๐ŸŽฆ Blade Runner 2049 full movie english download, Blade Runner 2049 full movie download mp4 in english, Blade Runner 2049 full movie free download in english. ๐ŸŽฌ
Blade Runner 2049
Year:
2017
Country:
USA, UK, Canada
Genre:
Thriller, Mystery, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.6
Director:
Denis Villeneuve
Robin Wright Penn as Lieutenant Joshi
Tรณmas Lemarquis as File Clerk
Mackenzie Davis as Mariette
Sallie Harmsen as Female Replicant
Dave Batista as Sapper Morton
Mark Arnold as Interviewer
Wood Harris as Nandez
Hiam Abbass as Freysa
Jared Leto as Niander Wallace
Storyline: Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
LQ 1280x720 px 5435 Mb h264 5619 Kbps mkv Download
Reviews
Needs Cutting
Great movie but way too long... needs to be cut down to say, two hours or less...

On the plus side: Ryan Gosling and most of the main actors. Great cinematography, sets and effects, appropriately clangorous music.

On the minus side: Unbelievable Wallace character, overacted by Jared Leto; unbelievable and sentimentalising relationship with 'virtual' female companion for K, too much screen time spent wallowing in this - the noir type hero should go home and drink his whisky alone!

Also,some plot doubtfuls: Firstly, K's ability to crash through walls without suffering any damage...

Secondly, how his flying car ploughs through iron and steel junk without breaking the window glass, and, after that, how can the bad girl obliterate the crowd of attackers so that there are not even any bodies left when K walks from his vehicle? Thirdly: why the heck do the assassins leave K alive when they abduct Deckard... doesn't make any sense... except as what it crassly is: to save him for the big showdown at the end...
2017-10-15
So 35 years of wait is finally over... Was it worth the wait???
This is my updated review as I feel I did not do the movie justice and I have also increased my score of the movie...

I was one of the lucky ones who got to see an early preview.... And the more that time passes by and the more the story of Blade Runner 2049 sinks in the more the gravity of the story hits me... First of all it really was not what I was expecting... I had watched many trailers and interviews and I feel like I had done quite a successful job in staying away from spoilers....

And....

Without spoiling it for anyone else and giving too much away.... Whatever you think you know about the film... well, forget it.... You're way off the mark...

The best advice I can give though is however dark you think Blade Runner 2049 is.... It's darker than that.... It's much darker than the original... And the original was quite dark.... The cinematography is beautiful... it really is stunning... but the film itself.... did I mention it was dark??.. I think this is amplified (excuse the pun) by the movie's soundtrack... The work of Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch was for me... at times.... malevolent... And perhaps if the music wasn't so dark and hostile the movie itself wouldn't come across like that also... But then what do I know?... That's not to say the music is bad... It was for me.... like I said malevolent.... As for the movie itself... Again without giving too much away.... It's a story of loneliness.... A story of wanting nothing more than to be accepted... It's a story of desperate hope and anguish... Wanting for a better life.... Replicants being more human than humans, being more perfect than humans.... but not being human and wanting nothing more than to be human... even for all the faults the human race has and the perfection of the replicant race... Still the desperate hope and anguish of wanting to be human.... Are you keeping up??... And this whole time living in a dystopian world.... where the future of the human race is a lost cause and Mother Earth has never looked so heartbroken....

Speaking of heartbreak... again without spoiling the story... be prepared... the whole story is a story of heartbreak and literally at every turn Ryan Gosling is having his heart broken.... whether that be his relationships with others or his life in general... For me Ryan Gosling has a knack of playing the lonely leading role... and he has done this on a few occasions now.... both in the movies - "Drive" and "Only God Forgives".... which I hope he doesn't end up being typecast in... but saying that... I don't think there is an actor alive today who can play the role of being totally isolated from the rest of the world better than Ryan Gosling.

Blade Runner 2049 did have some nice surprises... which again... I won't spoil...

In closing.... Ryan Gosling is excellent... It is Harrison Ford's best work for years.... This overall review may sound like I'm being negative about Blade Runner 2049... But I'm not... I'm really not...

As for where it stands next to the original... I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I think as years pass by it will stand next to the original Blade Runner quite easily.... It's not the same movie as the original but it is as good as the original in its own right...

I think Ryan Gosling said it best in an interview

The film is incredible... it's.... haunting...

With this in mind a few days have passed now and I am still left with a feeling of being haunted by Blade Runner 2049....

So much so that I want to see it again and I will go and see it again... and again... and again....

Just like I did the original...

Blade Runner 2049 "is" incredible....

It's...

Haunting
2017-10-05
Good Atmosphere, but not a good movie.
Blade runner was not an enjoyable movie for me. People are praising the atmosphere. They are correct to do so, however there is more to a movie then atmosphere.

The movie was really slow, even boring. I think it really comes down to three things. The atmosphere was dark and depressing, the plot was very slow to develop, the main character was unemotional. Any one of those things, or even two and it could still have worked, but with all three makes the movie slow and plodding. And that is besides the fact that the thing the bad guy was after just did not make sense, and they covered it up by making him not wholly rational even though he was a CEO of one of the largest companies on Earth.

The original movie was good in large part because of the gray, because of the unknowns in it. Were Replicants machines or not? Was Decker a Replicant or not? Was what he was doing right or not? The new one has a more cookie cutter plot, there are bad guys and good guys and they make clear early on that the Replicants are human.

www.JoshuaLawrencePike.com
2017-10-14
A Long Wait for Disappointment
In 1982 I was deeply excited about the prospect of seeing "Blade Runner," and can remember applying for a chance to see an advance showing in Sacramento. From the start it seemed obvious that it was a special film--clouded in controversy and mystery. Later I acquired my much-viewed VHS copy, with all the eye-gouging, nail-puncturing violence. Later still the Internet provided background information as, eventually, did articles plus a comprehensive book by Paul M. Sammon. In short, I am a fan, and was eagerly anticipating the sequel.

So, it was with disappointment that I left an October 6, 2017 showing "Blade Runner 2049." Overly long, boring, poorly paced, and confusing were my initial impressions, though admittedly it was beautifully filmed (potential Oscar nomination in cinematography?).

I appreciated the many (too many?) subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the original film, the effort to build on the "Blade Runner" universe, and efforts by writers, directors, and actors to bring the story to life. But there were just too many scenes that should have been reduced in length from 25-50% of their run time. Such excess in a film is, to me, almost always a fatal flaw. And some scenes (e.g., where characters "Joi" and "Mariette" merge to make love to "K") could have been cut altogether, I feel, without harming the story.

The acting was satisfactory or better, for the most part, as one would expect from the level of supporting talent.* However, I have knowingly seen two pictures starring Ryan Gosling—2016's "La La Land" and now this—and in both he is bland and wooden. Despite the fact that "2049's" "K" is SUPPOSED to be a self-controlled, artificial humanoid, I wonder if it is just Gosling's natural on- (and off-) screen persona. And frankly, Harrison Ford's "Deckard" just did not work for me. Sacrilegious, I know; but true. I blame this on two factors.

First, Ford appears (too) late in the movie, by which time I was already exhausted by tedium. Second, for a character without appearance-changing makeup, a dramatic accent, say, or pronounced behavioral distinctions, it is hard not to just see Harrison Ford. (Kind of like Robert Redford miscast in 1985's "Out of Africa.") Oh, it's (old) Harrison Ford again. Sorry HF fans everywhere.

And another thing; due to poor direction, they included "Admiral William Adama" (Edward James Olmos) from TV's "Battlestar Galactica," and not "Gaff" (also Olmos), in a too brief cameo. (Listen to "Gaff" in the 1982 original. Totally different voicing.)

Like most films, it suffered from its share of "Oh, come on!" moments. Why would 6-foot "K" allow 6-foot-6 Dave Bautista's imposing "Sapper Morton" to make the first move (and thus begin the accumulation of a ridiculous amount of damage, most of it unnecessary, sustained by "K" throughout the story)? Because that's what movie detectives do. I must say, "K" apparently likes to pass violently through solid walls (a nod to Rutger Hauer's "Roy Batty" head in the original, I take it).

Almost all action-adventure films are silly in hindsight and full of movie plot clichés—"Blade Runner 20149" is no exception. But the test of a good movie is whether the story flows at a pace that makes audiences subconsciously accept and even relish these otherwise nonsensical encumbrances (see 1999's "The Matrix"). For my part I was less inclined to give "2049" a pass on the silliness due to its plodding nature.

Ridley Scott is prominently associated with both the recent "Alien" and Blade Runner" franchises, and has promised multiple sequels. Do we want this? Is state-of-the-art movie-making worth either ridiculously poor stories (the "Alien" franchise) or bad plotting and editing ("Blade Runner 2049")? It's admittedly hard to make a good movie, but Scott and his people are paid a LOT of money to do so. Check Scott's IMDb filmography. Can any mortal be involved first-hand in that many projects? As with Stephen King, maybe it's time to stop the quantity and re-focus on the quality? Just saying…

In conclusion, my disappointment focused primarily on the script and editing.**

Some recommendations to potential viewers: First, if you plan to see "Blade Runner 2049" it will help to see one of 37 versions (e.g., voice-over or no voice-over?; graphic violence shots or not?) of the original 1982 film beforehand. Second, maybe wait to watch the movie digitally, so that you can re-play key scenes and increase volume on important dialogue. In the theater I kept mentally reaching for a non-existent remote control. Third, (after Recommendation One) if like me you hold the original picture in deep admiration as a flawed but intriguing analog masterpiece of SF movie-making, consider skipping this sequel altogether. But I imagine that warning will fall on deaf ears.

_____

* Because of the look and feel of two female characters in the film, I wonder if actresses Felicity Jones ("Rogue One") and Tatiana Maslany ("Orphan Black") were originally considered for the parts eventually played by Ana de Armas (companion hologram "Joi") and Sylvia Hoeks (deadly replicant "Luv"). While watching the trailer footage, I originally mistook those two characters for actresses Jones and Maslany. Their doppelgangers did just fine, though. Hoeks' "Luv" is particularly chilling.

** Oh, and the music! Not so good. Too often I was aware of background music--that by itself is not a good thing--and its shortcomings. So much so that by the end of "2049," where original "Blade Runner" music ("Tears in the Rain," I think) is (finally) used, it left me with mixed feelings. First, thank god! Second, where was that musical excellence during the rest of the film? Music can make or break a film, and is incredibly important. Few excellent films have poor musical soundtracks. Unfortunately, "Blade Runner 2049" is not an exception to that guideline.
2017-10-07
Stop It. Please Just Stop
Has this world gone insane? Are you all mad? Is it madness or are your deeds making me feel it is a crazy world? People are blowing each other up, presidents are blatantly lying in people's faces and getting their vote, ministries are making war and being called Ministry Of Defense, companies are polluting the planet and getting richer and on and on and on.

Here comes a sequel for a classic of cinema that is currently rated higher than its original. The professional critics dutifully according it superlative reviews is not a surprise. The weekly release of a new Marvel movie gets the usual high reviews from this bunch, which tells me they are on the take. How does one explain the 10/10 perfect reviews on IMDb? Do these reviewers actually believe this is the absolute immaculate and perfect film with nothing in it that could be improved in any way?? I would accept this world as a more sane place if you tell me this is a case of fake shill reviews paid for by the studio (as happened with Star Wars The Force Awakens and others). That I would believe and (sadly) understand. Otherwise, is there someone who really thinks this sequel is better than the original and is perfect?? This film deserves 2/10 for its images and graphics and not much else. The women are eye candies for sure so add another point, but otherwise the inferior music that goes off for no reason, the non-ending that is surely an attempt to set up more sequels and inane dialogue are a shame to the name Blade Runner.

Were the makers able to get away with using the name because Philip K Dick has died and cannot stop them?
2017-10-14
Blade Runner 2049: The middle east of movies
When you think it can't get any worse, it will. You see it, right in front of you. You know it's there and it is happening but you can't do anything about it, as much as you want to, besides watching it.

This was the most dull movie I have seen this year. In fact, the only feeling of excitement I achieved from this movie was when I got surprised about how much worse it could get and I felt relieved when the credits rolled. I really tried to get into it. Really tried getting that special connection with the characters and the story but it seemed like everyone involved in this movie just wanted to get it over with. As a huge childhood fan of Indiana Jones and Star Wars, I'm sad to ask Hollywood to let Harrison Ford rest in piece.

I did not find anything to like in the two hours I was sitting in the cinema, besides the popcorn on my lap. The sounds and the timing of them were misplaced, the whole plot was portrayed badly. Speaking of the plot, it's sort of like a little kinder garden boy making a mug for his dad. It's a great idea and a very awesome thing to do but in all honesty, the end result is food for the garbage bin.

It was obvious they used good old Ford to make this movie more relevant to gain a bigger audience and that's a sad sight. I don't believe none of us want to see people used up and thrown away but they need to leave Harrison Ford alone. They shouldn't have brought him in the title as he was just as relevant as Batista who appears and dies within the first few minutes of the movie.

Sorry but this was just awful.
2017-10-08
What a bore
What a bore.

The film felt like it went on for a lot longer than it actually was, and with a very thin plot stretched out for 2 hours and 40 minutes. It would have been quicker to read 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' by Philip K Dick, which influenced the original film.

The imagery and special affects are spectacular. The sound track is clearly influenced by the original film and was quite good. The film didn't get anywhere near the atmosphere of the 1982 film.

There were times when it was hard to hear some of the dialogue but as most of that dialogue was pointless waffle that wasn't too much of an issue. There were long scenes of dull silence followed by long scenes of needless chatter, all with no action or interest.

I got so bored watching this I counted 17 people leave the screen in the last hour of the film who didn't return.

Ryan Gosling (K) was mostly poor throughout the film. A small tree in a leather jacket could have played that role just as well.

Ana de Armas (Joi) stood out amongst the cast as K's hologram love interest, backed by spectacular computer imagery.

Jered Leto played Niander Wallace, for some reason. His scenes were amongst the longest and most tedious. They went on and on with the dullest dialogue in the whole film.

I since found out that Director Denis Villeneuve is also responsible for Sicario and Arrival. If I'd known beforehand I wouldn't have bothered going to see the third film in his 'Trilogy of Tripe'.

Don't go out of your way to see this. Stay at home and watch the 1982 original, it's so much better.
2017-10-07
Low energy-Horrible Script
Good luck trying to sort this non sequitur. This movie drags on without a good script to boost it, even when Harrison Ford finally shows up. The only thing it is has is lots of nudity. It reminds me of how a Chinese person sees the future...worse than it is now. As usual, it includes the near apocalypse barren world of overcrowding, no food, no water and no trees. All of which is garbage except for those poor souls who live under a socialist type rule.

Apparently this movie is a no go without the volume played at ear drum piercing levels, so bring along your ear plugs and forget asking the manager to turn it down, because it isn't going to happen.

This one is a big fat 2.
2017-10-10
When a Blade Loses It's Edge.
Beautiful and empty Bladerunner 2049 is the needless squeal to the 1980s classic.

Set 30+ years after the events of the first film we meet Ryan Gosling continuing in the Bladerunner tradition of shooting robots. Along the way, he discovers a great secret that might change the social order of a world that is made up of humans and they're purpose built slaves.

All of that was covered in the first 20 minutes of the film by the way. Skip ahead to the 3rd act, grumpy Harrison Ford shows up and, well, that's about it.

Leaving the theatre my wife and I tried to decide just why Bladerunner left us both feeling so indifferent to it's existence. She had never seen the first film, I had, but our feelings were the same. Bladerunner is great to look at and I appreciated the nods to the original, but, it became quickly apparent our apathy stemmed from the fact nothing much happens in this movie.

Office K's (Gosling) investigation into a missing person moves at snails pace and none of the people we meet along the way are as interesting as the scenery around them. One example is Wallace (Jared Leto) the new Tyrell and the main villain of the film. His speeches are dull and only go to serve the plot, he leaves all of his serious evilness to his sidekick while he stays home sporting a handicap which must be a desired physical affectation considering how easily it could be treated in his time.

The main theme in both Bladerunner movies is one day the slaves will cast off their chains and be free. Sure, there's stuff about love and self-awareness but these are side issues that have been explored elsewhere to better effect. The main focus of 2049 is humanity needs an indentured underclass to do its heavy lifting and either you are for it or against it and that is a pretty thin premise for a movie this long.

Late in the film Officer K sits on a deck chair staring out over an irradiated city. He looks like a man lost, not knowing where to go next. This moment is the perfect metaphor for Bladerunner 2049. All of it's surprises are revealed too early on leaving both the audience and characters to mull over the same obvious of choices for the rest of the movie.

A wasted opportunity.
2017-10-14
Did I lose the plot?
I'm not often lost for words, but I really don't know what to say about this belated sequel to Ridley Scott's 1982 BLADE RUNNER. The original was visually stunning and densely plotted. This new version is even more dazzling to look at, but if there's a plot to be found, I'm afraid I lost it. Ryan Gosling plays 'K', a new generation hunter of rogue androids for the LAPD. In other words he's the new Deckard (Harrison Ford) who was hunting rogue androids in 2019 Los Angeles (the 1982 movie was set in 2019). But he ends up tracking Deckard who has himself (I think) gone rogue. There are humans who may be androids and androids who may be humans, but this confusion was a major element in the first movie and there's a lot more of it now.

At two and three-quarter hours the film is way too long. There's a protracted sequence towards the end in (I think) Las Vegas, in an arena peopled by flickering holograms of bygone stars (Sinatra, Monroe, Elvis, Liberace), which for me encapsulated the whole movie: a feast for the eyes but overkill for the brain. High concept - low impact. Don Siegel's 1955 INVASION OF THE BODY-SNATCHERS is still my favourite sci-fi.

Doubtless the fault is with me but I came away, as I did from INCEPTION and SHUTTER ISLAND, with the feeling that I'd been looking at the Emperor's New Clothes. I wouldn't say Don't go to see this picture, but be prepared to be very (very) bewildered.
2017-10-11
See Also
๐Ÿ“น Blade Runner 2049 full movie english download, Blade Runner 2049 full movie with english subtitles free download, Blade Runner 2049 full movie download with english subtitles. ๐Ÿ“€
×