You’ve been a bad, bad boy! (Warner Bros via Vox)
The reason Blade Runner (1982) sits atop many science fiction film lists is because it excelled in nearly every area of movie making, from the story to the special effects to the movie score. But this review is not about Blade Runner, but its sequel, Blade Runner 2049 (2017), and the inevitable question: how does it stack up? And how do you write a review without giving away the plot (a point of little consequence in a Belated Movie Review)?
Technically, it’s somewhat inferior. The musical score, while referential to the original, is its own thing, and not quite as well done. The original’s score clearly cast the pall of a doomed and decaying world across the actions of the small, petty creatures that insisted on pursuing their small objectives across the canvas of that world. The new movie’s score is less complex, more prone to simple volume that nearly drove us to distraction. Perhaps it was meant to supply hope, a central theme of the movie, but I was uncertain on that point.
The special effects were a wonder in the original, but they coordinated with the score in that they underlined vastness, whether of world or of the city, by placing small, futuristic vehicles in a context where they flew in straight lines, subtly emphasizing the contrast and setting, and if that was a limitation of the special effects of the era, it was a fortune one. In the new movie, one might say that the effects are better rendered, yet with a little less effect. In particular, the flying cars now maneuver like planes and land with a flourish, which I felt was at odds with a world falling into cold death. Indeed, unlike the original, where many characters are clearly physically flawed, we do not generally see that many such characters – and yet this is a blighted world that has not been miraculously saved from the foolish ways of its inhabitants. Indeed, the presence of a single, beautiful flower draws immediate attention in a world struggling to survive ecological collapse. Still, there are some good technical marvels, including a sequence in which an artificial intelligence with a projection system is trying to coordinate with a flesh and blood prostitute in order to conjugate with her master.
The original’s story asked interesting questions about future scenarios – what happens when we can construct thinking, living creatures that are better than us, and seek to limit them? The sequel also has its questions, the quite natural ones concerning slavery – and, perhaps, in an underhanded way, divinity. But the approach to those questions isn’t as driving as those of the original, where Deckard is fighting to put to death those who are most passionately asking Why should we be limited? – and Deckard’s lack of an answer is torturing him. The lead in the sequel, Joe, is less tortured, and his lack of reaction to most stimuli, while predictable and expected, lets out much of the emotional impact of the movie. Even his loss of the closest thing to a mate provokes little, even if he is just about dead at that point.
Is the story interesting? Sure. Is it as good as the original? No. Especially the transcendent climax of the original, which would be difficult to match. To remind the forgetful reader, at that point, we expect Deckard to finish killing the replicants, and he manages to kill Pris, much to his own horror, but after an epic battle with Roy which reveals more about both men than most fights, Deckard is overwhelmed. He doesn’t die, but only because Roy finds he loves life more than anything, and if he must be deprived of it through the cold decision of a corporation, he won’t perpetuate such a cruel decision himself – even if his opponent hasn’t reached the moral level of Roy, the replicant.
You won’t find any such transcendence in the sequel, although it is an intense scene.
In the end, I felt there were a few too many explosions and not enough attention paid to the story. It’s fun, but not mind-expanding.
Sure, go see it – but it’s no Blade Runner.
