.
"The whole reason why replicants are given real memories is to give them human like responses" No, didn't you watch the film??!! It's quite clearly stated that using real memories is illegal. That is why the memory MAKER has a job in the first place - she clearly just got writers block at some point so that the film could happen 😅
It was talked about in the first film. The memories gave them meaning, Leon and Rachel with their photos. It's about humanity as well we all need memories.
I thought it was to make them more stable. The problem with replicants in the first movie was the fact that they were inevitably starting to develop emotions by the end of their life-cycle. But they were not prepared to deal with them and did not know how to react to them. So their reaction basically something akin to a kid's temper tantrum or teenager's angst , which, coincidently, are also often a result of a growing person not knowing how to react to emotions. So the "real" memories made replicants more emotionally "mature". Which helped them to easier process emotions and less likely to disobey.
It wasn’t that they were developing emotional responses… It’s that those responses were childlike and dangerous, and combined with their strength and prowess, made them very dangerous.. Remember, it’s about commerce.. Only fix problems that need to be fixed..
@@mnomadvfx when i say real memories, i meant realistic memories. She asked why do replicants need to have realistic memories and i've even had a friend who asked me why replicants need to have memories at all. The explanation is still the same. To make replicant usability comfortable for humans.
Ryan has come a long way from the chic flick hottie he almost got typecast as. Glad he was able to move past that and into these types of roles. He's perfect for this.
This was the first time I really noticed him. I mean I knew him but I always dismissed him for the Hollywood pretty boy. But him in that role convinced me. There is another movie , a type of gangster movie where he's quite good. I think it's like with DiCaprio. First everybody thought he was kin of "meh..." and then he played some pretty convincing roles.
@@hemmojito Gangster Squad? Had Josh Brolin and Emma Stone among others. Solid film. I dismissed him for a long time too but the boy can act. He does pretty boy very well but can handle the big roles with ease.
I loved this movie. It was such a love letter to the first film. Style, pacing, music, mood, color grade, just everything was everything I wanted. There are also three mini-prequels on RUclips that are worth watching. The one with Dave Bautista is brilliant.
Agreed, my only con about this movie is that I would have really liked to see David Bowie play the part of Wallace, that would have been special. Not a huge problem at all, but when I heard that he was the original choice for the role, it sounded so perfect.
@@Spaceman2921 FWIW, I'm not a Jared Leto fan by any means but he absolutely nailed this role even if his screen time was minimal. His thought processes and reasoning, subtle movements and demeanor couldn't have been portrayed better, imo.
10:13 Yes. That's really him. It's Edward James Olmos. Better known as "Lt. Castillo" to us lifelong Miami Vice super fans. Seeing him in Blade Runner 2049 reprising his role as "Gaff" was a real treat.
If I've said it before I'll say it again, this movie is a masterpiece! The final shots in the snow are breathtaking! I was so happy he is directing Dune. Seeing this on the big screen was a true experience.
I can’t figure this girl completely out but she definitely has a winning formula. She appears naive at times, but is extremely perceptive and observant. Does that mean she’s acting? I don’t think so. I think she just emotionally commits to every film she watches, as if she knows how much this film means to those watching. This makes every video magical for the viewer and they get to relive those emotions. She’s also very impressive at editing. I don’t know how she learned to master it so quick. My only answer is that she likely works her butt off. She doesn’t just insert random emotions and clips but includes appropriate movie scenes so that you, the viewer, are immersed in what’s happening. This is not a criticism, I’m just impressed with the quality of her content and her emotional commitment to every film. I bet that if she decided to reach into other artistic endeavors, she would be very successful. 👍
Editing is part of it for the fairuse videos and sometimes it's not the reactor that edits, sometimes is. It works here for the audience, we get a great compilation of the highlights. I've seen some of the full reactions and what you don't notice here is that it's a long movie. And the way this one is made helps you ponder over the situation. It's a well made film too so I had the exact same questions watching it the first time myself. She is really good reactor by sharing the thoughts and still being right in the movie. That does take skills! It's a compliment to her for sure.
@@LeethLee1 Yeah, I know about fairuse and the constriction that’s involved. That’s why they have short clips, reuploads, muffled music, etc. I’m just saying I’ve seen plenty of other reaction videos and I think it takes ability and work to make it flow like that while sticking to those constraints.
Hi there, Cassie hired a professional editor several months ago, Mike, who is from the UK. Cassie was raised in Canada (So she doesn't have a lot of USA 'stuff' baked into her psyche) and she just never watched a lot of 'mainstream' movies or TV. I don;t see her as much Naive, as just not cynical. She is very smart. Just not... Movie-Wise? Or classic story tropes-wise? She was just never exposed to all that, so, she is discovering it all fresh with us. As for future endeavors... Cassie is a wife, and mother of little kids, so her future is pretty locked up with family, we get a couple of movies with her a week, that she records at 10:00pm at night, after all the house chores are done... I hope you stick around NemeanLion and watch some more of her reactions, and try out her Livestreams, where she answers lots of questions. -Jon
@@jonjohns65 Ah, a professional editor. That’s good thinking and probably explains a lot. I know she’s smart and perceptive, she just has a youthful innocence when experiencing new movies. She’s doing a great job and I applaud her work. 👍
Joi being ambiguous as to her agency is another thing I love being kept ambiguous. I personally view her as genuinely loving K. I think it’s telling that the giant holographic ad of Joi has empty eyes but the real one does not
You cannot be ambiguous about your agency since it is primordial datum, so to speak-you are either have consciousness or you don’t. To have higher purposes (“I want to have free will”) is to have free will. The condition of being “ambiguous” already presupposes that condition. Which no machine will ever have. It’s a circular logic of absurdity.
When the replicant prostiturrte said "I was inside you, there is way less there than you think" it fore shadowed the fact tha Joi is just a simple program meant to echo K's needs in order to feel "loved". Joi love to K is just her function. That why K's scene with the giant promo-Joi is also so telling - he is just another "good Joe".
@@RootinrPootine the same could be said about K. He's basically just a product but through time and experience he outgrew his programming. The ones who made Joi probably thought the same way: a basic programming with room for growing with personal experience. For someone like Joi it's more important than K, there's only one K but if you visit your neighbor's house you don't expect to find the same Joi that's in your house even though they have the same look.
@@albertmas3752 this has no relevance to what I said. When you say “experience” you mean it as a metaphor. In “experience” of any kind, of a conscious entity, consciousness must be always already exist. It is logically prior. Consciousness makes any experience possible in the first place. It has no place in physical causality at all.
Even better than the first movie, and like the first, gets better every time you watch it. Great reactions Popcorn! “They can’t just replic.., oh wait, that’s their name!” So good.
Noooooo, death awaits you!! 🤣🤣🤣 Seriously though it's a good film but it doesn't match up to, let alone better the original - the end is a flat out copy of the end of Blade Runner. A replicant dies saving Deckard, and then Deckard goes to the girl. Doesn't that sound familiar to you??!! In case it wasn't immediately obvious they even used Vangelis's score to slap you in the face with the self plagiarism there. That brings me round to the score - it's mostly loud banging I'd expect to find in some nightclub, not even remotely up to the Vangelis score from the original. Zimmer can do better than this - lately he seems to be confusing volume with feeling, to me it's just vulgarity and a sign that he's lost the plot.
@@mnomadvfx let me guess. You thought Lynch did a better job with Dune too? Come on memberberries. This was better in every way except Roy Baddy’s tears in rain. I’ll give you that much. The rest is just whinging.
I have watched this movie a dozen times or more and I see something new every time I do. It's an amazing film, richly layered and subtle. One of the best ever made in my view.
The only thing 2049 is missing is a Vangelis type soundtrack. I thought the music -- mainly the sax and piano -- in the original helped create an emotional backdrop that enriched the story a lot.
I'm with you. The original may have had the shock value of the entire concept, but 2049 is a better movie. Even if you consider the acting, Harrison Ford is a better actor now than he was then.
Easily in my top three films of 2017. As he always does, Denis Villeneuve knocked it out of the park with this film. I love that the film doesn’t even attempt to tackle the question of is Deckard a human or a replicant. And a major shout-out to the breathtakingly sublime cinematography by Roger Deakins that FINALLY got him a long overdue Oscar.
When I first heard they were doing a Blade Runner sequel, I was worried they would mess with the original or not capture what made it so special. The original is one of my favorite films, after all. As far as my initial doubts were concerned, I was mistaken. They nailed it, they were true to it, and I can't imagine a better sequel to Blade Runner. Denis Villenue was the perfect director for this and thanks in large part to Roger Deakins this is one of the best films I've ever seen in terms of cinematography. The filmmaking, acting, music etc. are extremely strong all across the board. The film asks many questions and is thought provoking in the right ways. I think weather or not K dies at the end, I think he died with a soul. Maybe it was his actions and his sacrifice at the end or his love for Joi that gave him a soul or a piece of real humanity. Or maybe he always had that. Maybe all Replicants do. It's not easy to answer these questions. The fact that this film encourages the audience to ask questions such as these: what it means to be human or what does it mean to have a soul is admirable and very much in the spirit of Blade Runner. And for that and more I'm grateful and satisfied to what the people who made this film accomplished.
The sequel is an empty shell compared to the complexity and excellence of the original BR. This film is boring, a visual spectacle, nothing more. And Harrison Ford is criminally underused and underdressed. The music comes nowhere close to the epic masterpiece that Vangelis created. This sequel is a pale imitation of BLADE RUNNER, one of the greatest films of all time.
@@lukeskywalker6809 This is hilarious to me, because the only other negative comment about the movie I've seen so far complained that 1) Harrison Ford was overused, and 2) them reusing, note for note, several of Vangelis' tracks from the original movie. The only thing you two have in common is how much you overrate the original _Blade Runner._
For a relative Newcomer to the Blade Runner universe you, as you have in all the movies you've reacted to that I have viewed, picked up on the better details and plot/character elements, and you ask the significant & relevant questions. I died when Luv killed Joi, particularly that she prevented Joi from completing her proclaiming her love for K. I've been searching, unsuccessfully, for the last few hours for the YT video where I happened across an interview a while back, of the Director Denis Villeneuve where comments were made on the screenplay specifically regarding the naming of the characters Luv and Joi and how the names pertain to the plot. I wanted to share them with you and your viewers... dang it. Oh well, perhaps either I'll come across them again or another one of your viewers will give us the info/link. Thanks yet again Cassie for another excellent reaction video.
Cassie: “My brain hurts”. Understatement of the year… A lot of fans of the original ‘Blade Runner’ did NOT like this sequel. I believe that for many of them, it’s just a sense of nostalgia preventing them from appreciating this film. Others (including producer Ridley Scott) thought it was just too damn long. Personally, I think this is a fantastic sequel. Written by the same people who wrote the original, they had over 35 years to craft and fine tune this story. It stands to reason it would take that long to make something this complex and thought provoking. Definitely watch it as many times as you can. There’s an awful lot to unpack (perhaps another reason why it’s not as beloved as it should be). It didn’t do well at the box office. But then, neither did the first film. I have a feeling it’s influence will grow over time like it’s predecessor.
I had the privilege of seeing this masterpiece in IMAX. The final fight between K and Luv was one of the most intense experiences I had ever felt in a theatre. The sound design, cinematography and performances are flawless.
The music that played when K lay down and died is the same from the scene where Rutger Hauers character in the first film died. Also, him deciding to fake Deckards death so he could meet his daughter, rather than do what the rebel replicants or Wallace wanted, is what made him human in the end. Making his own decision than what others wanted him to do. He died becoming human.
So the memory of K/Deckard's daughter about hiding the toy has probably the biggest show don't tell hints in the movie: the kid has hairs whereas the boys chasing her don't. That's because no one would buy a girl without hair because she wouldn't be pretty, but shampoo and clean water cost money so the boys don't get to wash their heads all too often and it's better to keep them shaven than to deal with lice. If there's ever a story about regular human kids growing up in one of those orphanages one of the bonding memories between a boy and a girl could be her washing his head with shampoo. And then the boy gets in trouble because the supervisor can smell the fragrance...
The yelling at the beginning is actually hungarian language, my mother language. For you Americans: Hungary is a beautiful country in central Europe. When I first heard it I was like WTF. For real? They’re speaking hungarian? And yes, they are.
I've seen this multiple times now, but I only just realized that Deckard's daughter isn't sick, but probably has a weak or non-existent immune system because she's the child of a replicant woman. Kids inherit most of their mother's immune system and Rachael probably didn't really have or need an immune system due to her being a replicant, or there were just some genetic incompatibilities between Deckard and Rachael which prevented the immune system from being inherited. There are so many layers and details in this film. Easily one of the best Sci-Fi movies of all time.
I always thought it as a ruse to hide her. If she has a medical reason to be isolated all of the time, it's like she's locked away from the public. Like she says "my parents built me a cage and filled it with all the things I needed", but the cage wasn't to protect the public from her (like a prison) but to protect her from the public.
I have to say that's one detail I didn't like. It's an interesting premise; if "real" humans and replicants (or two replicants) can have children naturally, then the line becomes even more blurred. But if such a union can only produce children with severe life limiting health problems, that reinforces that distinction and confuses the message. If I was writing the script I would have found a different way to hide her.
@@michaelbuick6995 I thought of it as not being the real reason she was locked away but was given to her so she wouldn’t be too mad about being stuck there. It was really just to keep her as separated as possible from people that would want to kill her and at least let her grow up before any kind of “revolution” was ignited. The rebellion group knew where she was the whole time. It’s another one of the loose threads I love about this movie because it really leaves your imagination going about the meanings and what may happen in that world after the movie. This movie is a masterpiece in my eyes.
Joi is really well done - when she's first introduced she's switching outfits and being super hyper and artificial, then next time she's very frank about being a program, til eventually you're asking yourself - does she love him? Is she just programmed to love him or is that real?
When Denis Villeneuve was asked to make this film he only agreed on the condition that it didn't answer the question of whether Deckard was a replicant . He wanted it to be a film that you could enjoy regardless of your view on that particular issue, as it divided fans of the first film so much. Ridley Scott always believed that Deckard was a replicant and tried to make that clearer in the Final Cut. Harrison Ford said that his Deckard was human! Great reaction - I really enjoyed watching this!
By seeing him old in this one, it points more for him to be human. Unless Tyrell came up with the convoluted plot to put to replicants together it makes not much sense. It looks more like an experiment that Rachael could conceive children, but that probably should not have happened if both were replicants. However, I see that there is still some allowance for the replicant theory (which I liked too), though not as strong as before.
Deckard is a replicant and it has been on the screen since the first release to theaters in 1982. Yes, they give a lot of hints in different cuts of the film but one thing remains: How do you know he is a replicant? Think for a second...if you were a BR how would you hunt replicants?...super strong super smart very durable. You would hunt them with a sniper rifle from a distance. Deckard goes toe to toe knock down drag out fights with 4 Nexus 6 units in BR. Let's look at the defining fight that proves he is a replicant. Leon bounces him around like a ping pong ball and slams him onto the roof and windshield of a car. Later, back at the apartment, let's assess the damage. Deckard should have at minimum a concussion, a fractured spine, multiple subdermal hematomas, etc. Except he doesn't...other than a little blood in his mouth he doesn't have a mark on him when he should be in a hospital in the ICU. He is an older model (and with BR 2049 possibly an experimental older model) who was grown to hunt replicants...Nexus 5 perhaps or just a one off test is left to the imagination. But he is an engineered human none the less.
No one has read the book? Deckard is a human. He is what's left of humanity, depressed, addictions, divorced, PTSD. Harrison Ford and the screenwriters have said Deckard is human. Ridley Scott started this BS when he recut the film in 92. It's clear he doesn't understand the book. Which is why he was fired from the film in 81 and the producers finished it. He didn't know what he want to say with the film. In 2049 the dog and the line "Is it real" is a wink to the book. In the book all Deckard wanted was a real animal, not many were left most animals were replicants.
@@reesebn38 Citing the book her is not a good argument. The novel was set in the 1990s, (still future from the writing) and features different characters and events than the movie. The movie is *based on* "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", not a one-to-one replication. Therefore the movies stand on their own and can give a completely different perspective on the main protagonist. Philip K. Dick was able to see some raw footage of the movie before he passed away. Allegedly, he was impressed by it (probably the cityscapes).
@@conflictmagazine That only seems to prove your argument, while ignoring all the parts that don't. (It's called cherry-picking) Why would anyone think that an inferior model would be the right way to deal with four top-of-the line Nexus models, two of which are explicitly made for combat. But Deckard even gets ass-kicked and almost killed by the pleasure and worker models, too. He also must have a history with Bryant and the department, although we are not shown much of it. That he could still walk away from those fights is probaly his luck and the replicants wanting to kill him slowly, together with a part of movie logic (The hero still has to finish the story). And some adrenaline can also do things you would not expect. Remember, Daryl Hannah broke ther arm in real when she slipped into the parked car on the set. Yet she finished the scene as if nothing happened. (I fell on a hand once myself, it hurt badly, but I only found about that it was broken much later.) And just to be clear, I am not saying there is definitive proof that Deckard is human. But there is no definite proof he is a replicant either. I think that ambiguity made the movie such a cult classic, just like the ending of another PKD adaptation, Total Recall: "What if this is a drem?"
In this movie, every shot could be a painting within itself. Stunning! What this movie did well was it didn't try too hard to replicate the original, looks-wise -- it was very much its own fresh concept. It averted the trope that "K is Deckard's son". Blade Runner pretty much answers the question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant: But it's Rachel that was so "special" because she could procreate.
"Blade Runner pretty much answers the question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant: But it's Rachel that was so "special" because she could procreate." You sure about that? Last I checked it takes 2 to tango - just because she could conceive and carry a child doesn't mean she could conceive it with any old father.
For sure one of the greatest sequels of all time. It's just sad that this film didn't had the recognition that it deserved when it was released, at least in the box office, because this is a modern masterpiece. Incredible acting, story, soundtrack, atmosphere and a visual spectacle. PS : Highly recommend to watch some interviews with Harrison and Ryan, they're hilarious together, like, excellent chemistry
A well made sequel that i thought was an impossible achievement. Also, Ana de Armas is just unfairly beautiful. I can't believe she even has actual amber eyes.
Love the way you tackled (and engaged with) this 'difficult' film. I feel bad that you couldn't experience it on the big screen. I love the way it kept posing the same questions as the original about what it is to be a human/individual, beyond just the "are robots alive" surface level. Such an ominous slow-burn of a film.
You picked up really well that all those boys from the memory were bald, yet the child with the horse had hair, signifying it was a girl. I missed this the first few times watching the film but it's amazing how layered the film is. One of my favourites. Amazing reaction as always.
There's a couple of vignettes they released before this movie that are pretty good. Especially the one focusing on Dave Bautista's character. He really puts on a stellar performance.
Virtually nobody, me included, believed that anyone could ever create a decent sequel to a cult classic like Blade Runner and certainly not one that would even achieve to please a majority of hardcore ultra-fans of the original. But Villeneuve really did it all that. He created a modern masterpiece. After this movie , i knew he would be the right one to take on Dune, and i firmly believed he would succeed with it aswell. And what shall i say ? He did.
Luv is obsessed about being "the best one" as he keeps calling her, and this shows again the basic human emotion that she has that drives her to act like such a maniac... She's jealous.
One of the best squeals ever made, it actually managed to build on the original movie while standing on it own. Denis Villeneuve (also from Canada) is currently one if the best directors working in movies. It also won Roger Deakins his first Oscar for cinematography after many nominations (he went on to pick up a second one for 1917).
Wow Cassie, that was a stellar reaction, review! I'm a Blade Runner series fan and you picked up things that I totally missed. Your channel just keeps getting better and better!
When I first heard they were making a sequel to Blade Runner I was like, 'Nooooo. Please, no.' Comments from people said, 'if anybody can do a good sequel, Villeneuve(sp?) can'. So, I hoped for the best and took my grown up nephew to see it (whom I had introduced to the original Blade Runner). When the movie credits rolled, I turned to him and said, "I don't know what you thought, but I thought that was awesome!" He agreed.
Personally I think JOI really loved him. But you could argue that it was her AI routines adapting and telling him what he wants to hear (they all have beats that they have to hit like calling people "Joe"). She was certainly unique to him for sure...she would have to be since she is an AI that learns. Interesting her thematic parallel with K. JOI is literally killed by LUV. I love JOI...such an interesting character! I saw this in the theaters like 6 times. That's how much I loved this movie. Lived up to the original in my book and they are amongst my favorite films of all time.
Not only did she tell him what he wants to hear, everything she said to him was what he wanted to hear. She was programmed to only tell him what he wanted to hear - hence, she was all AI. She loved him no more or no less than a toaster could.
It is a confusing movie but I'm starting to understand it because you commented on some things I missed when I watched it. It is a very impressive movie, very artistic. Ridley Scott who made the first Blade Runner movie is my favourite director so I was sceptical towards this one but it is basically as artistic as the old one which I think is high praise.
Absolutely beautiful movie and perhaps the best sequel ever. Some possible answers... The memory maker (Ana Stelline) was a "bubble girl" because of a malfunctioning immune system. Possibly caused by being the first ever offspring of a replicant; symptoms like this are common in genetic mutants or inbreds. Memories were always implanted, even in the first movie, as a way to make replicants feel real. This kept them emotionally stable and even kept many of them not knowing if they were real humans or not. The world lacks vegetation and most live animals, even in the first movie, hence the line "I never saw a tree before", and that having a small real-wooden toy would make him rich. The second movie adds further to the dystopia with the "black out" event which wiped out most digital records. Vegas had been made uninhabitable by some kind of radioactive disaster (dirty bomb?), and is why it was left in such a suddenly-abandoned desolate state. Despite the ominous orange glow, the beehives were an indication that the radiation levels had declined enough so that life was possible again (and this time likely real life rather than artificial) ... much like the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in 1986, where the nearby town of Pripyat is showing signs of life again. A perfect place for Deckard to hide out. The "base line" tests were psychological tests to determine if the mental state of a replicant was "stable", or if they were showing signs of excess emotional awareness or empathy which might make them hard to control or rebel. It's left ambiguous whether Joy had real feelings or not; I'd like to think she did, but the large holographic advertisement near the end sure makes you doubt that ... as can be seen in K's sullen face. As an aside the 2013 scifi movie "Her" explores this topic very well. Apparently Wallace Corp could not spy in on Joy's thoughts/knowledge unless they had direct access to the eminator in the apartment, and is why K destroyed it. Though when he did break the antenna chip Luv knew immediately that something was up, so there was at least some kind of diagnostic link.
Every time K went to visit the real child he took his time to see his hand, what i love to think that in the end he realized that he was feeling exactly the same while he was dyeing than when he thought he was the real child, just as with the dog when he asks Deckard, is the dog real? and he responds i dont know, ask him. Its pretty deep, he even began to fail the blade runner test as he started to think he was real, not even the new models can defeat the humanity of being human. A little detail I love about this movie is the little wooden horse, the guy in the pawn shop tells him, you are rich! and then you realize if you pay attention to detail, that the whole complex of offices in the wallace scenes are made out of wood, just to imply how insanely rich and powerful he is.
I'm sure this was already explained below, but in the original Blade Runner, the Tyrell Corp was trying to make Replicants to be "more human than human". Giving them memories to fall back on helped with their emotional development. Previous models couldn't handle their emotions like regular humans, which is how the Blade Runners detected them through testing (testing their emotional response to certain questions designed to generate an emotional response). K (Gosling) goes through a similar "baseline" test in 2049, but here it almost seems to also measure his own existential awareness/reaction that he is inferior/not considered to be human. On a side note, this movie is just gorgeous. I would argue that you could take almost any shot of this movie and hang it on your wall somewhere as art.
There were some nice references which I hoped you noticed. One was when Joi was giving K the name of “Joe”, she said that a real boy needs a name. Now while Joe might be chronologically young, it’s a stretch for her to call him a boy as he’s an adult Replicant (and at that stage thought to be 30 actual years in age if he was the Child), but I think that’s a reference to Pinocchio the wooden puppet who wanted to be “a real boy”.
In the story by Philip K Dick, the movie script and its writers, Ford himself and such- Deckard was always human. It wasn't until the Director's Cut that Ridley Scott decided to "add" some changes to question this which IMO ruins the entire point of the first film in which was human vs machine. It showed the human (Deckard) as cold and devoid of connection contrasted against the machine (Batty) as passionate, eager for life, friendship (Zora, Leon) and love (Pris). In the end, Batty spared Deckard, which in turn helped him to reawaken his own humanity locked away by the world around him. The unicorn, a mythological creature, was meant to be a symbol that Rachel was one of a kind- a replicant without an expiration (incept) date- even if Gaff himself was not aware of this.
Well put! Scott brought the issue up during filming of the original BR, if I remember correctly. However, over the years I have gotten the impression that Ridley Scott likes to indulge in a little mindf*ckery just for the fun of it, no matter whether it actually would make sense (exhibit A: his vague answer whether that planet at the beginning of "Prometheus" was supposed to be primordial Earth). This, for me, falls into the same category. Cheers!
Denis Villeneuve's films are masterpieces, he is a true modern master. All the films are all so good and warrant rewatches. If you have not watched it, watch his 2013 film "Enemy" or his Oscar-nominated film from 2010 "Incendies". Both are under-watched and absolutely amazing!
As a long time fan of Blade Runner, I was utterly blown away by BR2049. It is a very worthy sequel to the original. MPC VFX absolutely knocked it out of the park with their digital Rachel; makes ILMs Tarkin & Leia look amateurish.
I had to watch this movie a 2nd time before I realised the memory of a little boy hiding the toy horse in the furnace was actually the memory of Deckard and Rachels daughter.
There were also three prequel short films leading up to the events of 2049, directed by three different directors. The last one is animated and ends with a great Lauren Daigle song.
"Ridley Scott says he's a replicant, Harrison Ford says he isn't, and countless others don't know where to begin, but there is one controversial answer that doesn't come up as frequently: the answer doesn't matter. 24. jan. 2023 Matthew Mosley "
You should watch “The Imitation Game”, starring Benedict Cummberbatch as Alan Turing. It’s a great real world intro into the question of what is the difference between human & machine thinking.
It's entertaining for sure, but It's also a very reductive dramatisation of the events and the various players that took part in them. In short it's less a Bletchley Park WW2 code breakers film and more an Alan Turing film.
10:19 Edward James Olmos, who had some bit pieces in movies, mostly overseas, before being cast in Blade Runner. It was his big break, and from there his career in both film and TV took off. His most prolific role since Gaff was as William Adama in the rebooted BattleStar Galactica TV series, but if you look back over his TV history, he's had some amazing roles in things like Miami Vice (the original show) where he was in 106 episodes as Lt Martin Castillo
The fact that you are confused is exactly what Dennis Villeneuve was going for. If you are unpacking this for days, I'm sure Dennis would be very happy.
19:44 - it's very sinister but if you give the replicants memories so they act more human then they're more predictable and therefore easier to control. Basically a whole history of how to control people (using psychological and physical maniplutation) is being redeployed to control the replicants. And the memories are probably designed to make the replicant better at their job - K's memory about sticking up for himself against bullies would be ideal for a replicant that need at to be assertive as a cop. He probably has more memories about the important of rules and systems of control so he follows rules.
Great reaction to a great sequel! I watched this in theater and was blown away! To me, "Blade Runner 2049" is one of the rare species of sequels that definitely can live up to their predecessors. Fun fact: the opening scene where K kills the replicant-farmer (who's played by Dave Bautista, btw, who is also Drax in "Guardians Of The Galaxy" and appeared in "The Man With The Iron Fists" and "James Bond 007: Spectre", but in those two movies as a villain) was originally intended for the original movie as an opening that would introduce the character of Deckard and establish the tone of the movie to the audience and make them understand what Deckard's daily job is like. The farmer was therefore supposed to be just an ordinary target with no significance for the plot. They changed that for the sequel, but surprisingly kept many of the details that were first conceived by Ridley Scott, for example close-ups of the cooking pot. I got this information from the overly long but extremely interesting and entertaining documentary "Dangerous Days: The Making Of Blade Runner". It's definitely also worth watching!
The whole film is thematically framed by references to Nabokov's 'Pale Fire', a book about an imaginary poem, which K quotes extensively during his baseline tests. The poem 'Pale Fire' is in part about a man having a near death experience, and believing he had witnessed a miracle, hearing of another who had a similar vision, only later to find that his hope, in proof of an afterlife, was false. The whole work is a meditation on the interaction between the authentic and the false, between faith and doubt- which this film is also. This is one of my favorite films.
Denis is so damn smooth with how subtle his films are. I still find new things in his movies that are almost completely hidden from view. Goes to show how we're all so used to Hollywood style, I think his films will have a longer lasting power into the future. Especially as the collapse happens and things slow down a lot.
I've discussed with friends about the Joi character, and one of the interesting repeated theme with her is how the replicant said to Joi's face how hollow Joi is, is this possible that it's the same prejudice that humans have toward replicants (manufactured, fake, hollow, just do your job, etc), but now a replicant to a hologram? Or is Joi almost literally an iPod, a product of a company that is styled to have and bring emotion, just to sell more product? When K saw the giant Joi, and she said "You look lonely. I can fix that." I got sad... Then she says he looks like a good "Joe", I was gutted... It really felt fake at that point, but I still don't know for sure.
I think the point is that AI has the potential to become self-aware. Joi starts as a mass product, but in the end so do babies in a way. It's the love of their parents, their surroundings, their friends, the whole society who form them and make them the human they become.
I think that giant Joi calling K "Joe" was probably quite devastating to him after finding out that he wasn't actually "the Child" but also that perhaps his Joi was only programmed to call him "Joe". However, that's probably an oversimplication and it may well be what we saw between them was more self-awareness from the Joi AI.
@@sweeperboy A big part of what I see that blurs the lines between simulated relationship and real relationship is how she wanted to make Luv stop, sacrificing herself. Even ignoring her last words, the significance is tangible because "Dying for the right cause is the most human thing we can do."
That "God D**n it" scream when he discovers the memories are real becomes more soul crushing during every rewatch. Poor joe. Such a bittersweet arc for the hero of the story.
I'm definitely with you (as well as the writers of the original film, and Harrison Ford, and the late Rutger Hauer) with regard to the "is Deckard a Replicant" question. If he is a Replicant, it sort of undermines the thematic nature of his conflict with Roy in the original, in that we're watching a story in which a Replicant, a soulless slave who has spent his entire existence acting under the will of humans, finally becomes "more human than human" and chooses in his final moments to save Deckard from falling to his death. And of course, in a brilliant case of history repeating itself, the same thing happens here - another Replicant, who has spent his entire existence working for humans, suffers a major existential crisis, becomes a fugitive from justice, and is faced with the choice to kill Deckard. And like Roy before him, K chooses to save him, gaining his own humanity and giving Deckard a chance to live at the cost of his own life, while "Tears in the Rain" plays on the soundtrack. Aside from the brilliant thematic cohesion, this is just a genuinely brilliant film, and a sequel that not only measures up to the quality of the original, but arguably exceeds it. The performances are all phenomenal, not just Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling, but also Robin Wright, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Dave Bautista, Mackenzie Davis, and Jared Leto. The cinematography is just **chefs kiss** beautiful, Roger Deakins was long overdue an Oscar, and I'm so glad it was this one that got it for him. The music is brilliant, the visual effects are stunning, the story is surprisingly well-paced (it's nearly 3 hours long, yet you really don't feel it), and the whole thing is directed beautifully by Denis Villeneuve (who recently did a fantastic job with Dune). It's a real shame that this film failed at the box office, I really hope it gets a major reappraisal in the future and becomes a classic like its predecessor
I think you got it pretty spot on! I love that your channel makes it like we all can enjoy movies with you. Especially if we have seen them and are sharing these experiences with you. Its fun to see your take on all the films. I love how you present these and how RUclips and other platforms make it possible!
Blade Runner 2049 is the best sequel we could've hoped for in the current climate of remakes and reboots
Agreed. Although I'd love a sequel to The Goonies at some point in my life this was definitely needed.
I found it incredibly boring
@@NN-cm2mh filtered
@@NeverSaySandwich1 The Denis filter is a satisfying one
@@NN-cm2mh Only boring people get bored.
I like that Cassie thought she was constantly confused, but she basically got everything right. She only had to trust her own instincts.
Lol she always does that. "I don't understand this at all...." Proceeds to predict every beat of the movie and then has insights into the movie I hadn't even considered.
Yes every single thing she didnt understand was because Villeneuve was misdirecting the audience, she understood the movie just as he intended so that the revelations have meaning. This is not a movie where youre supposed to figure stuff out before they happen just let the movie tell you its story.
Part of that is Cassie not trusting herself enough. Part of it is some incredibly well written films trying to throw people off. Yeah, there's a lot of fluff out there, but at our insistence she's been watching some truly well written films. No shame in getting fooled by them. :D Though she does always manage to grasp the gist fairly early on and put it together intuitively. If the mark of a good story is feeling real, then Cassie intuiting it is a compliment as she has connected with the story.
@@j0k3r2k Exactly. One thing I would tell people about this movie is to not overthink while watching it.
Just pay attention to the story and you will understand it.
@@j0k3r2k right, because a movie that you figure out before it even happens is a terrible movie
"Anyone can have joy!? No! Not *his* joy."
... that quote is so layered, and works on more than one level.
Have you heard/ read the "Luv will kill your Joi" line??
What I really like about this channel, is that you aren’t afraid to ask the real questions. Like “do those guys have giant moustaches?
That made me chuckle big time. I was thinking to myself, why would they have giant moustaches .. LOL
That's why men grow giant moustaches, just as good as an air filter.
Bladerunner 2049 is warning us about future world, where men with giant moustaches are being very nasty
Inquiring minds want to know!How am I supposed to sleep if I don’t know the answer?
@@pathatfield2543 1) Arrange yourself in the horizontal configuration 2) Count zero electric sheep 3) Profit
In “Blade Runner 2049,” I’m moved by the apparent smallness of the victory at the end. Like K, we all sometimes have self-aggrandizing dreams. We wish we were more consequential than we are. We may not be able to fix the world, but we can help the people in our sphere of influence, no matter how small that may be. K was not the miracle child. He did not defeat the Tyrell Corporation and liberate the replicants. Instead, he did the good thing that was within his power to do; he reunited a father and daughter. Even in a dystopian society, we can live lives of grace, kindness, and self-sacrifice. In fact, that’s when those things are most needed.
Beautifully said my friend
Exactly. He could have followed the path that fought directly for his kind. It would have been a logical choice. Then there's doing the LAPD's bidding. Either way he isn't a free agent. Instead he chooses the most moral choice and with his own agency. He chooses to reunite a father with his daughter; he chooses love. In some way it is less consequential, but in other ways it is the most powerful choice of all. I do so love it when I see somebody really gets it.
For me this film is a masterpiece.
I think K wanted to be human or at least seen equal to humans, but in the end he was happy enough doing the moral thing and that undoubtably is the most human thing one can do. So in my eyes K died succeeding at becoming equal to a human.
Absolutely spot on!
Yes, I agree.... he was the conduit, and maybe his last realization and some kind of "peace" or "meaning" was he acknowledged it, which makes him much more "human" than many people, especially in the world depicted in this movie.
One thing i liked is at the start when JOI is with K making him food and she says she's getting 'cabin fever'. Then you realise afterwards that she basically is programmed to say that to advertise the Emmenator and to get clients buying that. Such cool world building done in a flawless and seamless way.
You realise early on that JOI is just a product (like a s3x doll, but for emotionally lonely individuals), and companies will try make money off these people.
The whole relationship between K and JOI makes you think, what is love and can it be real if one of them is programmed to behave in a certain way? Maybe not JOI, but K was definitely in love.
We are all programmed to feel love and fall in love, at a biological level (except psychopaths). Narcissists only developed a mentally warped grandiose form of self-love. Food for thought.
@@alejandro_vallejo_calvo exactly, human love is basically biologically programmed in to us. This also builds on the movies idea that there basically isnt a difference between humans and replicants... i mean besides the extra strength. But philosophically they should be considered equals.
Makes you think in hundreds of years time (or way beyond any of our lives) when cyborgs are real with humanlike emotions and behaviour, theres definitely going to be some sort of split in society, angry that these cyborgs shouldnt get the same rights as us while another group will be fighting that they should.
Joi's 'death' was the only one I cared about in the film. I think they did a FANTASTIC job of getting us to love an AI; even with the ads in the background, and then DESTROYING our attachment to her after her death and making us feel stupid for the attachment; how must K feel about that? she was real to him, and thats what mattered, but is that 'real' enough?
@@guyinreallife6035 You summed up pretty well the main purpose of Joi being in this movie. In a nutshell, you described exactly what the script-writer/s wanted us to think about “her” during the whole movie. Joi represents the “inverse Replicant”, the one that looks like it’s becoming human, but is most probably just programmed to fool humans to think it is. In a way, it makes me sort of sad to think about it: many people in the near future will fall in love with “perfect” advanced AIs instead of with real, imperfect humans.
JOI also stands for Jerk Off Instruction... so I'm told 😒
Ryan Gosling does hidden rage and a torrent of emotions below a stoic, calm expression as good as anyone in Hollywood. With this film and "Drive" he's absolutely phenomenal.
Didn't get it until now. So, he's the stoic character actor. It definitely makes sense he was chosen to play Armstrong in First Man. He was a robot.
I love when people call his stoic and closed off characters wooden, like they think every human being is programmed to wear every emotion on their sleeve. Ryan's subtle facial ticks and physical acting is so underrated. Especially in this and First Man. You get so many emotional gut punches from so little.
Nah, his emotions are stunted because he is a replicant.
Edward James Olmos is a vastly underrated actor. I'm glad he got a cameo, and I wish his role was larger.
I agree. So say we all.
Just finished watching Battlestar Gallactica for the first time very recently. Such an amazing show!
@@abovewater6918 Commander Adama was not just responsible for his crew. He was tasked with saving the last remnants of the human race against an enemy that couldn't die.
I also agree. So say we all.
He wasn't a major character in the original, it wouldn't make sense to make his role bigger.
(apart from a certain dream hinting obsession with origami animals)
Denis Villeneuve is currently one of the best directors. I was blown away in the cinema and my eyes were glued to the screen from the first minute.
Nah, he is the one
agreed, when you also consider arival and dune
Same I caught this at the Dolby cinema and my mind was blown start to finish
@@pabloescobarr744 absolutely, she's going to love both Arrival and Dune!
Sicario, Prisoners, Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, Dune. He simply doesn't miss
This is one of the best movies to come out in modern times. The music, the silence, the mystery, the reveals, the acceptance, the characters, the love, the dialogue, the body language. Everything. It's fucking beautiful
''Mesa'' & ''Seawall'' are crazy soundtracks, i wish i watched it in cinema. The atmosphere it creates is insane.
All that means is that modern filmmakers are really bad
Couldn't agree more.
@@_MrToast_ Seawall really hits you with proper surround sound. In the theaters it was impactful! If you ever get the chance again, I'd go see it again
Watched it 3x in theaters just to support it
He says "If anything happens to this, that's it, you're gone." And she says, " Like a real girl." Wow, that scene really got to me.
K and Joi's relationship is basically there to ask what is real when it comes to love. They're two synthetic people (Joi being more synthetic) having a synthetic relationship. She is mass produced to be exactly what every guy wants. She tells him exactly what he wants to hear. She always agrees with him, and always acts as though she admires him. For his part, he's a lonely man going through the motions, probably to fill an otherwise empty life. Or that's what it looks like at first. Nothing is real... but as it goes on, she actually does risk herself and make a real sacrifice for him. And he acts as though she really matters to him. Who's to say it isn't real. That's kind of actually the way it is in real life. It feels real because you believe it feels real, and a lot of daily life kind is just going through motions. The person we love is something in our heads, regardless of what's physically real. And the person who knows you, and has grown with you could have a million identical twins, but none of them will be the same person.
Well said.
I don't think I've ever seen a better statement said in a typically mundane platform as youtube, regarding such a complex topic. Well said.
Joi is exactly how modern, feminist woman should behave.
Imogen how much happiness young girls and women today would be if the just knock off all of their "don't need no man" behavior, and embrace what nature intended for them.
Submissive, agreeable, appreciative, peaceful, soft, attractive, feminan.
These are rare qualities in these These modern times.
Replicants aren't synthetic. People make this mistake ALL the time. They're humans...just genetically engineered. They have DNA, blood, emotions. Think of the "superior" people in Gattaca, or the clone troopers in Star Wars. One of the biggest points of both Blade Runner movies is how human society has so degraded the image of replicants that they aren't even thought of as human anymore--but they are.
@@rikk319 They're people in the moral sense that they are self-aware, think for themselves, etc. But they are not born from another human. They do not have parents in a biological or social sense. They also don't have childhoods, or other stages of development that all humans experience, physically and psychologically. Until the child was born, they couldn't reproduce. They were individually deigned by a person. Those things are are a big deal when defining a "species". The question is whether a scientific definition misses the real point, or if it's just used as a disingenuous deflection from moral questions. If humanity is defined by having humanity (which replicants obviously do, then using the replicants as slaves is just as wrong as it is for humans. In real life, real slave owners denied actual human slaves had human for the exact same self-serving reason. Our definitions are often determined by our intentions more than anything else.
2049 is one of those rare sequels that managed to build on it's predecessor while standing on it's own two feet. I was soooo relieved and blown away walking out of the theater. In a film world that's littered with unnecessary sequels and reboots, I don't think anybody expected Blade Runner 2049 to be as mesmerizing as it was. That's Denis Villeneuve for ya! 🤯💗❄
One of the things that impressed me was how realistically loud the gunfire was. I shoot a lot and that has always bothered about movies. The gunfire is not as loud as it should be. Heat is the only other movie I've seen where the gunfire is loud enough.
"2049 is one of those rare sequels that managed to build on it's predecessor while standing on it's own two feet"
Play it back again and look for the similarities rather than the differences.
You'll find it's depressingly familiar to the superior original.
They even rub in how lacking their imagination was by using the same death theme for K as Roy Batty.
I did like BR2049 - but only until it gets to Deckard, at that point it's just a garbage film where you wasted 2/3 of the film building up a protagonist only to turn around and say "SURPRISE! The real protagonist is Deckard and he's just been getting drunk doing nothing in a radioactive desert for decades! Isn't that more interesting than following K and his journey of self discovery?!"
It's just like the end of Terminator Salvation - just when you actually start to think they might be on to something they kill the new character to serve the same old John Connor narrative instead of actually trying something new.
(and this is me really not a fan of Sam Worthington here, his character just seemed like a more interesting plotline than yet more John Connor)
Baring in mind that I do truly, truly love the original Blade Runner film - but the slapshod ending to BR2049 just ends up making it more like a bad reboot of Blade Runner than a true sequel.
@@estel5335 Get out.
@@mnomadvfx "...only to turn around and say "SURPRISE! The real protagonist is Deckard"
Uhh, no. K is the protagonist for the entire movie. If you didn't understand that simple fact, I think you need to watch the movie again...
@@mnomadvfx I think it’s true that the movie shifts gears toward action after Deckard is found and there’s less time to focus on K’s thoughts. I think I would’ve liked a scene after the revelation, to see how he comes to the decision to save Deckard and help him meet his daughtern, instead of killing him. I don’t think there was really a doubt he’d actually kill Deckard at this point, but a reaction to that knowledge that he isn’t ”special” could’ve been nice.
Then again, the slight ambiguity in certain motivations feels to me like the hallmark of Bladerunner.
Denis villeneuve’s body of work is exceptional. Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival, Blade Runner 2049 & now Dune. King of Sci-Fi & Suspence Filled Thrillers
Incendies is another amazing movie by him
Enemy may be my favorite of his. That one is such a trip.
I generally do like Denis Villeneuve’s movies but this one definitely my least favorite of his films. Mainly I feel like the Blade Runner films kind of misinterpreted Phillip K. Dick’s original novel,
I agree with everything except that Enemy was terrible.
@@thedeepfriar745 It was never their intention to make a faithful adaptation of _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ so if that's what you were expecting, you set yourself up for disappointment. In my opinion, all movies should be judged purely on their own merits. Basically go into a movie as if the book does not exist, and see if the movie stands on its own.
Joi was one of my favorite characters in years. She was real and genuine and her death was heart breaking.
But in-world, unlike the replicants, she isn't real. She's a mental construction. This is inspired (I think) by Finnegans Wake, the relationship between HCE and ALP.
But the point is she’s not real and ks love with her was always fake and not real love. That’s why he saves deckard
@@mattsell2361 I don't think her character was so set in stone. She was not "real" but neither was K to a degree. Yeah she does things like, change her mind and say read/dont read to me based on his own reactions, gives him the default attraction mode name of Joe, but she also makes a fuss for dinner, despreately tries to wake him in the crash, and tells him to break the connection of her projector compromising her own existence, so he wouldn't be hunted down.
That is the sole reason K isn't killed by Luv, who believes K is the killer of the miracle child. Joi stops Luv by making her presence known, sacrificing her own existence when Luv decides to give K a fate worse than death: leaving him alive after she kills Joi in front of him, knowing that the connection is severed to her projector.
It's just damn was it real, or was it just a programmed ad campaign to make him buy an emminator? Did she sacrifice herself to save him, the same way K did the same, saving Deckard's life and reuniting him with his daughter? my interpretation was that Joi was his miracle, and allowed him to make a third option, beyond what he'd been programmed to do himself, "kill" deckard, keep the child "dead" and stop a war, while reuniting a father and his child.
You really got it. K wasn’t special, he wasn’t chosen. But he chose to save Deckard, he chose to risk death, he chose to lead Deckard to his child.
In the end his choices made K unique and powerful.
It made him human.
and it made him special.
Whether Joi is self-aware and has her own thoughts and feelings, or whether she's just an incredibly sophisticated simulation, is one of the great unanswered questions of the film.
I think it's better if she just meant to be "the fake guide" of K.
Because in the end he is no one but yet still choose to do the right thing for someone else.
In a way, the film makes you ask yourself if it really matters either way.
The main thing with K's narrative is that he did the most human thing possible by making the moral choice (or as you say 'the right thing'). Yeah, K died but he died achieving what he wanted, being human, being seen as an equal to humans instead of being sworn at and derogatively called a 'skinjob' all the time.
I’ve never thought he died . Lol I’ve watched this 10 times at least. Never even heard anyone question that.
"To die for the right cause is the most human thing we can do."
As it turns out, sometimes the right cause can be something as small as helping a father reunite with his long-lost child
Well said.
"More human than human. That's our motto." - Eldon Tyrell
I love how at the end he's outside and catches the snowflakes in his palm and she's inside and the holographic snowflakes just disappear without trace when they touch her palm. K's not "real", yet he's free and able to experience reality while she's real, yet she's trapped inside and unable to experience reality. Just a beautiful little detail.
For the longest time I really didn't want a sequel to Blade Runner, especially because I felt they would have to resolve the issue of whether or not Deckard was a replicant, which I thought was better left as a question than an answer. You can imagine how pleased I was that the sequel actually managed not to confirm it either way, showing that the makers of the film understood and respected what made the original great. This is definitely one of the most worthy sequels ever made.
I loved Deckard's final line to K, "Who am I to you?" K can't really explain, but he obviously thought, even if for only a short time, that Deckard was his father, and it made him the closest thing to family he'd ever had.
In fact i'd say Villeneuve _restored_ the ambiguity that the Final Cut more or less removed (sure, we can mentally contort our way around it but the unicorn dream/memory is pretty conclusively Ridley Scott saying "I want Deckard to be a replicant so i'm going to remove any wiggle room").
Something which, as a fan of the Deckard being human perspective (but more than that, that it should remain a matter of interpretation), I really appreciated (among many other things about this IMO excellent sequel).
I thought it kinda does confirm that he is not, simply going by the fact that he's in the movie at all. They sidestep the question of how long Rachael lived by having her die in 2021, which if we assume she's quite "new" in November, 2019 would mean she died within the 4 year time frame afforded to Nexus 6 replicants. If you think about it, it would not make sense to not include this fail-safe in Rachael. Deckard is still alive in 2049, so he's either human or for some reason the Tyrell Corp just released a replicant with an open ended lifespan that does not know it is a replicant into the world unsupervised. I would have left him out of the film entirely and kept Deckard's ultimate fate ambiguous.
@@michaelbuick6995 They're pretty careful to explicitly state that Rachael died in childbirth though so that says nothing about when her "expiration date" is or if she even has one. It's left ambiguous in other words (in keeping with the original film).
Rachael is _definitely_ an experimental prototype though, we _know_ she's not like other replicants so not including fail-safes etc. is entirely plausible. And if Deckard _is_ a replicant he's _also_ unusual in a few ways so having no expiration date, ageing "normally" etc. are all possibilities - he'd be experimental too in other words (an experiment is the only way it even vaguely makes sense to me in 'Blade Runner' - and even then it's pretty thin IMO - because otherwise, why give a replicant a gun, why put him in a job that _requires_ empathy and intuition, why, frankly, make him so useless at hunting replicants that he only survives - on at least two occasions - because a replicant saves him ? Etc.).
It is fun indeed to have the ambiguity, but now we can settle this. Hamilton Fancher, who wrote the Blade Runner script, and Harrison Ford, who portrayed him, both said that Deckard is human. That settles it for me. I've read that the director *wanted* Deckard to be a replicant, so he kept spinning out cut after cut to try to make it seem so. One last thing: if Deckard would have been a replicant, then they would have given him some of the speed and strength that the replicants have. He was NOT even close to Roy Batty....
@@alanparsonsfan Even more important than that: Philip K. Dick (the writer of the original novel and which predates both films) clearly stated that Deckard is human. Ridley Scott was smart enough to implant in our minds that doubt without answering it at all. So that wouldn't contradict the novel but still keep us wondering.
A bit of trivia about this film. Roger Deakins was the cinematographer for this film. Between 1994 and 2015 he was nominated for an Oscar 13 times for best cinematography, including twice in 2007, and came away winless each and every time. His 14th nomination was for this movie, Blade Runner 2049, for which he finally won his Oscar. He got a standing ovation when he took the stage to accept the award (you can watch it on RUclips). He was since won a second Oscar, for 1917.
The whole reason why replicants are given real memories is to give them human like responses. While, yes, they are basically used as slaves humans still interact with replicants and so making it more comfortable for humans is the key. Its the reason why today Apple's Siri sounds like a human woman. Its all about making the usability for the humans feel more natural and comfortable.
"The whole reason why replicants are given real memories is to give them human like responses"
No, didn't you watch the film??!!
It's quite clearly stated that using real memories is illegal.
That is why the memory MAKER has a job in the first place - she clearly just got writers block at some point so that the film could happen 😅
It was talked about in the first film. The memories gave them meaning, Leon and Rachel with their photos. It's about humanity as well we all need memories.
I thought it was to make them more stable.
The problem with replicants in the first movie was the fact that they were inevitably starting to develop emotions by the end of their life-cycle. But they were not prepared to deal with them and did not know how to react to them. So their reaction basically something akin to a kid's temper tantrum or teenager's angst , which, coincidently, are also often a result of a growing person not knowing how to react to emotions.
So the "real" memories made replicants more emotionally "mature". Which helped them to easier process emotions and less likely to disobey.
It wasn’t that they were developing emotional responses… It’s that those responses were childlike and dangerous, and combined with their strength and prowess, made them very dangerous..
Remember, it’s about commerce.. Only fix problems that need to be fixed..
@@mnomadvfx when i say real memories, i meant realistic memories. She asked why do replicants need to have realistic memories and i've even had a friend who asked me why replicants need to have memories at all. The explanation is still the same. To make replicant usability comfortable for humans.
One of the best modern sci-fi movies (and sequels). Ryan Gosling is masterful at stoic performance just as he was in Drive
Ryan has come a long way from the chic flick hottie he almost got typecast as. Glad he was able to move past that and into these types of roles. He's perfect for this.
This was the first time I really noticed him. I mean I knew him but I always dismissed him for the Hollywood pretty boy. But him in that role convinced me. There is another movie , a type of gangster movie where he's quite good. I think it's like with DiCaprio. First everybody thought he was kin of "meh..." and then he played some pretty convincing roles.
@@hemmojito Gangster Squad? Had Josh Brolin and Emma Stone among others. Solid film. I dismissed him for a long time too but the boy can act. He does pretty boy very well but can handle the big roles with ease.
@@mycroft16 Yup, Gangster Squad.
I loved this movie. It was such a love letter to the first film. Style, pacing, music, mood, color grade, just everything was everything I wanted. There are also three mini-prequels on RUclips that are worth watching. The one with Dave Bautista is brilliant.
Agreed, my only con about this movie is that I would have really liked to see David Bowie play the part of Wallace, that would have been special. Not a huge problem at all, but when I heard that he was the original choice for the role, it sounded so perfect.
@@William_Sk it’s ok it would be really cool for him to be in the movie but cancer’s a bitch
@@William_Sk Literally anyone except for Jared 'Look at Me' Leto.
@@Spaceman2921 FWIW, I'm not a Jared Leto fan by any means but he absolutely nailed this role even if his screen time was minimal. His thought processes and reasoning, subtle movements and demeanor couldn't have been portrayed better, imo.
10:13 Yes. That's really him. It's Edward James Olmos. Better known as "Lt. Castillo" to us lifelong Miami Vice super fans. Seeing him in Blade Runner 2049 reprising his role as "Gaff" was a real treat.
If I've said it before I'll say it again, this movie is a masterpiece! The final shots in the snow are breathtaking! I was so happy he is directing Dune. Seeing this on the big screen was a true experience.
And Dune was definitely "up to snuff". DV has become one of my favorite directors. The only one I trust to do worthy sequels to my favorite movies.
As so was seeing Dune on an IMAX screen. Unforgettable.
I can’t figure this girl completely out but she definitely has a winning formula. She appears naive at times, but is extremely perceptive and observant. Does that mean she’s acting? I don’t think so. I think she just emotionally commits to every film she watches, as if she knows how much this film means to those watching. This makes every video magical for the viewer and they get to relive those emotions. She’s also very impressive at editing. I don’t know how she learned to master it so quick. My only answer is that she likely works her butt off. She doesn’t just insert random emotions and clips but includes appropriate movie scenes so that you, the viewer, are immersed in what’s happening. This is not a criticism, I’m just impressed with the quality of her content and her emotional commitment to every film. I bet that if she decided to reach into other artistic endeavors, she would be very successful. 👍
Editing is part of it for the fairuse videos and sometimes it's not the reactor that edits, sometimes is. It works here for the audience, we get a great compilation of the highlights. I've seen some of the full reactions and what you don't notice here is that it's a long movie. And the way this one is made helps you ponder over the situation. It's a well made film too so I had the exact same questions watching it the first time myself. She is really good reactor by sharing the thoughts and still being right in the movie. That does take skills! It's a compliment to her for sure.
@@LeethLee1 Yeah, I know about fairuse and the constriction that’s involved. That’s why they have short clips, reuploads, muffled music, etc. I’m just saying I’ve seen plenty of other reaction videos and I think it takes ability and work to make it flow like that while sticking to those constraints.
Hi there, Cassie hired a professional editor several months ago, Mike, who is from the UK. Cassie was raised in Canada (So she doesn't have a lot of USA 'stuff' baked into her psyche) and she just never watched a lot of 'mainstream' movies or TV. I don;t see her as much Naive, as just not cynical. She is very smart. Just not... Movie-Wise? Or classic story tropes-wise? She was just never exposed to all that, so, she is discovering it all fresh with us. As for future endeavors... Cassie is a wife, and mother of little kids, so her future is pretty locked up with family, we get a couple of movies with her a week, that she records at 10:00pm at night, after all the house chores are done... I hope you stick around NemeanLion and watch some more of her reactions, and try out her Livestreams, where she answers lots of questions. -Jon
@@jonjohns65 Ah, a professional editor. That’s good thinking and probably explains a lot. I know she’s smart and perceptive, she just has a youthful innocence when experiencing new movies. She’s doing a great job and I applaud her work. 👍
I am charmed by her anxiety when a character is in Peril.😍
She gets STARTLED so easily, with LOTS of hand shaking.😃
She notices FASHION! 😆😆😆
"You can't just reprrr.. ugh, that what they're called." I just about choked to death on a jellybean. LOL
Might be my favorite "Cassie-ism" of all time...
Yes, and specifically she said "You can't just replll...", as in replicant. And she was right!
Joi being ambiguous as to her agency is another thing I love being kept ambiguous. I personally view her as genuinely loving K. I think it’s telling that the giant holographic ad of Joi has empty eyes but the real one does not
You cannot be ambiguous about your agency since it is primordial datum, so to speak-you are either have consciousness or you don’t. To have higher purposes (“I want to have free will”) is to have free will. The condition of being “ambiguous” already presupposes that condition. Which no machine will ever have. It’s a circular logic of absurdity.
When the replicant prostiturrte said "I was inside you, there is way less there than you think" it fore shadowed the fact tha Joi is just a simple program meant to echo K's needs in order to feel "loved". Joi love to K is just her function. That why K's scene with the giant promo-Joi is also so telling - he is just another "good Joe".
Well he filled her with love. Her realness reflects his realness I think.
@@RootinrPootine the same could be said about K. He's basically just a product but through time and experience he outgrew his programming. The ones who made Joi probably thought the same way: a basic programming with room for growing with personal experience. For someone like Joi it's more important than K, there's only one K but if you visit your neighbor's house you don't expect to find the same Joi that's in your house even though they have the same look.
@@albertmas3752 this has no relevance to what I said. When you say “experience” you mean it as a metaphor. In “experience” of any kind, of a conscious entity, consciousness must be always already exist. It is logically prior. Consciousness makes any experience possible in the first place. It has no place in physical causality at all.
Even better than the first movie, and like the first, gets better every time you watch it. Great reactions Popcorn! “They can’t just replic.., oh wait, that’s their name!” So good.
This. I love the first movie and I actually prefer this.
Have you seen it in IMAX? Breathtaking!
Noooooo, death awaits you!!
🤣🤣🤣
Seriously though it's a good film but it doesn't match up to, let alone better the original - the end is a flat out copy of the end of Blade Runner.
A replicant dies saving Deckard, and then Deckard goes to the girl.
Doesn't that sound familiar to you??!!
In case it wasn't immediately obvious they even used Vangelis's score to slap you in the face with the self plagiarism there.
That brings me round to the score - it's mostly loud banging I'd expect to find in some nightclub, not even remotely up to the Vangelis score from the original.
Zimmer can do better than this - lately he seems to be confusing volume with feeling, to me it's just vulgarity and a sign that he's lost the plot.
@@mnomadvfx let me guess. You thought Lynch did a better job with Dune too? Come on memberberries. This was better in every way except Roy Baddy’s tears in rain. I’ll give you that much. The rest is just whinging.
I have watched this movie a dozen times or more and I see something new every time I do. It's an amazing film, richly layered and subtle. One of the best ever made in my view.
One of the most visually stunning movies I’ve ever seen
One of the best sequels ever made, one that even surpasses an already very good first movie IMO.
It’s a great sequel… it doesn’t surpass the original however. The original is one of the greatest films ever made.
The only thing 2049 is missing is a Vangelis type soundtrack. I thought the music -- mainly the sax and piano -- in the original helped create an emotional backdrop that enriched the story a lot.
I'm with you. The original may have had the shock value of the entire concept, but 2049 is a better movie. Even if you consider the acting, Harrison Ford is a better actor now than he was then.
this one good, loved it but come on bruh first one is in top5 greatest and most influential sci fi movie of all time..
@@redvulpa1324 that's nostalgia in action for you.
Easily in my top three films of 2017. As he always does, Denis Villeneuve knocked it out of the park with this film. I love that the film doesn’t even attempt to tackle the question of is Deckard a human or a replicant. And a major shout-out to the breathtakingly sublime cinematography by Roger Deakins that FINALLY got him a long overdue Oscar.
Deckard: "I know what's real!"
@@estel5335 yes! Im 55!
When I first heard they were doing a Blade Runner sequel, I was worried they would mess with the original or not capture what made it so special. The original is one of my favorite films, after all. As far as my initial doubts were concerned, I was mistaken. They nailed it, they were true to it, and I can't imagine a better sequel to Blade Runner. Denis Villenue was the perfect director for this and thanks in large part to Roger Deakins this is one of the best films I've ever seen in terms of cinematography. The filmmaking, acting, music etc. are extremely strong all across the board. The film asks many questions and is thought provoking in the right ways. I think weather or not K dies at the end, I think he died with a soul. Maybe it was his actions and his sacrifice at the end or his love for Joi that gave him a soul or a piece of real humanity. Or maybe he always had that. Maybe all Replicants do. It's not easy to answer these questions. The fact that this film encourages the audience to ask questions such as these: what it means to be human or what does it mean to have a soul is admirable and very much in the spirit of Blade Runner. And for that and more I'm grateful and satisfied to what the people who made this film accomplished.
For me this film is an utter masterpiece. It's that simple. I feel sorry for those that don't get it.
This movie brought me to tears with how beautiful it is. I literally cried in the theatre as I watched it.
Spectacularly good film.
The sequel is an empty shell compared to the complexity and excellence of the original BR. This film is boring, a visual spectacle, nothing more. And Harrison Ford is criminally underused and underdressed. The music comes nowhere close to the epic masterpiece that Vangelis created. This sequel is a pale imitation of BLADE RUNNER, one of the greatest films of all time.
@@lukeskywalker6809 This is hilarious to me, because the only other negative comment about the movie I've seen so far complained that 1) Harrison Ford was overused, and 2) them reusing, note for note, several of Vangelis' tracks from the original movie. The only thing you two have in common is how much you overrate the original _Blade Runner._
@@elijahfoster4380 You know what's hilarious to me? The fact that you said that BLADE RUNNER is overrated.
For a relative Newcomer to the Blade Runner universe you, as you have in all the movies you've reacted to that I have viewed, picked up on the better details and plot/character elements, and you ask the significant & relevant questions.
I died when Luv killed Joi, particularly that she prevented Joi from completing her proclaiming her love for K. I've been searching, unsuccessfully, for the last few hours for the YT video where I happened across an interview a while back, of the Director Denis Villeneuve where comments were made on the screenplay specifically regarding the naming of the characters Luv and Joi and how the names pertain to the plot. I wanted to share them with you and your viewers... dang it. Oh well, perhaps either I'll come across them again or another one of your viewers will give us the info/link.
Thanks yet again Cassie for another excellent reaction video.
One of the few movies that i enjoyed more than the first film. Great soundtrack, great visuals, and great story and acting.
Cassie: “My brain hurts”.
Understatement of the year…
A lot of fans of the original ‘Blade Runner’ did NOT like this sequel. I believe that for many of them, it’s just a sense of nostalgia preventing them from appreciating this film. Others (including producer Ridley Scott) thought it was just too damn long.
Personally, I think this is a fantastic sequel. Written by the same people who wrote the original, they had over 35 years to craft and fine tune this story. It stands to reason it would take that long to make something this complex and thought provoking.
Definitely watch it as many times as you can. There’s an awful lot to unpack (perhaps another reason why it’s not as beloved as it should be).
It didn’t do well at the box office. But then, neither did the first film. I have a feeling it’s influence will grow over time like it’s predecessor.
I had the privilege of seeing this masterpiece in IMAX. The final fight between K and Luv was one of the most intense experiences I had ever felt in a theatre. The sound design, cinematography and performances are flawless.
The music that played when K lay down and died is the same from the scene where Rutger Hauers character in the first film died. Also, him deciding to fake Deckards death so he could meet his daughter, rather than do what the rebel replicants or Wallace wanted, is what made him human in the end. Making his own decision than what others wanted him to do. He died becoming human.
The song is called Tears in the rain.
So the memory of K/Deckard's daughter about hiding the toy has probably the biggest show don't tell hints in the movie: the kid has hairs whereas the boys chasing her don't. That's because no one would buy a girl without hair because she wouldn't be pretty, but shampoo and clean water cost money so the boys don't get to wash their heads all too often and it's better to keep them shaven than to deal with lice.
If there's ever a story about regular human kids growing up in one of those orphanages one of the bonding memories between a boy and a girl could be her washing his head with shampoo. And then the boy gets in trouble because the supervisor can smell the fragrance...
Denis has become a front runner in modern cinema. His visions of the future for humanity are stark and formidable. What a visionary.
The yelling at the beginning is actually hungarian language, my mother language. For you Americans: Hungary is a beautiful country in central Europe. When I first heard it I was like WTF. For real? They’re speaking hungarian? And yes, they are.
I've seen this multiple times now, but I only just realized that Deckard's daughter isn't sick, but probably has a weak or non-existent immune system because she's the child of a replicant woman. Kids inherit most of their mother's immune system and Rachael probably didn't really have or need an immune system due to her being a replicant, or there were just some genetic incompatibilities between Deckard and Rachael which prevented the immune system from being inherited.
There are so many layers and details in this film. Easily one of the best Sci-Fi movies of all time.
I always thought it as a ruse to hide her. If she has a medical reason to be isolated all of the time, it's like she's locked away from the public. Like she says "my parents built me a cage and filled it with all the things I needed", but the cage wasn't to protect the public from her (like a prison) but to protect her from the public.
@@harrybirchall3308 "galatians syndrome" is an obvious reference to the New Testament, Book of Galatians. It basically says God was born not made.
I have to say that's one detail I didn't like. It's an interesting premise; if "real" humans and replicants (or two replicants) can have children naturally, then the line becomes even more blurred. But if such a union can only produce children with severe life limiting health problems, that reinforces that distinction and confuses the message. If I was writing the script I would have found a different way to hide her.
@@michaelbuick6995 I thought of it as not being the real reason she was locked away but was given to her so she wouldn’t be too mad about being stuck there.
It was really just to keep her as separated as possible from people that would want to kill her and at least let her grow up before any kind of “revolution” was ignited.
The rebellion group knew where she was the whole time.
It’s another one of the loose threads I love about this movie because it really leaves your imagination going about the meanings and what may happen in that world after the movie.
This movie is a masterpiece in my eyes.
Joi is really well done - when she's first introduced she's switching outfits and being super hyper and artificial, then next time she's very frank about being a program, til eventually you're asking yourself - does she love him? Is she just programmed to love him or is that real?
Imagine waiting 30 yrs for this movie...I LOVED IT! watched the original as a kid ...obsessed with it ..
"Is this standard practice?"
😂 I love this channel, so much.
When Denis Villeneuve was asked to make this film he only agreed on the condition that it didn't answer the question of whether Deckard was a replicant . He wanted it to be a film that you could enjoy regardless of your view on that particular issue, as it divided fans of the first film so much.
Ridley Scott always believed that Deckard was a replicant and tried to make that clearer in the Final Cut. Harrison Ford said that his Deckard was human! Great reaction - I really enjoyed watching this!
By seeing him old in this one, it points more for him to be human.
Unless Tyrell came up with the convoluted plot to put to replicants together it makes not much sense.
It looks more like an experiment that Rachael could conceive children, but that probably should not have happened if both were replicants.
However, I see that there is still some allowance for the replicant theory (which I liked too), though not as strong as before.
Deckard is a replicant and it has been on the screen since the first release to theaters in 1982. Yes, they give a lot of hints in different cuts of the film but one thing remains: How do you know he is a replicant?
Think for a second...if you were a BR how would you hunt replicants?...super strong super smart very durable. You would hunt them with a sniper rifle from a distance.
Deckard goes toe to toe knock down drag out fights with 4 Nexus 6 units in BR. Let's look at the defining fight that proves he is a replicant.
Leon bounces him around like a ping pong ball and slams him onto the roof and windshield of a car. Later, back at the apartment, let's assess the damage. Deckard should have at minimum a concussion, a fractured spine, multiple subdermal hematomas, etc.
Except he doesn't...other than a little blood in his mouth he doesn't have a mark on him when he should be in a hospital in the ICU.
He is an older model (and with BR 2049 possibly an experimental older model) who was grown to hunt replicants...Nexus 5 perhaps or just a one off test is left to the imagination. But he is an engineered human none the less.
No one has read the book? Deckard is a human. He is what's left of humanity, depressed, addictions, divorced, PTSD. Harrison Ford and the screenwriters have said Deckard is human. Ridley Scott started this BS when he recut the film in 92. It's clear he doesn't understand the book. Which is why he was fired from the film in 81 and the producers finished it. He didn't know what he want to say with the film. In 2049 the dog and the line "Is it real" is a wink to the book. In the book all Deckard wanted was a real animal, not many were left most animals were replicants.
@@reesebn38 Citing the book her is not a good argument. The novel was set in the 1990s, (still future from the writing) and features different characters and events than the movie.
The movie is *based on* "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", not a one-to-one replication. Therefore the movies stand on their own and can give a completely different perspective on the main protagonist.
Philip K. Dick was able to see some raw footage of the movie before he passed away. Allegedly, he was impressed by it (probably the cityscapes).
@@conflictmagazine That only seems to prove your argument, while ignoring all the parts that don't. (It's called cherry-picking)
Why would anyone think that an inferior model would be the right way to deal with four top-of-the line Nexus models, two of which are explicitly made for combat.
But Deckard even gets ass-kicked and almost killed by the pleasure and worker models, too.
He also must have a history with Bryant and the department, although we are not shown much of it.
That he could still walk away from those fights is probaly his luck and the replicants wanting to kill him slowly, together with a part of movie logic (The hero still has to finish the story). And some adrenaline can also do things you would not expect. Remember, Daryl Hannah broke ther arm in real when she slipped into the parked car on the set. Yet she finished the scene as if nothing happened. (I fell on a hand once myself, it hurt badly, but I only found about that it was broken much later.)
And just to be clear, I am not saying there is definitive proof that Deckard is human. But there is no definite proof he is a replicant either.
I think that ambiguity made the movie such a cult classic, just like the ending of another PKD adaptation, Total Recall: "What if this is a drem?"
"so anyone can have Joi? Not his Joi." Abso-fricken-lutely nailed it. You got it.
Everything K wants to hear; she reveals what would bring him joy.
One detail I like:
The only thing Wallace had about Rachel's appearance was the eye color... and he did it wrong.
I wonder if Luv sabotaged it. She has so many weird reasons to do it, but I still don't know.
But Rachel's eyes were actually brown, though. I think Deckard was just saying that they were green to defy Wallace.
Your reactions are so real, so authentic. It's like to watch a movie with a good friend. Thank you so much. You made my day!
Greetings from Germany
In this movie, every shot could be a painting within itself. Stunning! What this movie did well was it didn't try too hard to replicate the original, looks-wise -- it was very much its own fresh concept. It averted the trope that "K is Deckard's son".
Blade Runner pretty much answers the question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant: But it's Rachel that was so "special" because she could procreate.
"Blade Runner pretty much answers the question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant: But it's Rachel that was so "special" because she could procreate."
You sure about that?
Last I checked it takes 2 to tango - just because she could conceive and carry a child doesn't mean she could conceive it with any old father.
For sure one of the greatest sequels of all time. It's just sad that this film didn't had the recognition that it deserved when it was released, at least in the box office, because this is a modern masterpiece. Incredible acting, story, soundtrack, atmosphere and a visual spectacle.
PS : Highly recommend to watch some interviews with Harrison and Ryan, they're hilarious together, like, excellent chemistry
A well made sequel that i thought was an impossible achievement. Also, Ana de Armas is just unfairly beautiful. I can't believe she even has actual amber eyes.
I find it really calming, turning on one of your videos and just watching you react. You have great presence.
Love the way you tackled (and engaged with) this 'difficult' film. I feel bad that you couldn't experience it on the big screen. I love the way it kept posing the same questions as the original about what it is to be a human/individual, beyond just the "are robots alive" surface level. Such an ominous slow-burn of a film.
This movie is a masterpiece. The "love" scene with Joi is so beautiful that made me cry (for the first time of my life in a theater)
You picked up really well that all those boys from the memory were bald, yet the child with the horse had hair, signifying it was a girl. I missed this the first few times watching the film but it's amazing how layered the film is. One of my favourites. Amazing reaction as always.
Remember the Unicorn in the first movie? That was a Rachel, a one of a kind creature. She could give life.
Shoutout to whoever does your intro graphics. They are always top notch.
That would be Editor Mike, he's from the UK, and he is very talented.
There's a couple of vignettes they released before this movie that are pretty good. Especially the one focusing on Dave Bautista's character. He really puts on a stellar performance.
Yes! Definitely worth watching these.
Virtually nobody, me included, believed that anyone could ever create a decent sequel to a cult classic like Blade Runner and certainly not one that would even achieve to please a majority of hardcore ultra-fans of the original. But Villeneuve really did it all that. He created a modern masterpiece. After this movie , i knew he would be the right one to take on Dune, and i firmly believed he would succeed with it aswell. And what shall i say ? He did.
This is the most honest reaction I have seen you do. Pleasure to watch.
Luv is obsessed about being "the best one" as he keeps calling her, and this shows again the basic human emotion that she has that drives her to act like such a maniac... She's jealous.
I saw this in theaters on release, and to say it was visually and auditorily stunning is the understatement of the century.
Its just a so beautiful film. Just beautiful. The death sceen at the end is just... beautiful.
One of the best squeals ever made, it actually managed to build on the original movie while standing on it own. Denis Villeneuve (also from Canada) is currently one if the best directors working in movies. It also won Roger Deakins his first Oscar for cinematography after many nominations (he went on to pick up a second one for 1917).
Wow Cassie, that was a stellar reaction, review! I'm a Blade Runner series fan and you picked up things that I totally missed. Your channel just keeps getting better and better!
When I first heard they were making a sequel to Blade Runner I was like, 'Nooooo. Please, no.' Comments from people said, 'if anybody can do a good sequel, Villeneuve(sp?) can'. So, I hoped for the best and took my grown up nephew to see it (whom I had introduced to the original Blade Runner). When the movie credits rolled, I turned to him and said, "I don't know what you thought, but I thought that was awesome!" He agreed.
Personally I think JOI really loved him. But you could argue that it was her AI routines adapting and telling him what he wants to hear (they all have beats that they have to hit like calling people "Joe"). She was certainly unique to him for sure...she would have to be since she is an AI that learns. Interesting her thematic parallel with K. JOI is literally killed by LUV. I love JOI...such an interesting character!
I saw this in the theaters like 6 times. That's how much I loved this movie. Lived up to the original in my book and they are amongst my favorite films of all time.
Not only did she tell him what he wants to hear, everything she said to him was what he wanted to hear. She was programmed to only tell him what he wanted to hear - hence, she was all AI. She loved him no more or no less than a toaster could.
22:35 dude got arrested trying to rob Captain Phillips and ended up here. What a crossover.
It is a confusing movie but I'm starting to understand it because you commented on some things I missed when I watched it. It is a very impressive movie, very artistic. Ridley Scott who made the first Blade Runner movie is my favourite director so I was sceptical towards this one but it is basically as artistic as the old one which I think is high praise.
Ryan Gosling's AI girl Joi is Ana de Armas. She's really good in "Knives Out" and "No Time to Die." 🙂
Absolutely beautiful movie and perhaps the best sequel ever. Some possible answers...
The memory maker (Ana Stelline) was a "bubble girl" because of a malfunctioning immune system. Possibly caused by being the first ever offspring of a replicant; symptoms like this are common in genetic mutants or inbreds.
Memories were always implanted, even in the first movie, as a way to make replicants feel real. This kept them emotionally stable and even kept many of them not knowing if they were real humans or not.
The world lacks vegetation and most live animals, even in the first movie, hence the line "I never saw a tree before", and that having a small real-wooden toy would make him rich. The second movie adds further to the dystopia with the "black out" event which wiped out most digital records.
Vegas had been made uninhabitable by some kind of radioactive disaster (dirty bomb?), and is why it was left in such a suddenly-abandoned desolate state. Despite the ominous orange glow, the beehives were an indication that the radiation levels had declined enough so that life was possible again (and this time likely real life rather than artificial) ... much like the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in 1986, where the nearby town of Pripyat is showing signs of life again. A perfect place for Deckard to hide out.
The "base line" tests were psychological tests to determine if the mental state of a replicant was "stable", or if they were showing signs of excess emotional awareness or empathy which might make them hard to control or rebel.
It's left ambiguous whether Joy had real feelings or not; I'd like to think she did, but the large holographic advertisement near the end sure makes you doubt that ... as can be seen in K's sullen face. As an aside the 2013 scifi movie "Her" explores this topic very well.
Apparently Wallace Corp could not spy in on Joy's thoughts/knowledge unless they had direct access to the eminator in the apartment, and is why K destroyed it. Though when he did break the antenna chip Luv knew immediately that something was up, so there was at least some kind of diagnostic link.
I think this is one of Harrison Ford's greatest performances. I too had a tear in my eye at that ending.
Every time K went to visit the real child he took his time to see his hand, what i love to think that in the end he realized that he was feeling exactly the same while he was dyeing than when he thought he was the real child, just as with the dog when he asks Deckard, is the dog real? and he responds i dont know, ask him. Its pretty deep, he even began to fail the blade runner test as he started to think he was real, not even the new models can defeat the humanity of being human. A little detail I love about this movie is the little wooden horse, the guy in the pawn shop tells him, you are rich! and then you realize if you pay attention to detail, that the whole complex of offices in the wallace scenes are made out of wood, just to imply how insanely rich and powerful he is.
I'm sure this was already explained below, but in the original Blade Runner, the Tyrell Corp was trying to make Replicants to be "more human than human". Giving them memories to fall back on helped with their emotional development. Previous models couldn't handle their emotions like regular humans, which is how the Blade Runners detected them through testing (testing their emotional response to certain questions designed to generate an emotional response). K (Gosling) goes through a similar "baseline" test in 2049, but here it almost seems to also measure his own existential awareness/reaction that he is inferior/not considered to be human.
On a side note, this movie is just gorgeous. I would argue that you could take almost any shot of this movie and hang it on your wall somewhere as art.
Agree 100%.
There were some nice references which I hoped you noticed. One was when Joi was giving K the name of “Joe”, she said that a real boy needs a name.
Now while Joe might be chronologically young, it’s a stretch for her to call him a boy as he’s an adult Replicant (and at that stage thought to be 30 actual years in age if he was the Child), but I think that’s a reference to Pinocchio the wooden puppet who wanted to be “a real boy”.
Their interviews together during the press tour for this film are legendary
In the story by Philip K Dick, the movie script and its writers, Ford himself and such- Deckard was always human. It wasn't until the Director's Cut that Ridley Scott decided to "add" some changes to question this which IMO ruins the entire point of the first film in which was human vs machine. It showed the human (Deckard) as cold and devoid of connection contrasted against the machine (Batty) as passionate, eager for life, friendship (Zora, Leon) and love (Pris). In the end, Batty spared Deckard, which in turn helped him to reawaken his own humanity locked away by the world around him. The unicorn, a mythological creature, was meant to be a symbol that Rachel was one of a kind- a replicant without an expiration (incept) date- even if Gaff himself was not aware of this.
Well put!
Scott brought the issue up during filming of the original BR, if I remember correctly. However, over the years I have gotten the impression that Ridley Scott likes to indulge in a little mindf*ckery just for the fun of it, no matter whether it actually would make sense (exhibit A: his vague answer whether that planet at the beginning of "Prometheus" was supposed to be primordial Earth). This, for me, falls into the same category.
Cheers!
Funny timing. I’m watching this on my iPad. About a minute ago, an alert from my calendar came up. “Roy Batty Incept Date: January 8, 2022”
This film is so damn good. We did not deserve this sequel.
Love how we’re lead to believe that Joe’s character is the ‘chosen one’ yet he isn’t. BUT he’s still the hero of the story. Brilliant.
Denis Villeneuve's films are masterpieces, he is a true modern master. All the films are all so good and warrant rewatches. If you have not watched it, watch his 2013 film "Enemy" or his Oscar-nominated film from 2010 "Incendies". Both are under-watched and absolutely amazing!
21:38 "anyone can have Joi?"
perhaps dystopian perhaps ideal. Joi can be bought with enough money, but Luv will definitely break your heart
As a long time fan of Blade Runner, I was utterly blown away by BR2049. It is a very worthy sequel to the original.
MPC VFX absolutely knocked it out of the park with their digital Rachel; makes ILMs Tarkin & Leia look amateurish.
I had to watch this movie a 2nd time before I realised the memory of a little boy hiding the toy horse in the furnace was actually the memory of Deckard and Rachels daughter.
There were also three prequel short films leading up to the events of 2049, directed by three different directors. The last one is animated and ends with a great Lauren Daigle song.
"Ridley Scott says he's a replicant, Harrison Ford says he isn't, and countless others don't know where to begin, but there is one controversial answer that doesn't come up as frequently: the answer doesn't matter. 24. jan. 2023 Matthew Mosley "
You should watch “The Imitation Game”, starring Benedict Cummberbatch as Alan Turing. It’s a great real world intro into the question of what is the difference between human & machine thinking.
one of my favorite movie!
It's entertaining for sure, but It's also a very reductive dramatisation of the events and the various players that took part in them.
In short it's less a Bletchley Park WW2 code breakers film and more an Alan Turing film.
I didn't care for it, either as entertainment, or as an accurate picture of the actual persons or events depicted.
10:19 Edward James Olmos, who had some bit pieces in movies, mostly overseas, before being cast in Blade Runner. It was his big break, and from there his career in both film and TV took off. His most prolific role since Gaff was as William Adama in the rebooted BattleStar Galactica TV series, but if you look back over his TV history, he's had some amazing roles in things like Miami Vice (the original show) where he was in 106 episodes as Lt Martin Castillo
The fact that you are confused is exactly what Dennis Villeneuve was going for. If you are unpacking this for days, I'm sure Dennis would be very happy.
One of the most visually stunning movies of all time. Every single frame is beautiful.
19:44 - it's very sinister but if you give the replicants memories so they act more human then they're more predictable and therefore easier to control. Basically a whole history of how to control people (using psychological and physical maniplutation) is being redeployed to control the replicants. And the memories are probably designed to make the replicant better at their job - K's memory about sticking up for himself against bullies would be ideal for a replicant that need at to be assertive as a cop. He probably has more memories about the important of rules and systems of control so he follows rules.
Great reaction to a great sequel! I watched this in theater and was blown away! To me, "Blade Runner 2049" is one of the rare species of sequels that definitely can live up to their predecessors.
Fun fact: the opening scene where K kills the replicant-farmer (who's played by Dave Bautista, btw, who is also Drax in "Guardians Of The Galaxy" and appeared in "The Man With The Iron Fists" and "James Bond 007: Spectre", but in those two movies as a villain) was originally intended for the original movie as an opening that would introduce the character of Deckard and establish the tone of the movie to the audience and make them understand what Deckard's daily job is like. The farmer was therefore supposed to be just an ordinary target with no significance for the plot. They changed that for the sequel, but surprisingly kept many of the details that were first conceived by Ridley Scott, for example close-ups of the cooking pot.
I got this information from the overly long but extremely interesting and entertaining documentary "Dangerous Days: The Making Of Blade Runner". It's definitely also worth watching!
Joe and Joy wrecked me. They had their own special kind of love in a messed up world.
But in the end luv destroyed joi. Hidden message?
The whole film is thematically framed by references to Nabokov's 'Pale Fire', a book about an imaginary poem, which K quotes extensively during his baseline tests. The poem 'Pale Fire' is in part about a man having a near death experience, and believing he had witnessed a miracle, hearing of another who had a similar vision, only later to find that his hope, in proof of an afterlife, was false. The whole work is a meditation on the interaction between the authentic and the false, between faith and doubt- which this film is also. This is one of my favorite films.
Denis is so damn smooth with how subtle his films are. I still find new things in his movies that are almost completely hidden from view. Goes to show how we're all so used to Hollywood style, I think his films will have a longer lasting power into the future. Especially as the collapse happens and things slow down a lot.
I've discussed with friends about the Joi character, and one of the interesting repeated theme with her is how the replicant said to Joi's face how hollow Joi is, is this possible that it's the same prejudice that humans have toward replicants (manufactured, fake, hollow, just do your job, etc), but now a replicant to a hologram? Or is Joi almost literally an iPod, a product of a company that is styled to have and bring emotion, just to sell more product? When K saw the giant Joi, and she said "You look lonely. I can fix that." I got sad... Then she says he looks like a good "Joe", I was gutted... It really felt fake at that point, but I still don't know for sure.
I think the point is that AI has the potential to become self-aware. Joi starts as a mass product, but in the end so do babies in a way. It's the love of their parents, their surroundings, their friends, the whole society who form them and make them the human they become.
I think that giant Joi calling K "Joe" was probably quite devastating to him after finding out that he wasn't actually "the Child" but also that perhaps his Joi was only programmed to call him "Joe".
However, that's probably an oversimplication and it may well be what we saw between them was more self-awareness from the Joi AI.
@@sweeperboy A big part of what I see that blurs the lines between simulated relationship and real relationship is how she wanted to make Luv stop, sacrificing herself. Even ignoring her last words, the significance is tangible because "Dying for the right cause is the most human thing we can do."
That "God D**n it" scream when he discovers the memories are real becomes more soul crushing during every rewatch. Poor joe. Such a bittersweet arc for the hero of the story.
I'm definitely with you (as well as the writers of the original film, and Harrison Ford, and the late Rutger Hauer) with regard to the "is Deckard a Replicant" question. If he is a Replicant, it sort of undermines the thematic nature of his conflict with Roy in the original, in that we're watching a story in which a Replicant, a soulless slave who has spent his entire existence acting under the will of humans, finally becomes "more human than human" and chooses in his final moments to save Deckard from falling to his death. And of course, in a brilliant case of history repeating itself, the same thing happens here - another Replicant, who has spent his entire existence working for humans, suffers a major existential crisis, becomes a fugitive from justice, and is faced with the choice to kill Deckard. And like Roy before him, K chooses to save him, gaining his own humanity and giving Deckard a chance to live at the cost of his own life, while "Tears in the Rain" plays on the soundtrack.
Aside from the brilliant thematic cohesion, this is just a genuinely brilliant film, and a sequel that not only measures up to the quality of the original, but arguably exceeds it. The performances are all phenomenal, not just Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling, but also Robin Wright, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Dave Bautista, Mackenzie Davis, and Jared Leto. The cinematography is just **chefs kiss** beautiful, Roger Deakins was long overdue an Oscar, and I'm so glad it was this one that got it for him. The music is brilliant, the visual effects are stunning, the story is surprisingly well-paced (it's nearly 3 hours long, yet you really don't feel it), and the whole thing is directed beautifully by Denis Villeneuve (who recently did a fantastic job with Dune). It's a real shame that this film failed at the box office, I really hope it gets a major reappraisal in the future and becomes a classic like its predecessor
I think you got it pretty spot on! I love that your channel makes it like we all can enjoy movies with you. Especially if we have seen them and are sharing these experiences with you. Its fun to see your take on all the films. I love how you present these and how RUclips and other platforms make it possible!