Blade Runner 2049

It's 2049 Los Angeles. K (Ryan Gosling) is a Blade Runner hunting for old Nexus 8 replicants under LAPD Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright). After the 2022 blackout, most records have been erased or corrupted. Tyrell is out of business and replicant production had been outlawed until Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). Wallace is producing a new obedient replicant. Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) is his replicant henchwoman. K hunts down an old Nexus 8 and in the process, he discovers a surprise which leads to Deckard (Harrison Ford). Joi (Ana de Armas) is K's holographic computer girlfriend. Mariette (Mackenzie Davis) is a prostitute.

This is pure cinema although I can see some object to the length and dark depressing sensibilities. For the most part, the action is not intended to be fun. Some people will feel the long running time more than others. An easy test is whether the person likes the original or any cyberpunk sci-fi anime. This takes the original's visual mastery and adds a more compelling detective mystery. Any BR fan will undoubtedly love this unless they are some nitpicking fanatic. Non-fans may find this more appealing... or not.

The original's detective story and pacing are its major flaws. This sequel has a real detective story with a real mystery. The writing is impeccable. The designs take the original vision and dives right in. Roger Deakins' work is beyond beautiful. Villeneuve is at the top of his game. Gosling is a more effective lead. Ford comes in during the second half and is a more fun Deckard. Ana de Armas is a gorgeous vision of girl perfection. Sylvia Hoeks is an amazing villain. The movie tackles all of the ideas without hitting one over the head. This is a great film although I'm not sure if popular modern audience will take to it. The opening box office certainly does not suggest that.

'Blade Runner' is a masterpiece and a favourite of mine. It is still to this day a genre and film landmark, and ties with 'Alien' as Ridley Scott's best film, despite being disliked at the time it has rightly gained its reputation as a classic.

Hearing that there was a sequel over thirty years later left me with intrigue, with a great cast (Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford), one of the best cinematographers in the film industry today in Roger Deakins and with an equally great director on board (having liked to loved Denis Villeneuve's previous films), but also nervousness considering (with notable exceptions) the general reputation with sequels. 'Blade Runner 2049' turned out to be well worth the wait, it is easy to see why it will alienate some with its very long length (can understand the overlong criticism) and slow pace but it is even easier to understand the acclaim the film has received.

Is 'Blade Runner 2049' better than 'Blade Runner' or on the same level? No. Is it nearly, or shall we say just, as good? Yes. To me it is one of Villeneuve's better films along with 'Sicario' and 'Incendies' (my least favourite of his is 'Arrival' and despite being an understandably divisive effort to me it was still good) and one of the exceptions to the general reputation of sequels. A sequel that treats its predecessor with respect (including some thoughtful and cleverly done nods to it, including quotations from the original score, even Ryan Gosling's name is a nod to the original author Phillip K Dick) and also its audience with respect. Despite its faults, it's also one of my favourite films of the year, and this year has been very hit and miss for films so this is saying quite a bit.

Sure 'Blade Runner 2049' is not without its flaws. Can totally see where people are coming from criticising the length, most of the time it was not a problem but some of the time there was a sense that the length was too inflated, 20 minutes could have trimmed with no problem at all. There are a few implausibilities and contrivances here and there towards the end and much more could have been done with the underdeveloped character of Jared Leto (the only weak link in the cast, he doesn't have the presence to pull the role off and doesn't look comfortable or interested).

However, 'Blade Runner 2049' does a huge amount right. It looks amazing, it's impeccably and imaginatively designed with some of the best special effects seen in a long time. It's Deakins' cinematography that particularly stands out, darkly gritty, gorgeously fluid and beautifully audacious Deakins shows that he is fully deserving of being considered one of today's best cinematographers. One cannot praise 'Blade Runner 2049' without mentioning some of the best directing Villeneuve has ever done in a contender for the best directed film of the year (well between him and Nolan for 'Dunkirk'), he is absolutely the right man for the job and shows himself to be not only completely at ease with the material but also tailor made for it. Once again there is a beautiful darkness but also a hard edge and sense of wondrous awe.

Another big standout is the synthetic music score by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, so well done and fitting that one doesn't miss Johann Johannsson that desperately. Though imagine what the film would have been like with his involvement, from my understanding he was originally meant to do the music but was fired for reasons that are a mystery to me and Wallfisch and Zimmer were parachuted in and did marvellously with big shoes to fill. It's appropriately hauntingly discordant, heart-pounding and tension-filled, with seeming echoes and quotes to the original's score. The sound effects are clever and thrillingly authentic, like for example the replicated wolfhound.

When it comes to the writing and story, 'Blade Runner 2049' also triumphs, even if the story is not perfectly executed. The action-oriented scenes and conflicts are filled with tension and suspense as well as ingeniously choreographed, a fine example being the masterful prologue which has to be one of my favourite opening sequences of 2017. The science fiction elements are positively awe-inspiring, often making my jaw drop, while the philosophical ones are incredibly thought-provoking and never heavy-handed (many films have made a hash with this aspect, it was refreshing to see a film doing it well). Despite being a long and slow film, a vast majority of the film was richly rewarding, with a delicious quiet tension and absorbing mysterious elements.

Excepting Leto, the acting is great. Best of all being Harrison Ford as a suitably world-weary Indiana Jones-like Deckard, that and the 'Apocalypse Now'-like meeting with Ryan Gosling providing a nostalgic element, and a deliciously cold-hearted Sylvia Hoeks (her character and performance being what Leto's character and performance should have been). Ryan Gosling also plays it straight to great effect.

All in all, despite imperfections this jaw-dropping, richly rewarding, very respectful and visually stunning follow-up is just as good, if not quite as, as the 1982 masterpiece and one of my favourites of the year. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

The user reviews seems to be over-run by a troll. Lots of repetitive 2 and 3 stars reviews that all read like they're written by the same person.

It's a relief they still make movies like this; movies for adults. Yes it's a sequel, but it's quality and it stands on its own. This is real sci-fi, made with a proper budget and brought to life by artists. It's serious and paced so that you have time to think. If you're a fan of the genre and can appreciate some ambiguity and a little space for questions to breathe then I think you will appreciate this film. But if you can't remember the last time you read a book then maybe you will find this movie long and boring.

The cast, acting, and plot are all quite good with only a few misses. The soundtrack doesn't blow me away but it's suitable. The visuals are incredible though and where this movie really shines; I can't think of a single moment in the film where I felt like the vision was held back by the technology available. And the scene at K's apartment with Joi (you will know it when you see it) pushed the envelope of what I thought was possible to do in a film. This one is a real stunner visually. Like the original, I expect Blade Runner 2049 to hold up extremely well over time.

It's very rare when a modern sequel/reboot is equal to the original in terms of quality, but this movie is that rare one. It carries over the sweeping and hypnotizing cinematography, it continues the storyline in a natural way, it references the original, but doesn't rip it off, it introduces new concepts without ruining the continuity, it expands on the themes presented in the original in a very natural way, it doesn't drag nearly as much as said original and it's got a more compelling protagonist. I have a feeling I'll just enjoy this movie more and more as time goes by, and I already love it a lot. It's a movie with a lot to unpack, and I have no doubt it will improve even more on rewatches.

Blade Runner (1982) modern masterpiece from the cult movie 35 years later.