Profoundly disappointed, a missed opportunity

Rating: 3/10 (11 August 2019)

Very, very, very few sequels are as good as the originals. The scriptwriter William Goldmann may have written that in Hollywood 'nobody knows anything' but there is at least this one iron law, from which everyone should learn.
Frin'stance, where sci-fi films are concerned, the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey was 2010 and it was a feeble sequel to the original, even though it featured the original script-writer Arthur C. Clarke. Its director Peter Hyams simply wasn't up to the job. The genius of the original was due to the collaboration of Clarke and director Stanley Kubrick.
Neither has director Denis Villeneuve proved, in my view, up to the challenge of Blade Runner: 2049. And yet once again, one of the original screenwriters collaborated on this film, too; Hampton Fancher.
I fear that great films may simply be unrepeatable in their greatness. The Godfather Part II was the exception which proves the rule.
Ridley Scott, director of the original, cannot by himself guarantee a great film. He needs great collaborators to match his genius for visualisation but in the original he had them.
In the words of British director Michael Powell, with a film all you can do is built a nest and hope a magic bird makes a nest in it. This is what the original Blade Runner did. This is what the sequel simply does not do.
K... to specifics. There is at the end of the original film an open ending, an ending of hope, through all the rainy, futuristic darkness which was gone before. This sequel is just shot through with Gallic pessimism, without even any redeeming Gallic wit. If you like Gallic pessimism in your films, so be it. But I don't see why 2049 had to be a Gallic film. I personally wanted it to be a Hollywood one. And it was so plodding. Ridley Scott said the sequel was too long by an hour but it wouldn't have been plodding had it been engaging. Gallic films are not known for their warmth and human engagement. (K... Denis Villeneuve may be French Canadian but that counts as French in my view.)
The visuals are gorgeous but Denis Villeneuve wasn't responsible for those. With modern special effect, they would have been glorious whoever had directed it.
Also, none of the major actors in this film had the charisma of the originals, Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Sean Young. Yes, Harrison Ford does make a guest appearance in the sequel but that is all it is.
Ryan Gosling is a decent enough actor but he is inferior to Harrison Ford's brooding, dignified and manly presence in the original. Harrison Ford, who was in his prime, carried the original in the same way that Hamlet carries, well, Hamlet. Ryan Gosling cannot carry the sequel. None of the female leads equal the glorious beauty and tragic femininity of Sean Young. There is no successor in the sequel to Rutger Hauer, God rest his soul, but then how could there be?
Jared Leto makes a serviceable corporate villain as Niander Wallace but is still outclassed by Joe Turkell as the cerebral and amoral but not so brutal Eldon Tyrell of the original.
I am not saying that Denis Villeneuve is a bad director but just that he wasn't right for this film. (And I liked a lot Peter Hyam's Capricorn One). Nor that Ryan Gosling is not a good actor but he was not right for this film.
I go back to the words of Michael Powell. 'All one can hope for is to build and nest a hope that a magic bird will fly to it and makes it nest.' The original Blade Runner is a nest which a magical bird made its own. In my opinion, this cannot be said for 2049.
However, Ridley Scott speaks of the possibility of a tre-quel. I would still like to see that!