Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is a science-fiction classic, its aesthetic inspiring other films for decades to follow. Several parts of the film, such as Rutger Hauer’s ‘tears in the rain’ monologue or Vangelis’ iconic soundtrack, have become ingrained into pop culture. So, with all that, it’s almost hard to believe it was a flop on its release in 1982, dividing critics and audiences.

I watched Blade Runner for the first time in preparation for this film, and it is easy to see why it is so influential. It’s a masterclass in world-building and atmosphere which, combined with an interesting philosophical depth, make it a hard act to follow. So it is easy to ask, 35 years later in a period of shallow reboots and remakes, does it even need a continuation, and did Blade Runner 2049 do it well? Let’s find out…

Not only is 2049 a worthy successor, I believe it surpasses the original: it somehow managed to blow me away on every level in a way even Ridley’s masterpiece couldn’t. I am still thinking about it now, and I imagine I will for a lot longer.

The most obvious aspect of the film that really works is the presentation. It is very possibly one of the most gorgeous films I’ve ever seen. Everything from the colour palette, to the production design and, of course, the legendary Roger Deakins’ masterful cinematography is all outstanding, creating rich and absorbing environments that really make you feel like you are walking the streets of 2049’s world. Every frame feels like a genuine work of art, with my personal favourites taking place in the ruins of Las Vegas. The look of the film is a big part of what elevates it from its peers.

However, Blade Runner 2049 would not be nearly as impressive if it were just its visuals that could be commended. Instead, what’s on the screen is matched by a script that, like the original, asks meaningful questions about humanity itself: what does it mean to be born? How can one have a soul? The story takes many twists and turns, and I genuinely had no idea where it was going (I was surprised even in the first five minutes!). At one point I thought I had predicted the twist, only to realize the film wanted me to think that and was one step ahead of me the whole time.

One of the strongest elements of the original was the characters, most notably the Replicant side characters. 2049 manages to add new and interesting figures to the world the first film set up, all portrayed excellently by their respective actors. Officer K is a tragic but likeable protagonist who was more engaging to me than Rick Deckard ever was, and Ryan Gosling portrays his emotional complexities with subtle nuance.

K’s virtual girlfriend Joi is the most likeable character in the story, but also serves as a crushing reminder of his loneliness, while the powerful Replicant Luv is an intimidating villain. The only member of the cast who could be seen as weak is Jared Leto as the villainous Niander Wallace, whose bizarre tendencies may be too eccentric for some. Finally, Harrison Ford returns as Rick Deckard and does a great job, but is featured far less than the marketing would have you believe.

One common criticism I have seen leveled at this film is that it is too long and ‘boring’. I won’t pretend that 163 minutes isn’t a lengthy running time, but director Denis Villeneuve managed to keep me not only interested but fully engaged at all times. In the first two acts I had barely noticed Harrison Ford was yet to enter, as I was fully invested in the story of K, and I hope most audiences feel this way too, instead of dismissing the slow pace as dull.

Overall, Blade Runner 2049 is a stunning work of science fiction that builds and expands its predecessor in a natural and organic way instead of rehashing its story for cheap nostalgia. Everything from the acting, the directing and the striking visuals help to make 2049 my favourite film of the year so far and one of the best science fiction films I’ve seen in a while.