Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Jared Leto,
Robin Wright, Dave Bautista, Sean Young
What has always attracted me to Blade Runner (1982), and part
of the reason why it’s one of my favorite science fiction films ever (topped
only by Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey) are its themes. The film asks one of
the most thought-provoking questions of all time: why must we die? The question
of our mortality has haunted us since the dawn of time. Why are we born with an
expiration date? One for the ages to be sure, but one that Ridley Scott and his
crew weren’t afraid to ask back in 1982. Which is why that scene in which Roy
Batty kills his creator for being unable to give him more life struck me as a
great example of a film that knows its themes well and truly explores them. “You
were made as good as we could make you” is the answer Tyrell, the ‘God of
Biomechanics’ gives his creations. Live your life to the fullest, but rest
assured, you’re going to die. That frustration
and anger we all feel at the fact that we know we are going to die is explored on
Blade Runner with laser clear precision. The film really dives into its themes
with reckless abandon. It asks questions and attempts to give us answers, even
if said answers are dark and hopeless. And it delivers these dark explorations
with beauty and poetry.
Of course, when standing on the shoulders of such a giant,
the makers of Blade Runner 2049 must’ve been concerned with delivering a film
that was just as compelling and thought provoking as the original. Which of
course was never going to be an easy task. Ridley Scott’s film is good on so
many levels, it has memorable
characters, incredible dialog, amazing art direction, incredible special
effects and music…it’s that rare “perfect” film that is extremely hard to top. I
give kudos to Denis Villeneuve’s for having the guts to tackle the sequel of such
a masterpiece. Was Blade Runner 2049 a worthy sequel? How does it compare to
the first film? Can it be its own thing?
On Blade Runner 2049 we are presented with a new Android
Executioner (a.k.a. Blade Runner) called agent ‘K’, who is assigned to retire a
rebellious android who is passing itself for a farmer. Agent K ends up
stumbling upon a mystery, which will lead him to a discovery that can shake the
very foundations of society itself. Will he take the task and open this Pandora’s
Box?
I have to give it to Hampton Fancher and Michael Green, the writers
behind this sequel, because they actually came up with some interesting
concepts for this movie. The concepts are so good that they could branch
off into entirely different films, which says a lot about the complexities of
the concepts behind Blade Runner 2049. This movie has more meat to it than 90%
percent of what passes for science fiction these days. And that “meat” is
merely the backdrop of the story. The
actual plot of Blade Runner 2049 concerns itself with continuing exactly where
the original film leaves off, with Deckard running off with Rachel to god knows
where. This makes perfect sense when we take in consideration that Fancher also
wrote the first film, so he’s picking up the story right where he left it.
Blade Runner 2049 has gotten lots of praise for its visuals and
I agree, the film looks astonishing. Denis Villeneuve pays huge amounts of
respect to the original film. You’ll feel you are in the same world that Ridley
Scott presented us with in the first film. From the crummy, dirty streets
filled with mutants to the flying police cars and the nonstop rain. It was
great seeing landmarks from the first film like the Tyrell Corporation Pyramids
or all those neon holograms promoting every sort of product available to man. I
mean, Villeneuve succeeded in recreating that visual complexity that Ridley
Scott is so good at conjuring on his films. Fans of the original Blade Runner
are in for a real treat. It’s got that classy Film Noir vibe we all love from
Blade Runner, its still very much a science fictin film mixed with a detective story.
I was extremely disappointed that Vangelis was not used as
the composer for Blade Runner 2049 because to me, the Vangelis score in Blade
Runner (1982) is a huge part of what
emotes in conjunction with the visuals, such a unique cinematic experience. Vangelis’s
music is sampled and reused in 2049, but instead letting him come up with a new
score, they brought it in Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, which I will
admit did an amazing job here anyway. The sounds used to compliment the visuals
effectively evoke that dark science fiction vibe, it’s not Vangelis, but its mind-blowing
in its own way. I’ve seen the film twice already and realized just how
fantastic that musical score is. So prepare yourselves to dive into an amazing
audio visual experience.
Though the film is amazing in many ways, it did have some
flaws. One of the things that just didn’t work for me were the unanswered plot
points, purposely left that way to be answered in a possible sequel. I
personally don’t like to see scenes shoehorned in there for the sake of setting
up a franchise, but whatever, you might not care. The original Blade Runner
wasn’t concerned with establishing a franchise, they just did the one great
film. To me it feels distracting, especially if you’re not even sure if there
will be a sequel at all. You'll be left wondering what happened to certain characters, so be ready for that. Another thing is that to me 2049 is not as crystal clear with its themes as
its predecessor. What is Blade Runner 2049 really about? Is it trying to answer
any big questions? It is not as crystal clear as the first film. For now all I can say is that it is a film that warrants a
few viewings to really grasp it, which means its a film that begs to be analyzed. I missed that focus in themes I got with the original film. But even with its flaws, the film is amazing on so many other levels
that it balances the pros and cons out. I do hope more people go see it because
like its predecessor, Blade Runner 2049 isn’t exactly lighting the box office
in flames. In fact, last time I checked it was having a hard time making its
money back. Which is sometimes a good thing. When general audiences don't like a film, it usually means it has some brains to it, which usually means I'll like it. So there's that. It's not a film made for mass consumption, which is a good thing for some of us.
This was a risky movie for Denis Villeneuve to make because
it’s an intelligent, slow paced science fiction film, and mass audiences like
their explosions and fights every five seconds and they like everything spoon
fed to them. It also has a lengthy running time of almost three hours, but I’ll
tell ya, I was engaged all the way through, I didn’t really notice the running
time. I wanted more by the time it was over. When it's over it comes as a surprise. In that sense, it is extremely
similar to the original Blade Runner, which also slammed its door on our face,
making us wonder what happened to Deckard and Rachel. Well, this film answers
us that question, but it leaves so many others unanswered, hopefully we’ll get
a sequel, hopefully the answers will come, and hopefully they wont take thirty
something years to make the next film. I love the world of Blade Runner and I
hope we get to revisit it at some point. I am extremely happy that Denis
Villeneuve is doing such an amazing job with the science fiction genre, he is
steadily becoming the sci-fi director of this generation. I hear he wants to
tackle Dune next! What can I say, after seeing Blade Runner 2049, he has my
vote. Final word, even with its flaws, I cannot bring myself to give this film anything but a perfect score. One for the ages in deed.
Rating: 5 out of 5
