FAITHFUL REPLICATION
‘BLADE RUNNER 2049’ MEETS HIGH EXPECTATIONS
At the heart of the original “Blade Runner” lies a central question: What does it mean to be human? // The sequel, the surprisingly potent “Blade Runner 2049,” asks the same question. It’s the question the filmmakers want to ask, want the audience to ask — it’s the question they put right there in the production notes, so you know it’s the theme they’re pushing. // They get around to answering it in the new movie, in different ways than the first did (and didn’t). // But really, that’s not the real question. Not to fanatics of the first film, of which there are many. // The question we ask is simpler: Who is human. // Well, I’m not going to tell you that.
In fact, I’m not going to tell you much, at least not about the details of the plot. There are surprises and details that would color both your anticipation and your potential enjoyment.
And boy, is there anticipation. When word got out that Denis Villeneuve would direct a sequel to Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking and influential original, the news was met with both excitement and horror. Yes, Villeneuve is a terrific director — his “Arrival” was one of the best movies of 2016. But can anyone do justice to the first film?
As it turns out, yes.
It’s a weird kind of sequel, one that uses information and characters we know from the first film, but in often surprising ways. Certainly Villeneuve and screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green have fun playing with audience expectations (though that’s about the only fun in the overly serious, overlong film, which clocks in at two hours and 45 minutes). You don’t necessarily need to have seen the first movie to understand this one, thanks in part to a particularly thorough update at the beginning, though it wouldn’t hurt.
The new movie takes place 30 years after Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a blade runner who “retires” replicants (synthetic humans), escaped LA. He hasn’t been heard from since.
A lot has happened in terms of both civilization (it’s hit some rough patches) and in the evolution of replicants (they’ve gotten more advanced, and obedient). The latter, and some improvement in the former, are thanks to Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), a scientist who behaves more like a kind of twisted Zen master. It’s the kind of role Leto was born for, all meaningful whispers, long hair and such.
There is still a need for blade runners, however, with some old models hanging around. K (Ryan Gosling) is one such blade runner, and the film opens with him carrying out what seems to be a routine assignment. Thanks to his sharp eye for detail, it turns out to be anything but. K makes discoveries that pique the interest of his boss, Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright), who instructs him to put the pieces of the puzzle he’s found together. It’s actually more critical than that sounds — Joshi believes solving the mystery is the only thing that can (you guessed it) save the world.
About that world: The glitzy, garish neon of Scott’s LA is gone, or at least changed. Decades have passed, and mankind evidently hasn’t really gotten a handle on pollution. (The plus side: The world still exists! So there’s that.) It seems as if technology — remember the advertisements from the first movie? — hasn’t improved so much as allowed LA to become even seedier. The outskirts of town, meanwhile, look like Mars, desolate, abandoned, an orange hue to everything, thanks to the constant clouds of dust. Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins haven’t tried to imitate the world Scott created, merely to evolve — or devolve — the one we’re familiar with from the first film.
The performances are uniformly good, although it’s the kind of film that calls for stoic, measured acting. Perfect for Gosling and Ford, in other words, who specialize in the strong, silent type.
While we’re answering questions, there is one that always pops up when sequels arrive. Is it really necessary? Especially in this case, when the first movieis so hugely influential?
If the answer is no, that’s only because the first film was brilliant all by itself, with no need to know anything else to enhance our understanding and enjoyment, no matter how much certain questions might have nagged at us.
But “Blade Runner 2049” stands as its own film, in addition to a continuation of the sequel. It’s not the bolt out of the blue the first movie was, but how could it be? Instead, as the break between installments would suggest, it’s a furthering of not just the original story but the original world, and that’s quite an accomplishment.