Ambitious, but flawed sequel to a well deserved classic

Rating: 6/10 (31 October 2017)

As someone who was around to see the original Blade Runner in theaters back in 1982, it is undeniable that it was a classy box office bust buried under the onslaught of the more emotionally accessible E.T. It did, however, even at that time have a strong critical and cult following. I myself found the noir-ish sci-fi effort initially beautiful to behold, but rather slow. It improved dramatically for me on subsequent viewing as both its screenplay and characters proved to be more intellectually revealing with each visit, until I came to regard it as an undervalued classic. A view that many seemed to reach as well.
The sequel is suitably set decades after the original and focuses on Ryan Gosling's K, a blade runner/replicant who hunts down and kills older models who apparently do not know their place. In the opening mission, he stumbles onto a secret that threatens the very fabric of the dystopian society in which the action is set.
There are many commendable things about this sequel and also suitable reasons to carp. Director Denis Villenauve recaptures some of the tone and feel of the original and kudos for taking a stab at branching the universe out. However, as visually captivating as the sequel is, it never captures the breathtaking kaleidoscopic awe of the original. The original set its action in a nightmare neon-filled landscape, while too much of the sequel just seems to be set in white and gray foggy daylight. Villeneuve also abandons the noir detective tone for something more philosophical with decidedly mixed results.
The length of the film is almost absurdly self-indulgent. While I was never bored, there were a lot of snoozers around me and people checking their watch. Entire passages are wasted on misdirection and stabs at universe building which are hit and miss. This is also the first film since Meet Joe Black where there are so many pauses between lines that you want to shout at the characters to speak already. Also, I get that the relationship between Gosling and Ana de Armas as his virtual reality consort that he gets to take around with him is supposed to hint at his loneliness, but both the character and subplot take up too much time for too little payoff. Those looking for edge-of-your seat action would do well to look elsewhere.
Gosling is adequate in the lead - solid yet unspectacular. Too much time is wasted on him brooding. We already suspect from the start that there is more to him emotionally than the surface dictates, but need it take so long to reveal it? The supporting cast is largely strong, even when not used to the best effect. Robin Wright is pitch-perfect as Gosling's no-nonsense human boss. Jared Leto overacts ridiculously in two lengthy scenes as the villain of the piece, but Sylvia Hoek is first-rate as his kick-ass majordomo. Ironically Ford, who was accused by many of sleepwalking through the original, kicks the film into high gear with a rugged, droll and sympathetic performance that comes late in the film (perhaps a bit too late?).
Some of the motivations seem murky to me. I get that Leto is a loon with a God complex and I have a hunch that he would like to dissect the film's McGuffin, but I was never sure what Hoeks intentions were towards the same. I think some of this could have been developed more and other things could have been eliminated entirely without impacting the film.
Also, I was less than thrilled over the depiction of the majority of the female characters in this film. The original featured a smidge of nudity from Joanna Cassidy's replicant stripper, but both Sean Young and Daryl Hannah are captivating and iconic in their parts. The sequel is awash in gratuitous female nudity from start to finish and it seems that most of the women are some kind of pleasure fembots or underlings onhand to do the bidding of the male characters. Ironically, when Gosling showers twice, the camera is very careful to stay above the waist and there do not seem to be any male pleasure bots for the female population. Are human women largely extinct in the future?
This sequel is ambitious and sometimes fascinating, but I never felt the wonder I did when watching the original film, so I am uncertain that this sequel was necessary. It says something that the most inspiring moment is when an iconic character from the original film makes an unexpected appearance for a brief cameo and literally jars you from a stupor.