A Long Wait for Disappointment

Rating: 3/10 (7 October 2017)

In 1982 I was deeply excited about the prospect of seeing "Blade Runner," and can remember applying for a chance to see an advance showing in Sacramento. From the start it seemed obvious that it was a special film--clouded in controversy and mystery. Later I acquired my much-viewed VHS copy, with all the eye-gouging, nail-puncturing violence. Later still the Internet provided background information as, eventually, did articles plus a comprehensive book by Paul M. Sammon. In short, I am a fan, and was eagerly anticipating the sequel.
So, it was with disappointment that I left an October 6, 2017 showing "Blade Runner 2049." Overly long, boring, poorly paced, and confusing were my initial impressions, though admittedly it was beautifully filmed (potential Oscar nomination in cinematography?).
I appreciated the many (too many?) subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the original film, the effort to build on the "Blade Runner" universe, and efforts by writers, directors, and actors to bring the story to life. But there were just too many scenes that should have been reduced in length from 25-50% of their run time. Such excess in a film is, to me, almost always a fatal flaw. And some scenes (e.g., where characters "Joi" and "Mariette" merge to make love to "K") could have been cut altogether, I feel, without harming the story.
The acting was satisfactory or better, for the most part, as one would expect from the level of supporting talent.* However, I have knowingly seen two pictures starring Ryan Gosling—2016's "La La Land" and now this—and in both he is bland and wooden. Despite the fact that "2049's" "K" is SUPPOSED to be a self-controlled, artificial humanoid, I wonder if it is just Gosling's natural on- (and off-) screen persona. And frankly, Harrison Ford's "Deckard" just did not work for me. Sacrilegious, I know; but true. I blame this on two factors.
First, Ford appears (too) late in the movie, by which time I was already exhausted by tedium. Second, for a character without appearance-changing makeup, a dramatic accent, say, or pronounced behavioral distinctions, it is hard not to just see Harrison Ford. (Kind of like Robert Redford miscast in 1985's "Out of Africa.") Oh, it's (old) Harrison Ford again. Sorry HF fans everywhere.
And another thing; due to poor direction, they included "Admiral William Adama" (Edward James Olmos) from TV's "Battlestar Galactica," and not "Gaff" (also Olmos), in a too brief cameo. (Listen to "Gaff" in the 1982 original. Totally different voicing.)
Like most films, it suffered from its share of "Oh, come on!" moments. Why would 6-foot "K" allow 6-foot-6 Dave Bautista's imposing "Sapper Morton" to make the first move (and thus begin the accumulation of a ridiculous amount of damage, most of it unnecessary, sustained by "K" throughout the story)? Because that's what movie detectives do. I must say, "K" apparently likes to pass violently through solid walls (a nod to Rutger Hauer's "Roy Batty" head in the original, I take it).
Almost all action-adventure films are silly in hindsight and full of movie plot clichés—"Blade Runner 20149" is no exception. But the test of a good movie is whether the story flows at a pace that makes audiences subconsciously accept and even relish these otherwise nonsensical encumbrances (see 1999's "The Matrix"). For my part I was less inclined to give "2049" a pass on the silliness due to its plodding nature.
Ridley Scott is prominently associated with both the recent "Alien" and Blade Runner" franchises, and has promised multiple sequels. Do we want this? Is state-of-the-art movie-making worth either ridiculously poor stories (the "Alien" franchise) or bad plotting and editing ("Blade Runner 2049")? It's admittedly hard to make a good movie, but Scott and his people are paid a LOT of money to do so. Check Scott's IMDb filmography. Can any mortal be involved first-hand in that many projects? As with Stephen King, maybe it's time to pare down the quantity and re-focus on the quality? Just saying
In conclusion, my disappointment focused primarily on the script and editing.**
Some recommendations to potential viewers: First, if you plan to see "Blade Runner 2049" it will help to see one of 37 versions (e.g., voice-over or no voice-over?; graphic violence shots or not?) of the original 1982 film beforehand. Second, maybe wait to watch the movie digitally, so that you can re-play key scenes and increase volume on important dialogue. In the theater I kept mentally reaching for a non-existent remote control. Third, (after Recommendation One) if like me you hold the original picture in deep admiration as a flawed but intriguing analog masterpiece of SF movie-making, consider skipping this sequel altogether. But I imagine that warning will fall on deaf ears.
_____
* Because of the look and feel of two female characters in the film, I wonder if actresses Felicity Jones ("Rogue One") and Tatiana Maslany ("Orphan Black") were originally considered for the parts eventually played by Ana de Armas (companion hologram "Joi") and Sylvia Hoeks (deadly replicant "Luv"). While watching the trailer footage, I originally mistook those two characters for actresses Jones and Maslany. Their doppelgangers did just fine, though. Hoeks' "Luv" is particularly chilling.
** Oh, and the music! Not so good. Too often I was aware of background music--that by itself is not a good thing--and its shortcomings. So much so that by the end of "2049," where original "Blade Runner" music ("Tears in the Rain," I think) is (finally) used, it left me with mixed feelings. First, thank god! Second, where was that musical excellence during the rest of the film? Music can make or break a film, and is incredibly important. Few excellent films have poor musical soundtracks. Unfortunately, "Blade Runner 2049" is not an exception to that guideline.