In preparation for seeing 'Blade Runner 2049' tonight, I rewatched 'Blade Runner: The Final Cut'. I had recently purchased the 35th anniversary edition on 4K UHD + Bluray + Digital and if you couldn't tell by my Instagram page, I have a hefty movie collection. 'Blade Runner' was a movie I had seen before, but never quite understood why it had become a cult classic of film.
Now don't get me wrong; I enjoy the film plenty. I love the debate of humanity being challenged and finding it in places you would never expect, and how it was landmark in shaping how sci-fi and futurism would begin to effect our real world, not to mention the cinematic pedestal it still holds to this day. It is iconic, enough said. But it mostly seemed to iconic for men.
Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a anti-men diatribe, but it is something I have noticed over the years being a female movie buff. In almost every dating profile I've seen, where it asks to list what your favourite movies are, 'Blade Runner' is the one I see consistently listed as a top favourite. Sure women have their films too, I'm sure there are just as many guys tired of seeing The Notebook listed a woman's favourite film. But this is one I never understood, until I saw 'Blade Runner 2049'.
'Blade Runner' is a 1982 Ridley Scott action sci-fi film with 80's aesthetic and dystopian speculation of what our future would more and more likely morph into as technology and AI began to advance so quickly. The original film argues a fairly broad philosophical idea; what does it mean to be human? To have experiences and memories? And at what point does AI become more human than humans? It's existential, but not something that was common in your typical 80's action film fanfare. My theory is that this film, which was not widely praised at the time of its release due to cuts made the studio (which would be later added back into various recuts, The Final Cut being what most consider the "definitive" version), allowed a crowd who never usually partook in high art films, and say, "This film is artsy and has deep ideas, so I'm an intellectual and film snob for liking it". I feel like it's a movie people say they like to try and show how much a of a movie buff they are.
Personally, I find the original 'Blade Runner' to be a pillar in terms of the art of cinema and using the format of visual storytelling to tell a visually beautiful yet grotesque and paranoid future, but the characters and over arching themes left a lot to be desired. And I'm not even talking about the debate about Deckard's true "lineage".
However, 'Blade Runner 2049' has expanded this universe and these characters in ways that the original wishes it could have. The world is now vast, decrepit, fallout from disaster after disaster of human ingenuity and self-destruction. The art design and cinematography alone are able to communicate so much of the story that you could watch it with the sound off and still understand what was going on. Denis Villeneuve, who created the masterpiece of 2016, 'Arrival', understands the language of filmmaking very well, and knows how to use his craft. Even more so, he understands the Blade Runner universe, and pays respect to the predecessor just enough to have continuity, but is still separate enough from it that I would consider it a Villeneuve film first.
Ryan Gosling plays "K", a replicant engineered by Wallace, the corporation that bought out Tyrell from the first film, and redefined the use and engineering of modern replicants. He is a Blade Runner, designed to obey orders, hunt down, and retire the last of the Nexus replicants built by Tyrell. It is in this hunt that he discovers anomalies that may have lead to the creation of a new form of life born from replicants, and questioning his place amongst humanity.
From this point on, spoilers may be needed to articulate some concepts. You've been warned.
'Blade Runner 2049 is', in my opinion, better than the original Blade Runner, if only because it expands upon the very lose questions of the original, and gives more shape to the broad philosophical ideas it was going for. It questions the validity of the emotions and experiences of the replicants, who were the subject of the original to be just as valid as humans, the place we as the audience are meant to put our sympathy.
There is a moment in this film, after it is established that Rachael from the original died during child birth, that a copy of her is made, with all her memories and personality intact, as an offering to Deckard to give up information about the replicant rebellion. Deckard pushes her to the side, stating, "Her eyes were green."
This is in direct opposition to the thesis of the previous film, which put value on replicant lives to be equivalent to that of human life. But if a perfect copy can be made, with all the traits that made them who they are, then how human can they really be? Humans by nature are unique, and cannot be replaced, and even if the technology existed to recreate a lost loved one down to the molecule and memories, it still wouldn't be "them".
The film challenges the ideas set out in the original, yet still asks you to empathize with the character who is man made, and does so convincingly. Gosling's character is the audience surrogate in this film, and from out of the gate, we are questioning his reality along with him. Though we know he is a replicant, we are questioning whether he is human the entire time. We find out he is a replicant, as established, but it is through a very winding road that constantly second guesses that notion. Gosling accomplishing a great ability to appear stoic and unmoved, while clearly facing an internal struggle.
The music is certainly reminiscent of the original film, one of the more iconic elements of the film. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch compose here, but Zimmer's use of the Inception "BWAA" is overused. There were plenty of moments where the music took me out of the film as it almost overpowered the moment itself, leaving me feeling like I wish it had taken a step back to let certain instances just be. Don't be afraid of silence, filmmakers!
The pacing of the film stands in contrast to the music; it is overall a breath of fresh air. When almost every film is trying to squeeze in as much action and dialogue into every cut, trying to keep run times down under the 2 1/2 hour mark, it's wonderful to have a film that, yes, is VERY long, but takes it's time, and let's you feel each moment, tense and action packed moments are intense, and dramatic moments are left to be played out by the actors.
There are some great side characters in this film, mostly female, who all have active roles and help to move the plot forward. No one is wasted. Robin Wright plays Gosling's boss at the LAPD, who cares about protecting order in a world of chaos, constantly on brink of destruction. Dave Bautista plays an older model Nexus replicant that Gosling retires early in the film, but his presence is powerful for the few minutes of screen time. Sylvia Hoeks plays Luv, a Wallace replicant, and Wallace's right hand woman, who is the driving antagonist of the film, as she enacts Wallace's demands to find the natural born replicant so as to further the human race into a new era. Wallace is played by Jared Leto, who is more evenly utilized in this film than in his last few outings, like Suicide Squad. Ana de Armas plays Joi, a holographic AI girlfriend to Gosling, that feels more real than most of the human characters, but is ultimately a facade, a program that can be deleted and recreated, a point made after she "dies", and Gosling comes upon an advertisement for her program which calls him "Joe", a name Joi gives him when he thinks he was the child Rachael bore. The realization that it wasn't real, but that it felt real to him is all that mattered, and pushes him into the climax of the film. Lastly, Harrison Ford returns as Deckard, in what seems like the staple of Ford retuning to previous iconic roles in an aged state, he is truly allowed to act here. There is a weight to his performance, and aged nature that is hard to pull of, and it mostly works because it is the same actor from the original film. I'm not a terribly big Harrison Ford fan, but this is some of his finest work.
The film is ultimately more about finding purpose in life, even if the circumstances of that life were made with questionable means. For some, it's a cause; others a career; for most it's the relationships and families we make, and defending them to the end. The argument about whether artificial life is just as or more valued than human life almost misses the intention of this film. If you have life, even if it's a lie, use it to do something good.
Final score: 8/10
It only loses points due to the music becoming overwhelming and distracting at times, and some poor dialogue choices, or action blocking in particularly dramatic moments that caused me to be taken out of the film. Overall, it is a thought provoking film with beautiful visuals, great use of story telling elements, and actors that are invested in these characters. I would highly recommend 'Blade Runner 2049' to 'Blade Runner' fans, or anyone who may have originally been adverse to watching Blade Runner. I would advise that seeing the original is necessary, though there are 3 short films that were made prior to 2049's release that help to expand the world even more between the two films, one of which is 'Blade Runner: Black Out 2022', an anime directed by Shinichiro Watanabe, the director behind Cowboy Bebop, Kids on the Slope, and Samurai Champloo. They're all available online, so check them out if you're interested in the 'Blade Runner' universe, but they are not a necessity to understand 2049's plot.