oragex

Rotten Tomatoes have done a big mistake: they proved their contributors are the slaves of Disney - I use the world slaves so as I don't have to use more worrying words such as sponsored or under pressure or owing to. This may be the end for Rotten Tomatoes, when a review site is proving that it's reviews are actually under the influence of a particular player of the industry: in such situation the site must disappear as no one is interested in subjective reviews.

You see, RT gives this movie a 90%. IMDB gives a more realistic 75% and even then, it's sure IMDB has received many fake votes because it's too easy to have an account and to vote 10/10 without leaving a written review.

Aren't all these good marks disturbing when all the reviews posted here on IMDB are abyssal and ditch the movie? So where from are the positive ratings? Thank you Disney, now we know that you have influence on 'independent' critics and that you have people who work for you to leave fake ratings.

But you know how I know all this? Simple, I check the reviews on local websites that the film industry is not aware of, websites were only the actual people who have seen the movie rate it. Such site is this one, oh no, the movie is rated only 6.7 from 384 reviewers. What happened?

That said, what can I say about the movie itself? I'm writing this is an entirely different manner that all other reviewers. How? Very simple, I'm reviewing this title after putting in my mind that it is not a Star Wars movie, but just another ordinary recent movie. So I'm reviewing it without any thought of an already existing series, or fan base, or existing characters, plot, past success, etc. Another criteria I'm using: I forget about the last 10 minutes in the movie. Why? Because you may have noticed but these days, the directors put out an empty plot but add in the last 5-10 minutes of the movie something spectacular because the people will always keep in memory that last part of the movie and will say it was great because the last minutes were amazing. It's a marketing trick that works well.

The movie is not only boring, it simply doesn't have action. Very long scenes with empty talk, by very long I mean 5-10 minutes long scenes with two or three characters that just talk, not important talk, just filling up the time with needless conversation. This is worst than a soap opera, because the cheap talking in a soap opera is still related to some events. The characters are empty of charisma and personality, they are not interesting to watch and you don't attach emotionally to any of them, except to Adam Driver.

There is no actual subject in the movie: the characters just sit there like they are waiting for the director to bring the papers with the plot. I am watching this and the soap opera B&B (I'm watching it when I go chat with my step mother! just to make fun of her with that Ridge and Brooke, not to mention Taylor characters) comes to my mind: the soap opera is fun to watch and laugh about it, yet it has some discernible characters with a good presence and a clear personality. I start thinking, this Star Wars movie doesn't even have that. Not even the ultra cheap intrigue of the soap opera is present in the Star Wars. To me this movie is a newspaper: a printed paper, thin as an ordinary paper sheet with the only remarkable attribute being the black on white contrast of the letters.

First and foremost the title is a scam. This movie is called "2049", not "Blade Runner 2049".

This is not a sequel of the Ridley Scott's 1982 movie. It is a different Sci-Fi movie.

Ridley Scott has done a one time wonder. He proved he can do a REAL movie, something which was rarely reproduced in the commercial film history. He knew he was spending with his movie both in money and time much more than it was normally allowed for a commercial film meant to make money. Therefore, his 1982 movie was something like a handmade custom build car ordered by a wealthy magnate. Or think of a very expensive, single production handmade timepiece watch. This is why the 1982 movie was never and will never be reproduced, until some oligarch and big fan of the Ridley movie will dispose $1B dollars in actual money to order a new Blade Runner just for his own liking. The 1982 movie had real characters (with the exception of Ford) something specific to the independent movie industry or to foreign films with truly talented directors and actors. It also had this extremely rare quality of pulling yourself from your sofa or theater seat, and literally bring you in a completely new universe and keep you right there almost physically to the point of smelling the running water for the 2 hours of the movie.

As for the "2049" movie, it has nothing like the 1982 production. It has superficial characters - OK play overall, but a few miles away from a quality acting and a further few light years from a remarkable performance. All the actors from the Ridley movie are absent, with the notable exception of Ford - which was actually the single problem of the 1982 movie. So basically they kept the single worst aspect of the 1982 movie and put it in the 2049 movie. The power of transporting you in another world from the 1982 movie is absent, the music of Vangelis is absent, the almost 4D sets are absent, the striking characters are gone. Like ... tears.. in rain.