Masterpiece or pale imitation?

Rating: 3/10 (14 October 2017)

I went to see the film on the day of release, 5 October 2017, in an almost empty theatre. I loved the original Blade Runner, and had mixed feelings about the prospect of a sequel. Denis Villeneuve had taken over directing from Ridley Scott, and I had admired the work he did on Enemy and Arrival, he seemed to be a good choice to helm this film, so I went in with an open mind.
A few positive reviews for the film had appeared online in the last days before its release, but I had held off from reading more than a couple. Once I seen the film I went back and saw that many people were hailing it a 'masterpiece', 'the perfect sequel', or even 'better than the original'. I was really quite stunned by this, as I couldn't share the same enthusiasm for the film.
So what can I say about the film? Don't worry, if you haven't seen it there won't be any spoilers. It is a well made film, very ably directed by Denis Villeneuve. The main problem I had with it is that it is indebted to the first film in pretty much every way. The look of the film is largely recreating that of the 1982 original, the story is just a remix of the same themes and ideas from the original, and the soundtrack is little more than an echo of Vangelis's memorable score. It was as if the film makers had taken the original and created a copy, quite ironic really.
It made me think of art forgery. You could have 2 paintings side by side. One a Picasso, the other a forgery. They might look the same, and it does take undeniable skill to create a convincing forgery. But a forgery is totally devoid of originality, that is the difference between a masterpiece and a copy. All the positive reasons people gave in their reviews for the sequel lead back to the original.
At the end of Ridley Scott's 1982 original film, Deckard and Rachel head off together into an uncertain future. It was an open ending, but perfect for the story the film told. The uncertainties of life are something we have to live with as human beings, we didn't need to know what happened next to those characters, what was important is that they had a future together.
If you are a fan of the original, and haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 yet, I would say to remember that what is seen cannot be unseen. Once you see the sequel you will never be able to go back and watch the original without knowing what fate had in store for Deckard and Rachel, I think this is a great pity, and does a disservice to that film.
Whose decision was it that we needed to have this sequel? Over the past few years Ridley Scott has been putting out unnecessary prequels to Alien, so I can't help but think he is responsible. It is now just over a week since the sequel came out and there are reports that it is a box-office flop. Some comments I have read said that this happened to the original film too. Maybe, but I think for different reasons. The original was way ahead of its time, and it took time for people to catch up appreciate it. This sequel was a film that I don't think there was any real demand for, and although the levels of hype are high, I think in time people we see the film for what it really is.