Good as a Scifi but not as a sequel

Rating: Null/10 (13 January 2018)

I think it was over two years ago when I read on IMBD that Riddley Scott was going to direct the sequel or the new Blade Runner?!. I felt "Blade Runner" was a not film to have a sequel and it should just be left alone among the great films ever made. But when Abrams launched the reboot of the "Star Wars" franchise, once George Lucas sold it to Disney, this idea of a sequel to old films or TV series like "Twin Peaks" was happening across the studios and "Blade Runner" was a sci-fi that had its own global cult culture. The idea of a sequel was actually caught on with fans like wildfire. Some or many questioned was a Deckard a replicant due what Riddley's unicorn dream revere scene when Deckard was leaning on his piano, that was the monkey wrench that Riddley threw into the film of his own doing; it was not even in the script and not a scene that Hammpton Fincher liked either because Deckard was never meant to be a Replicant, nor was he in the PKD novel, but that Ridley's insert created huge discussion across boards and theories that were argued and debated over thirty years. The news of the sequel was like this long-awaited enigma to be finally answered; I am sure once they saw this new sequel there was not even a mention of Deckard as a replicant.
In the two years of the wait for the making of the new Blade Runner, Riddley's brother died and he also changed his priorities to shift from directing Blade Runner to those awful "Alien" prequels that even critics asked the same question as to why would Riddley invest his time to the Alien films and not to his probably best creation "Blade Runner".? Then came the news of "Denis Villeneuve" taking over the project and directing; for me even more depressing, because as much as Denis Villeneuve has gained this name for himself as this new great director, but I find all his films somewhat incoherent and missing something. The most recent I can think of was Sicario" that started out good but then it was going in circles, with constant complaints and redundant scenes of Emily Blunt and his partner, the unexplained "Benicio Del Toro" mystery hitman at the end was even so cliche, the wasted screen time of the Mexican Policeman and his family where he had no exact part into the body of the story. However, to the average audience "Sicario" who just want to see some drug dealers get killed regardless how the story is told it was a hit. Directors like Villeneuve get popularity from the masses, I think was chosen maybe mostly because of his other film "Arrival", which I liked but only again in parts not as a whole piece. It just seems long gone are the days where directors like Coppola could make a film like "Conversation" where it's focus was a character first. Director's whose priority concern was always the STORY and not so much visuals and that's reversed over the years and given rise to directors like Villeneuve, whose work to me on the screen seems broken or missing parts, this new Blade Runner had the same pattern.
Now, after the long wait and anticipation of this new Blade Runner, especially when "Harrison Ford" was the first actor who signed on to be a part of this, which even surprised Riddley?!. In the original BR Ford had many problems working with Riddley and mostly lack of direction; how much he hated doing Blade Runner. Harrison Ford who just came off his recent Star Wars sequel now gets to be in the other scifi sequel as Deckard again. For an actor at Ford's age, a sequel like those films is like a rebirth of their career that exposes him to a new generation of audience, so there was no surprise for me to see Ford to be in the sequel and there would be no story to follow without him. I saw this new Blade Runner about four times and yes at first viewing I had a similar reaction to compare it to the original, but that was where I felt it was a mistake to devalue a film to compare to what came 30 years ago and from a director who had a vision he fought very hard to create and it was never going to be repeated again. And if there was ever meant to be a sequel Riddley would have done it years ago, but he didn't make the BR to ever have a sequel.
For me I had to view this film as just a scifi film on its own, separate the idea of the sequel and then judge it objectively. However, what I found the most preposterous premise of the story was when they find the remains of Rachel the replicant's skeleton?.. How can a replicant have a skeleton? where did we see in the original BR a Tyrel factory that showed these androids being made or to have a skeleton bones to last as the humans?. But what topped it to be even more absurd was that Rachel the replicant had given birth to a child?!
I just could not wrap my mind around that idea at all?. How and why Hampton Fincher wrote this story or was it Riddley's dictation? or was it Micheal Green's brain fart and Hampton went along with since he is not a working writer in Hollywood?. And how did these people conceived or all agreed that it was logical?.. It was the most ludicrous part of the story that I almost began to lose interest in the film and felt this was just so lame BR is turned into a Soap-Scifi where K even believes he is Rachel's son and begins his search for his long lost father Deckard.
The premise could have take being the Rachel's body had the longest life than any Replicant and that ties into what Tyrel said that Rachel was special, but procreation from a robot?. It was too far fetched and debunked this film on that premise alone; then to have the audience think it was K the replicant to be the child was another kind of monkey wrench into the puzzle.
I was very patient each time I watched it, I loved some parts of it and who surprised the most was Ryan Gosling; whom I respect his work but I wasn't sure he was right for this role and he proved me wrong, he was perfect for it. I didn't care so much for Robin Wright, she is good actor but she kind of walked through this role. Many people didn't like Jared Leto, but again it was comparison to Tyrel that maybe devalues Leto's acting, he played this character very dead pan and detached as if he was a robot himself and just disconnected with reality, it was almost disturbing. Leto is among one of the best talented and authentic actors working today. The actress who surprised me the most was "Sylvia Hoeks" who played Luv and she stole the movie. I have never even seen this girl in anything and she was good from beginning to end, she projected this very tormented or even conflicted character, Luv was someone who maybe called evil by simple terms but she was a confused or misguided creation of Wallace.
I also liked Harrison Ford in this film as the elder recluse Deckard, I didn't care for the fight scenes with Ryan. What I disliked the most was the CGI and this new look of the future that was o cheesy and fake with all those weird holograms flying or the ballerina?. Yes its 30 years later but does the future become so dull and grey too?. The Grey scale color was the repeating theme of this film, where everything seemed dead and flat and time also felt slowed down; the choice of music and sounds were good but not as good as the original, which was hypnotic.
Perhaps the most annoying and waste of screen time was "Joi", the hologram girl friend of K,. Why so much time screen time on her?, that same amount of time could have been focused on another story like "Mariette" who was the escort girl and part of the replicant revolt. That was actually an interesting insert into the story where the replicant joined to fight for their freedom, that could have been more developed where K's relationship with Mariette could have also created the questioning of his existence. But for some reason Joi" was more important, which again served no purpose into the body of the story. As I stated before either the director didn't know how to edit those scenes or the writers wanted them in but Villeneuves just seemed like he was a director to hire and Riddley was kind of still making the big decisions?, The intro scene where K figthts the replicant farmer, that was written for the original film and it was never shot, but now used here in the opening of this sequel and ofcourse we now have a replicant Blade Runner, another one of Riddley's wishes.
After the fourth viewing of this film I had totally let go of relating or comparing it to the original Blade Runner, it was this fourth time that it really grew on me and it had an emotional effect on me with the ending of K's conflict that kind of tied maybe to the theme of Phillip K Dick work? or the original Blade Runner? where a replicant is more human than human to care and risk his life to protect someone like Deckard and his daughter, just as Roy Baty did to save Deckard's life, a man who killed everyone Roy loved and yet he saved his life because he valued life. Although, this film didn't evoke the same emotions or feelings I get when I watch the original Blade Runner, to me what Roy says to Deckard before he does is the most moving scene; where a Replicant cherished life more than humans. This sequel didn't have that have that kind of strong scenes, but its a still a decent film on its own. I will never ever place this film in the same league as the original Blade Runner, that was a anomaly.
What is the most saddest part of this rebirth of "Blade Runner" is that it will now join the franchise category, where there will be a sequel or sequels, maybe a TV series too. And that unique cult underground scifi classic film that really changed the way we looked at science fiction now will become another franchise money machine for the studios and the greedy movie corporate world who treat everything as a product.