Pathetic. Blade Runner for the new generation is as flawed as any other modern Hollywood movie.

Rating: 4/10 (5 October 2017)

The original Blade Runner was a film primarily about visuals, it was not surprising that in the early 1980s, Ridley Scott had no rival in the visual department. Blade Runner was mostly a visual movie, with little or no character development. It was a rich film about culture and visual aesthetics. The film was pioneer enough to influence several generations of filmmakers, but also about TV series, anime, among others about a futuristic look. In other words, the greatest strength of that film was to insert people in that visual. It is impressive, that Blade Runner influenced several generations, but Blade Runner 2049, does not influence anything. Nothing in the visual department captures the spectator's imagination. Denis Villeneuve fails roundly in this department, everything in 2049 is copied and recycled from other people's works. Here there is no imagination, but purely a copy. Blade Runner influenced, 2049 did not influence anything or anyone. I'll just say one example. The director of the film created a young Sean Young, using visual effects. Ironically, this has already happened in Terminator Salvation with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another unnecessary sequel to a futuristic film with strong sci-fi elements made in the 80's.
That brings up the question, who had the sad idea of creating a sequel to Blade Runner if you can not create something visually interesting and if the movie itself was a box office flop in 1982. The answer is simple, it's about the money. Nowadays in Hollywood, the studios are desperate to create franchises, which can attract people as if they were drug addicts, to go to the movies regularly. Warner Bros. already tried in 2015 with Mad Max Road Fury, and now tries to do with Blade Runner in 2017. It's all about money. Instead of trying to create something new, Hollywood studios try to create franchises, based on pre-existing films, because it's so much faster, easier and there's no financial risk. This is because movie budgets are constantly growing. And of course Blade Runner in its releases for home entertainment, whether on VHS, DVD or Blu Ray, has always had solid sales. Blade Runner was a hit on TV as well. Like The Shawshank Redemption or Fight Club, films such as Blade Runner were a box office flops, but hits in other media. People kept talking about these movies, even after they were released in theaters. You can not catch a lightning bolt twice in a row. This is because 2049 brings nothing new for people to talk about. It's a passable, forgettable film just for making money.
This is why, Denis Villeneuve not only fails to create an interesting visual experience. As a film, Blade Runner 2049 crashes in all other departments. Not only that, but Blade Runner never needed a sequel. The story to tell was all told in the first film. Blade Runner never needed a sequel to expand the story, just as movies like Chinatown, L.A Confidential, or Casablanca don't need a sequel. In a sense, this film is almost a remake of the first, done in an amateur way in the sense of modern blockbusters. The film begins with an unnecessary setup between the characters Ryan Gosling and Dave Bautista. From that moment on, Denis Villeneuve began to put the typical gestures and mannerisms of modern movie scripts. I say of course, there has to be the unnecessary revolution/revolt against the system (the similarity that existed with The Matrix), but, unlike the original, everything here is in excess.
That is one of the biggest mistakes in the script of this film, is to transform a male film with a strong focus on sci-fi (sci-fi is not a genre that the female audience is interested) with useless dramatic elements. You know the same mistake that Denis Villeneuve did last year with Arrival, he had the audacity to do with the sequel of Blade Runner. Let's be clear, if I want a strong dramatic film, I see Schindler's List. If I want to see a male sci- fi, I see Aliens, Terminator or Blade Runner. Do not try to mix the two things Denis Villeneuve. The movie loses its tone. Not to mention, the silly lines of dialogue (and what you expected from the guy - Michael Green - who wrote Green Lantern), stupid I know. Despite that, the original film leaves room for the imagination about that universe and its characters (e.g: Jared Leto's character killing a replicant, just to make a point, or whatever). Who was the villain at the end of the first film, Deckard for doing his job or Roy Batty who killed people, however he wanted to live. In Blade Runner 2049, there is nothing to think about, everything is black and white.

This new film leaves no room for imagination, everything here is explained, as if it were an equation - at the end of the second act a character reveals to the character "Joe/K" that he was not the chosen one (as in many other sci-fi films) and the end itself is only a generic twist and totally out of context (as in Arrival) with a character that appeared only one scene (but do not worry about, the obligatory third movie is already being planned) in the original Sean Young's character was quite a while before the end of the movie. In contrast the film has totally useless scenes that only serve to increase unnecessarily the extension of the film itself.
I'm not going to write anything else, about this useless movie, that comment on the final battle between the characters of Ryan Gosling and Sylvia Hoeks. She also knows Kung-fu and says stupid one- liners ("I am the best" among many, or whatever). Trash lines of dialogue, we have here. To talk about the character of Sylvia Hoeks that does not reach the feet of Roy Batty. While in the original, the scene of the rain had a sense, because the character of Rutger Hauer wanted to live, this is why the scene is soon iconic. In this new movie there is one fight scene, just to look "badass". Once again, Hollywood had feminized a great and good villain into a woman to appeal to the female audience (say hello to Ghostbusters 2016). Not only that, the film treats women as sexual objects (the stupid hologram of the woman with pink hair), prostitutes or with violence. A film without its own identity, the film is not meat or fish. Incidentally, not even filmmakers know what they want.
Pathetic.