Is “Blade Runner” and robots Halloween enough? Eh, who cares?
This came out during October during my Halloween articles and it wasn’t a film I was about to pass up reviewing. Now here’s the thing about this sequel Sony has been very hush-hush on details of the plot, which is good. With that in mind I’ve decided so as not to upset anyone reading I am going to put all of the points about the SPOILER aspects of the story that I want to discuss on a separate page. So if you click on the next page to read the SPOILERS don’t say that I didn’t warn you.
Cinematics (Plot, Acting, Cinematography, etc.) – 4
Ok so the VERY basic plot of this film is that Ryan Gosling plays a blade runner (named K) who during a routine “retiring” finds something that seems to indicate that an older model replicant has done something that should not be possible. His investigations take us to new places in this world as the stakes get raised higher and higher until Harrison Ford finally gets into the picture. While the mystery is interesting it is fairly easy to figure out portions of it. They really push for you to think it’s one thing that you know it has to be something else. Now I say that knowing full well that the mystery in the original “Blade Runner” was super simple especially since it wasn’t even really about the mystery and more about of HOW is Deckard going to find all the replicants. Still this film brings up and explores some fascinating concepts. Some of which I’d be interested in seeing other films tackle.
The acting is strong from everyone. Like many other critics have said Harrison Ford is the best he’s been in a while. Not to say he’s been bad lately, but it seems he was truly reinvigorated by this script. Ryan Gosling is also strong. Some people may think he’s a bit bland in some of his performances, but I think his understated style (think “Drive”) is perfect for this character. We also have newcomer Ana de Armas as Joi who is my favorite new character. Her subplot in particular is the most fascinating and I think Armas really knocks it out of the park. Denis Villeneuve proves once again why he is one of our best young directors.
The cinematographer Roger Deakins is of course amazing. Although that was one aspect I was a little underwhelmed by sadly. I was so excited to see the world of “Blade Runner” filtered through the eyes of our greatest living cinematographer. And while the marketing campaign has been great at not giving away plot points they did unfortunately show most of the best shots from the film. Don’t get me wrong it’s all beautiful, but I expected more from this team. Still love the use (or in many cases the non-use) of CGI in this film. As far as references go they keep them tasteful. One of the coolest is the opening scene. Anyone who watches the documentary of the making of “Blade Runner” will instantly recognize it as one of the proposed opening scenes for that film. That’s just a cool thing to do. Also, be prepared to hear the opening notes of “Peter and the Wolf” a lot throughout this film.
Entertainment Value – 4.5
I loved the pace of this movie, but it ain’t going to be for everyone. Like the original it is a slow burn film and I’m glad they kept it like that. From the trailer I was a little worried they were turning this into more of a conventional action film. Here’s the thing, “Blade Runner” sounds like it should be an action flick. From the premise of a cop hunting robots in the future I think everyone gets a specific type of movie in their heads. Then, they see it and it’s a very quiet morose detective film. It can be an acquired taste and while the action scenes are grander in scale here they never go so big that it feels inappropriate for the universe. Emotion and story are still at the forefront of the fight scenes as it should be.
Rewatchability – 4.5
As a friend of mine once said, “nobody likes “Blade Runner” the first time they see it!” What I believe he meant by that is it’s a film that requires multiple viewings to really appreciate it. Not just because of all the visuals it throws at you, but the way its told needs you to pay attention and think on what you’ve seen. So of course I’m going to watch this new film again to see how it stacks up to the original in that regard.
- Cinematics
- Entertainment Value
- Rewatchability
Summary
"Blade Runner 2049" is a sequel that never seemed like it would happen, much less actually be good. The new and returning actors are all perfectly tailored for their roles. The story has some fascinating developments that will leave audiences with plenty of questions to mull over. It does what all good sequels SHOULD do and expands on the original universe. It makes me want to re-watch and see how it shapes and grows throughout the years. It may never gain the same stature as the first "Blade Runner," but this is an excellent companion piece and for a sequel this many years later that is damn impressive. I give it 4.5 stars out of 5.
Click to talk about SPOILERS!
Ok SPOILER talk.
Where to start…
The plot is that after Tyrell died in the first film, it was discovered that his company had just created some new models with expanded lifespans. Eventually with public opinion against them and their leader dead they went bankrupt. Replicants eventually made a comeback when a new scientist Wallace (Jared Leto) created newer, easier to control models. Our main character K (Ryan Gosling) is a replicant blade runner hunting down the last of the pre-Wallace-era replicants. It’s apparently easier to detect them now, no Voight-Kampff test required just a quick scan in the eye. On a routine retiring mission he finds a hidden box containing the bones of a woman who died from childbirth, but soon find the serial number revealing it to be Rachel. Somehow an older model replicant had given birth. It’s up to K to discover how and where the child is. As he goes through the investigation he begins to suspect it may be him. This is based on his implanted memories that he wonders maybe aren’t implants, but real.
Here’s the thing maybe I’m totally misremembering how this universe works, but I thought only Rachel had the implanted memories to make her think she was human. After all, Deckard seemed surprised at the idea a replicant would have memories when he talks to Tyrell. So then why would K and the new model replicates need implanted memories? I don’t remember Roy Batty or Leon having fake memories. I thought that was the reason replicants often kept photos to make themselves feel like they had more of a life than they actually did. And K and the other replicants know that they are androids. They’re now fully integrated into society. There’s still some prejudice against him from some humans. It wasn’t a huge plot point, but the way it was done just helped the world feel more real. Still the memories thing is a major plot point that all replicants have false memories, but like I said I don’t get why.
Now the big question, is Deckard a replicant? Well I’m happy to say that they still keep it a mystery and that’s one of the coolest things about this movie. It can work both ways here. If he’s human it’s still the story how a man who had lost his humanity regaining it through his relationship with a creature that is not human and even gives up his life to save it. He even went so far as to be willing to leave Rachel and their child to keep them safe from being found. Or if you subscribe to the Deckard is a replicant theory, then it still works as there’s the possibility this was his purpose. He and Rachel were designed to find each other and fall in love. Tyrell’s last true experiment. It would even fix a potential flaw in that theory by explicitly giving him a purpose for being built. In terms of the debate itself I’m personally of the opinion that the question is more interesting than either answer. They seem to indicate that even Deckard himself doesn’t truly care about the question.
Supposedly NOT CGI, an actual hologram on set.
The last new idea I want to discuss is Ana de Armas’ role of Joi. She is K’s love interest and she is a hologram. In this time there are holograms that can be your life partner. Now a cynical person could say she’s just extremely well-programed AI. Programmed to be in love with K, but it never feels like that largely due to Armas’ fantastic performance. If you saw “Her” you may have a different perspective on this. Plus if we are to assume that the replicants can truly have feelings (they only lacked empathy in the original book and film) then I don’t think it’s a stretch to think they used that same technology to give the holograms real emotions to be better life partners. Even if she is a hologram does that mean the emotion she instills in others is not valid?
She sadly gets destroyed near the end and the sense I got was that while K could just go out to buy another one it would never be the same. Joi had become her own person based off of her own experiences with K. Side note, this may be the new champion of saddest death of a technically inanimate object. Take that Wilson from “Cast Away!” One of the most interesting ideas was that while the replicants are still considered a lower class they seem to look down on holograms. I loved that concept as it sadly is very true of life. There are many examples of different minority groups being forced together and you’d think given that they’ve both been badly treated by white society that they’d work/help each other, but instead work to perpetuate the same class structures that affected them so badly. Essentially humans just suck in general so why not give the holograms a chance?