Beyond Blade Runner

Rating: 10/10 (7 October 2017)

I'm a huge fan of the original 1982 Blade Runner, and as a rule, an even bigger fan of Ridley Scott. I admit I was a bit disappointed when I heard that Ridley Scott's role in Blade Runner 2049 was consigned to Executive Producer with Denis Villeneuve taking the helm. I have nothing against Villeneuve, and I quite enjoyed Arrival, my only prior experience with his films (No, I haven't gotten around to Sicario, yet). My disappointment was probably rooted in my emotional connection to the original, and my fear that no one would honor its core like Scott would. Following the opening sequence, my concerns were allayed. I won't add to the fray as to whether 1982's Blade Runner needed a sequel, but in the age of sequels and reboots representing lack of original thought, Blade Runner 2049 continues the story and expounds upon it with a complexity I never expected. All this is done while still honoring the moral implications, imagery, symbolism, and overall genetic imprint of the original. Frankly, I'm not sure Scott could have made a film like this, but it couldn't have been made without his influence.
Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch's brooding, yet sometimes startlingly percussive soundtrack appropriately echoed necessary themes from Vangelis' futuristic original while expanding to a complexity deserving of the film. Additionally, while the original soundtrack can be replayed and enjoyed absent from its intended medium, 2049 is so tightly woven into the sound effects, I doubt it will have that same replay-ability. The electronic and artificial nature establishes the brutish impact of the human element on the planet almost before the imagery does. A genius move is the unsettling use of a brief, but recognizable excerpt from Sergey Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf. Its having been relegated to little more than an advertising jingle or ringtone. Fragmented performances by Sinatra and Elvis are equally unsettling and alien amidst the dystopian landscape that is clearly a broken Earth.
The performances from the ensemble were at the level I expect in a film of this caliber. While no single actor stole the show, there were a few surprises. For one, I had no idea Dave Bautista had this range. While his screen time is brief, it's impactful and effective. Ryan Gosling typically stars in films outside of my preferences, but his performance as a tortured soul trying to maintain his humanity was well done. I was pleased to see Harrison Ford's role being more than a trivial throwback. In lesser hands, playing the role of man who's seen and been through too much but still trying to hold it together, can easily come off as a crazy old coot. Ford made this role believable not as the Deckard from the original, but rather as someone he most certainly was destined to become. Robin Wright did an outstanding performance portraying a hardened cop tightly constrained by bureaucracy struggling to do the right thing---pride, defiance, and defeat moved across her visage in an uncanny fashion. Despite his fabled off-screen method acting antics, I suspect a large part of Jared Leto's performance was left unseen (pun intended). His presence was noteworthy but too brief. It may well have been truncated in the interest of time or possibly to add to the character's mystique. Sylvia Hoeks was unknown to me prior to this film, but I'm surprised I haven't seen more of her. She beautifully portrays a steely cold façade holding back a driven, trembling fury. Her character is likely be defined as the female equivalent of Rutger Hauer's "Roy Batty", but she's a bit more unhinged but focused all at the same time. Like other fans, I'd quietly hoped to see more of the original cast in some fashion, but that's why I'm not a screenwriter. As expected there were a couple of "cameos" that were unnecessary along with an ill-conceived special effects sorcery stunt that fell short, but nothing on the level of Rogue One's Tarkin and Leia.
I saw this in IMAX presentation, and I'm glad I did. I'm usually drawn to IMAX presentations for the expansive imagery, and the 1.9:1 aspect ratio certainly contributed to the expansive nature of the film. However, the sound was an equal draw for me. I've already read about some complaints with respect to muddy dialogue in which the soundtrack seemed to drown out voices. To those I propose your issue is with your theater, as I noticed none of this at the AMC 14 in Tyler, TX. In fact, it's been quite some time since I've gone to a film in which the LFE (low-frequency effects) rattled my chest while I could still hear the male and female voices with exceptional clarity. One notable scene involves the viewer alternating between drowning in a body of water only to surface intermittently to the sound of pounding rain, gunfire and distressed voices---all of which was clear and effectively immersive.
The question is who will enjoy this film. Formulaically speaking, a sequel's appeal to its original's fan base is probably largely related to its similarity to the same. In the case of Blade Runner 2049, it's not that simple. This will depend on what it is about 1982's Blade Runner that attracted you, and you may not even be able to define that. It is certainly possible to appreciate Blade Runner 2049 without having seen the original, but it will be a very different film for you. Even average sci-fi fans may take issue with the prolonged brooding and the 2 hr 44 min runtime, while others will bask in it and want more. Time will tell if Blade Runner 2049 endures like its predecessor. I will be viewing this at least once more in IMAX while it enjoys its theatrical run. Then I look forward to a proper home media release in which I fully anticipate a few Blade Runner marathons down the road.