Blade Runner 2049: Unnecessary Doesn't Always Mean Bad

I'm sorry, guys, but I just don't get Blade Runner. I don't understand the hype. Like, it's heralded as not just a great movie, but one of the best movies ever made right up there with Star Wars and Aliens. And I just don't get it. A friend of mine showed it to me way back in high school. It was one of his favorite movies, and I think I was expecting more of a Star Wars/Indiana Jones type Harrison Ford 80s movie and I found it to be overwhelmingly boring. Flash forward to two nights ago. I'd been wanting to see Blade Runner 2049, but I thought I better check out the original again first. Who knows? Maybe I just wasn't ready for what the movie had to offer back in high school. Maybe I didn't like it because I had different expectations. I mean, I saw The Godfather back in high school too and I thought it was boring as hell. I re-watched it earlier this year and it's one of the best damn movies I've ever seen in my life. I had to give Blade Runner another shot. I researched and found that really the only version Ridley Scott approves of is called "The Final Cut", so that's the one I watched. And guys... I just don't get it. I hated it. It was still boring. It was still too slow. There would be scenes that lasted several minutes of people just walking. Harrison Ford zooming in on a picture took nearly five damn minutes. I know it's not fair to criticize the acting in an early 80s movie, but it's comical. And that's the only thing funny about it-- the unintenionally bad acting. The movie is humorless, lifeless, and stylistically up its own ass. And I think the concept of the movie is fantastic. I loved the concept and was ready to go on this journey, but I hated the execution. By the end of the film I failed to see two important aspects-- first, why EVERYONE who loves the movie is so hell-bent on arguing "Is Deckard a replicant or not?" Who the hell cares? The issue is brought up exactly one time and doesn't delve into the question any further. And the second aspect I failed to see is how in the hell this movie needed/warranted any sort of sequel whatsoever?

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way and established that I am not a fan of the original film, and in fact can't really stand it... I absolutely loved Blade Runner 2049. Like, not just enjoyed it, not just thought it was a vast improvement over its predecessor... but loved it. Without diving too deeply into the story and giving anything away, here's what I can tell you-- set 30 years after the events of the first film, Ryan Gosling plays 'K', a blade runner replicant. If you recall from the first film, blade runners were essentially cops who sought out replicants to "retire" them. However, now, a new strain of replicants have been built by billionaire Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) who obey their masters instead of causing revolt. These new replicants now hunt all of the outlawed older models down. Also, don't worry, I didn't just blow any sort of secret or twist by revealing Gosling is a robot. This is legitimately the first bit of information you're given on him within the first three minutes of the movie. Blade runner 'K' uncovers a dark secret in the replicant world that now leads him down a path of trying to find ex-blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) for answers and truth. Unfortunately, that's all I am able to give you... but that's all you need.

Director Denis Villeneuve had a risky job to perform. On one hand, he needed to create a sequel to a beloved film with die hard fans. It's almost as daunting a task as making a Star Wars movie today. However, he also had to modernize the movie and make it palatable for new film goers who maybe aren't as familiar with the source material, or in my case, strongly dislike the source material. Whatever he did to figure out how to weave both of these dynamics into a single film, he did so successfully. While Blade Runner 2049 still feels like a Blade Runner film, he was able to find all of the short-comings of the original movie, fix them, as well as modernizing the story for a contemporary audience. And this is clearly coming from a man who is in love with the first film. There's much more excitement, much more tension, much more humor, much more weirdness (in a good way), but less of the cheese and arrogance of the first film. Villeneuve is the perfect choice, too, for this type of movie. Coming off his brilliant last film, Arrival, what he brings to sci-fi is a slow burn and nuance rather than CGI and explosions. His science fiction is cerebral and quiet, favoring a build up that's both relaxing as well as tense. The soundtracks to his films, especially Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 have the ability to provide heightened tension as well as send goosebumps down your spine. Much like Edgar Wright did with the matching up music perfectly to his action sequences of Baby Driver, Villeneuve understands how important the score is to a film like this one, and matches up his film to sustained booming and held synthesizer notes. (Apologies if this is crudely explained... I'm not very versed in music terminology, but you'll understand once you see it.)

The film is also gorgeous. The futuristic world still has that neo-noir feel to it, as is necessary when making a Blade Runner film, but Villeneuve also uses color better than most directors. Each part of the world 'K' travels to has a new color scheme attached to it. The city is a bleak black, the country is covered in shades of gray, the desert is a washed orange, the inside of Wallace's compound is a harsh yellow. The color mixed with the soundtrack is something almost hypnotizing. It's gorgeous and just a joy to watch and necessary to see in a theater (though I do think it might look even better on a 4K TV once released to purchase). Blade Runner 2049 almost reminds me of another Gosling film, Drive. It's a quiet film that uses color and sound to provide most of the atmosphere while saving dialogue for only truly important moments... only, you know... set in an alternate futuristic world. Gosling is once again, perfect. He's learned that as an actor he's able to communicate more without words than he is with them. And being a replicant, his performance is even more understandably subdued. Harrison Ford doesn't show up until about the third act... which I honestly didn't mind.  The story is more about leading up to the discovery of Ford's Deckard, rather than what happens after the two meet. But, the time that we get with Ford (and it is ample-- the movie is eleven minutes shy of three hours) is perfect. He's still a versatile actor who constantly reminds us that he can be the leading-man action star, but that he's also still got the dramatic acting chops. Unlike Deckard in the original, I feel there is more depth to this Deckard (and he's actually got a personality-- complete with some actual humorous moments-- go figure). It's good that Gosling was cast because Ford is a huge draw for a lot of fans, but with a very capable and watchable actor like Gosling as the lead, they're not going to be disappointed that Ford is relegated to the last 1/3rd of the film.

The only problems I can see moviegoers having with this movie (of which I had none) is they need to go into the movie with an open mind. Don't go in thinking you're going to be seeing an sci-fi full of action, adventure and mayhem. While there is some, it's infrequent. It's a journey that takes its time without ever lagging or boring the audience (something that is quite difficult to do with a near three hour run time). And there's also the fact that you're watching a movie where the lead protagonist is a robot. Some (including my lovely fiancee) may have a difficult time connecting to a non-human character. It's like this-- you either felt empathy for the robots in Westworld and rooted for their uprising, or you realized they are just artificial beings who are designed to look human and you honestly couldn't give two shits. If you are the latter of the two, you may find it difficult to care much about anything going on in the film. As with most sequels, yes, this film is entirely unnecessary. Blade Runner 100% did not need a sequel for any reason. However, if it was going to happen anyway, be glad this is the film that you get because I can't figure out a single way it could be any better.

SIDE NOTE: Just so you're aware... Blade Runner 2049 has zero connection with Blade or The Maze Runner. If you think this didn't need to actually be mentioned to the general population, you'd be wrong.

A