Blade Runner 2049 has beautiful cinematography, is well-acted, and is completely forgettable.
As a standalone feature Blade Runner 2049 is a decent film, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, the film is a vastly inferior successor that adds nothing innovative or important to the original. I’m reminded of 2010: The Year We Make Contact, a sequel to Stanley Kubrick’s sci-fi epic masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. Similarly to 2049, 2010 sought to add to its original’s premise, yet only serves to water down what didn’t need to be tinkered with. In the end, 2010 has become a forgotten relic, yet it may soon find itself in company with 2049, a film that has replicated what 2010 did 33 years ago with similar results.
Many aspects of Blade Runner 2049 fall flat because the original did them far better. The original Blade Runner is a fantastic film that plays off audience expectations in a gloriously innovative fashion. MAJOR SPOILERS TO THE ORIGINAL BLADE RUNNER It starts off as a typical sci-fi action film about a rugged ex-cop (Harrison Ford) tasked with hunting down and “retiring” (aka killing) murderous renegade androids. The film purposely introduces the androids as these sinister machines killing and torturing humans, making them appear as typical one-dimensional antagonists. Yet as the film progresses, the viewer gradually sees the humanity in these androids, with character morality becoming unclear as its protagonist walks the line between hero and villain. Blade Runner’s finale is a climactic battle between the protagonist and main antagonist, where the film continuously showcases similarities between the two. The battle ends with the antagonist android sparing the protagonist’s life, then peacefully passing away after giving a bone-chilling, beautifully profound speech. Blade Runner (the Director’s and Final cuts at least) superbly handles and executes its main theme, making its audience question who’s the anti-hero and who’s the anti-villain. The androids desire the same freedom and life humans do, with the film effectively showcasing their wide array of fleshed out emotions—fear, anger, curiosity, happiness, jollity, melancholy, etc.—making clear the horrors humanity has put these creatures through without resorting to making its humans one-dimensional. In fact, the film brilliantly takes humans one would expect to be one-dimensional villains and subverts expectations in the most pleasing fashion. MAJOR SPOILERS TO BLADE RUNNER END
Blade Runner 2049, on the other hand, is extremely forthright in its approach and practically hits you over the head with a sledgehammer regarding its recycled themes. 2049’s themes on bigotry and hatred are overly apparent and in your face. MAJOR SPOILERS BEGIN The film might as well have had big flashing letters on the screen saying ROBOTS HAVE FEELINGS! SLAVE LABOR BAD! HUMANS ARE JERKS! Then there are the sequel’s antagonists in general. The original Blade Runner has these great morally grey characters. The original’s android creator Tyrell (Joe Turkel), for example, has a complex nature to him. While Tyrell certainly has a mild God complex, he talks to his android creations like they're his children, an emotional sincerity in his words. 2049’s creator Wallace (Jared Leto), however, is one of the most clichéd God complex villains you’ll ever see in a film. The man doesn’t resemble a human being, nor does he understand them in the slightest, which is most likely the point—to make the human creator more artificial than the robots—but doesn’t change that he’s a really bland, generic bad guy who tarnishes the previous film’s morally grey tone.
Then there’s Wallace’s right-hand android Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), who when compared to Blade Runner’s lead android antagonist Roy (Rutger Hauer) is absolutely pathetic. Luv is a walking villain cliché, killing the protagonist’s girlfriend (Ana de Armas) for absolutely no reason other than “for the evil lulz” while sparing the formidable protagonist (Ryan Gosling) twice despite him being completely defenseless and it making complete sense to kill him. The film’s climax can be summed up as “the good robot avenging his dead girlfriend and killing the evil robot.”…that’s it! There’s no impact, no emotional satiation or complex themes—just a generic action flick battle. As a standalone feature, such climax could be tolerable, but when compared to its predecessor's climax, it is downright unacceptable. MAJOR SPOILERS END
Blade Runner is a great standalone film. Was Blade Runner 2049 necessary? Did it need to be told and/or add anything innovative to the original? No. The entire film on its own is ok: a decent, albeit somewhat lethargic sci-fi feature. Yet as a sequel to a great, influential film with profound moral themes and a very subtle approach, 2049 is an absolute dud. Blade Runner 2049 is set up with enough loose plot threads for a sequel to be made, yet with its lack of public attention and subpar box office profits, such sequel seems unlikely to happen anytime soon. As with 2010, 2049 seems destined to be forgotten among the masses of better sci-fi films. Hell, it was already overlooked by the public while still in theaters.
