Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Guest contributor and MiamiArtZine critic Rubén Rosario gives us his take on the long-awaited sequel to 1982’s Blade Runner.


Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

written by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green

from a story by Hampton Fancher

based on characters from the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick

directed by Denis Villeneuve

Rating: 3.5 / 4

At the brooding heart of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) lies the idea that humans put together in a lab are more adept at humanity than their “real” counterparts. Stronger, smarter, and yes, even capable of not just loving someone else, but being better at it. The Alien (1979) auteur was putting a futuristic spin on an old-fashioned detective tale, but it’s clear that last part intrigued him just as much.

That box office underperformer turned out to be more memorable for its revolutionary production design than its nifty but remote exploration of artificial intelligence circa 2019, adapted from Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Thirty-five years later, Scott has handed over the reins to Denis Villeneuve (2013’s Prisoners, 2015’s Sicario) to return to this shiny, corroded future that’s alienated audiences and polarized critics for so long. The announcement filled me with dread and apprehension. I’ve seen Villeneuve craft compelling stories of haunted people batling their demons, both in arthouse and studio-backed productions. But I have also seen how he approaches science fiction in last year’s Arrival, a film opened to critical acclaim and sturdy box office but that also put this reviewer to sleep, hobbled as I found it by its wet blanket of a protagonist (sorry, Amy) and dearth of levity.

I sat in the dark confines of a vibrating Dolby auditorium and braced for the worst. And, as it turns out, my worries were unfounded. Blade Runner 2049 not only lives up to the promise of its predecessor; it expands on its universe in bold, arresting directions. In significant ways, this gorgeously rendered epic, forged in synthetic skin and the tattered remains of broken dreams, is a clearer, more nuanced and more humane portrayal of fake humans, here called replicants, striving to survive, to simply be, in a world that has nothing but hostility and scorn for them.

And few resent that second-class treatment more than “K,” a Los Angeles cop tasked with chasing down and “retiring” others like him. It’s been 30 years since fellow law enforcer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) and experimental replicant Rachael (Sean Young) did their vanishing act, and the quality of life on Earth has taken even more of a tumble. We’re told about these dire conditions in the lengthy (and necessary) captions that open the film, but it’s cinematographer Roger Deakins and production designer Dennis Gassner who make us feel the faded glory of these dilapidated landscapes that nevertheless still possess an intoxicating grandeur.

Ryan Gosling as K.

At the home of a rogue replicant, K, played by a perfectly cast Ryan Gosling, finds a box containing a secret that spooks his superior, Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright), enough to ask him to discard the evidence and erase all traces. But K decides to violate protocol and start digging. The discovery reaches the ears of Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), a visually impaired replicant manufacturer with a God complex, who sends right hand woman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) to, um, contain the situation.

If this all sounds like a hard-boiled yarn unfolding at breakneck speed, well, not quite. Villeneuve is in no hurry to let these plot strands intersect. This is a deliberately paced “policier” that, like the original, is equally concerned with bringing a futuristic California to tactile life. Look elsewhere for your fix, action junkies, and don’t judge Blade Runner 2049 for what it isn’t.

At the same time, the vibe the French Canadian director sustains is markedly different from Scott’s, and feels distinctly his own, while also paying tribute to what the 1982 film accomplished. And that includes introducing Joi (Cuban actress Ana de Armas), a holographic program that happens to be K’s live-in girlfriend. A lesser film would have glossed over their scenes of domestic bliss, an oasis from the gathering storm outside their apartment. Joi is perky, caring and nurturing, and at one point it becomes difficult to pinpoint the line between where the computer program ends and where genuine sparks begin.

Joi (Ana de Armas) and K.

De Armas (2016’s War Dogs) is magical, and her ethereal glow balances out the pessimistic outlook on display elsewhere, brilliantly conveyed in literal fashion by Deakins’ chiaroscuro tableaux. (Just give him the Oscar already. Can you believe he’s never won?) She’s this dark film’s blinding soul.

Villeneuve is also paying tribute to other filmmakers who braved these waters before him. If you ask me to describe what seeing Blade Runner 2049 feels like, it’s as if Christopher Nolan had tried to remake Metropolis (1927). The ambition and scope certainly recall Fritz Lang, but there are also scenes with a spartan austerity that bring to mind Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky.

Director Denis Villeneuve on set.

From a thematic point of view, I was also reminded on more than one occasion of Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men (2006) and to a lesser extent of Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report (2002), itself adapted from Dick’s work. The bottom line is that all the elements that I find irksome about Villeneuve are here: The slow-burn pacing, the somber gravity. But he has never combined them so judiciously. This is a quantum leap for him. He has made a soulful, richly transporting film that submerges us into these androids’ dreams until we feel like they’re our own. It’s wonderful.

Rubén Rosario

This review was first published in MiamiArtZine, October 2017.


I was somewhat less enthused than Rubén. Here’s my take:

Rating: 2.5 / 4

It took 35 years, but finally someone decided to make a sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1982’s seminal Blade Runner. I was initially wary of the idea, since for me the original film didn’t warrant a follow-up (and for the record, I believe the theatrical cut, with its graphic violence, neo-noirish narration, and “happy” ending is vastly superior to all the tinkered-with special versions that followed). Then I heard that Denis Villeneuve was directing, and I felt cautiously optimistic. Maybe, just maybe, he could pull this thing off?

Three decades after the events of Blade Runner, K, a police enforcer played by Ryan Gosling, discovers that Nexus-7 model Rachael (Sean Young) had a child, presumably with the long-missing Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford). This of course means that replicants can somehow reproduce, a revelation that could potentially start a war between humans and androids. Further complicating matters is the fact that K is a replicant himself… who may actually be Rick and Rachael’s son. So far, so good. But after a meandering 2 hours and 43 minutes, I kind of ended up at “So what?”

Not that it’s not worthwhile. Blade Runner 2049 is still rightfully concerned with those themes of accelerating technology and our relationship with it. But while Villeneuve is able to reproduce the original’s visual palette and wondrous special effects, he’s less successful when it comes to tone; Blade Runner was in no ways perfect, but it made us question – sometimes uncomfortably – what our future with man-made machines would be like. Even more interestingly, it ended with rogue replicant Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) saving his would-be assassin Deckard, indeed demonstrating the type of compassion humanity had long since forgotten. Blade Runner 2049 may touch on these subjects, but it all feels rather superficial, never going into the deep, murkier waters of its predecessor. Similarly to Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), the end result feels more like an approximation of what worked before rather than a piece that stands on its own merits.

Carlos I. Cuevas

About Carlos C.

Film lover, music fanatic, wannabe writer, raconteur.

16 Responses

  1. Carlos I. Cuevas

    In more recent interviews Scott has confirmed that Deckard is indeed a replicant. Which is why he made it clearer with the unicorn stuff in the director’s cut.

  2. Walter A. Cuevas

    In the first movie Tyrell tells Deckard that Rachel is a new experimental model that doesn’t know that she is a replicant. And Tyrell is VERY proud of this. A FIRST!! In the second movie they talked about Rachel as unique because she gave birth. That’s the center theme of the second movie. Basically she was a one-off model.

    If she is that (a one off-model), then Deckard, being old and capable of producing a baby too (had to have semen to get her pregnant) would mean she was not as unique as Tyrell said, as Deckard was manufactured before Rachel.

    If Deckard was a replicant, then the premise of both movies falls apart: 1) Rachel was not unique, and 2) The cross link of two species creates a baby.

  3. Austin Putnam

    I’ve seen this film 3 times and I want to watch it over and over again! Easily one of the best if not the best film of 2017.

Leave a Reply to Cristina García Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s