The MoFo Top 100 Neo-noir Countdown

"I didn't think BR2049 was all that bad" he said, right before flinging his poo.

AWARDS?


Blade Runner 2049 received a looot of nominations and awards. These are some of the most notable:

• Nine (9) Saturn Award nominations, including a win for Best Science Fiction Film
• Eight (8) BAFTA Film Award nominations, including a win for Best Cinematography (Roger Deakins)
• Seven (7) Critics Choice Award nominations, including Best Cinematography (Deakins)
• Five (5) Academy Award nominations, including a win for Best Cinematography (Deakins)
• Four (4) Satellite Award nominations, including Best Visual Effects
• Three (3) Hollywood Film Awards, including Cinematography of the Year (Deakins)

__________________

AWARDS?


To Live and Die in L.A. received the following nominations or awards:

• One (1) Audience Award at the Cognac Festival du Film Policier
• Two (2) Stuntman Awards for Best Vehicular Stunt and Most Spectacular Sequence

Oof! Not one to pull punches, I see.

I'm probably the only one here who is yet to see Blade Runner 2049.

To Live and Die in L.A. is decent but not a favorite.

I'm somewhere in-between. I'm not nearly as harsh in my critiques against it, as it is a gorgeous film. Gosling was alright, but a bit miscast. It's definitely a noir, albeit one with a bloated budget.


Honestly, it probably would've worked better if they hadn't tried to connect it to the original movie, and made it an unrelated story set in the same world. Leave Harrison at home.

I haven't seen either of today's movies, or the original Blade Runner for that matter.

__________________

I haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 or To Live and Die and LA. Well I saw a bit of To Live and Die, but I wasn't really enjoying it so I bailed. So nope and nope.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

The production itself is very impressive. The production design, cinematography, and special effects will certainly win some awards.

The story is engaging enough, and carries some suspense with it. However it would be helpful to watch the original Blade Runner from 1982 in order to understand the significance of some of the characters and plot points. The Rachel character, e.g., is integral to the understanding of the story. I had seen the original when it was released, but I couldn't remember the finer points of the story; only what a blade runner was, replicants, and the then wonderful special effects.

As others have mentioned, the pacing was too slow. It isn't that the movie was too long, but it was the way it was wound out. Still, 20-30 minutes could easily have been removed, and the narrative tightened up. The film may have relied too heavily on the assumption that the viewers would be very familiar with the base story. The story might have been explained a little more obviously for first time viewers, even to the point of using a narrator. "K" or another character might have offered some recaps.

The other contributor to its slowness was the relentless portrayal of the dystopian, bleak atmosphere, undergirded by the ponderous electronic droning music score. Those two elements weigh down the experience, and could have used some contrasting breaks to refresh the audience.

The time setting was anchored to the original, which was supposed to take place in 2019. So adding 30 years gave them the title. Yet no one could expect the conditions displayed in the new film to possibly occur in 2049- 31 years from now. A more apt year would be 2149 or even 2249. But as a sequel (which in itself was "mis-yeared") they were stuck with the time frame.

To sum, I thought it to be a good film, but being familiar with the original would be a big plus before watching Blade Runner 2049.

I've been a fan of To Live and Die in L.A. since it came out but it just missed my ballot.

The new Blade Runner was a chore for me to get through, just like the old Blade Runner.

Perfect!

Yeah, no. 2049 doesn’t retroactively alter Scott’s (or Dick’s) original ideas. And again, the whole theme of the movie is to question what makes someone human and so the uncertainty of Deckard’s humanity is the point. Is Deckard different than the replicants? Are not the replicants more “human” than many actual humans? If you can’t tell apart a replicant and a human, does it matter? Anyone is free to interpret the film as they see fit, but that central question of Deckard’s humanness must be there, or all you have are cool settings and some android being hunted.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

no votes. loved blade runner 2049 when it came out (saw it twice in theatres), but i don't think it's held up on recent rewatches, either on its own terms or as a sequel to blade runner (it's arguably worse in the case of the latter as it struggles to either build on - or distinguish itself from - its predecessor in any genuinely positive way). i remember enjoying to live and die in l.a. but i haven't seen it in forever and have been meaning to do a rewatch - of all the titles i've said this about, this seems like the prime instance where i mean it.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I watched To Live and Die recently and enjoyed it. But didn't make my ballot.

BR2049 is ace. It was a fine sequel worhty of that world. I didn't consider it neo-noir even though there are obvious paralells with noir photography, and also Citizen Kane.

I think you're forgetting who you're playing with here?


The Grifters is another I'd have put on my list had it occured to me. I've not seen it since the early 90's, but I didn't have a full list anyway so I'd have almost certainly added it.

One I did remember though, was To Live And Die In L.A..which I had a #8 and, looking at my list now, probably should've had at #7 though I doubt it matters in terms of placing?

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.