Blade Runner 2049: Same Setting; Still not Interesting

Are you ready for a horrific reality, People-Who-Think-Blade-Runner-Is-Awesome? Here it goes: the movie isn't great. Sure, it has a pretty interesting setting, Rutger Hauer was a lot of fun with his depressed wax on existentialism and, for the most part, the movie does a pretty good job in the whole world building department. But, let's be honest, the story and pacing are mind-numbingly boring, the movie is known more for its nauseating number of recuts and, despite its influence, the whole “Are we real?” question that movie seemed so anxious to ask in every version was so much better delivered in the dozens of Japanese homage movies made in its wake (Ghost in the Shell, Akira). Now, with so many recuts, obnoxious fanboy arguments about its place in science fiction and even the weird foreshadowing of Ridley Scott's personality (the existential angst is strong in that man), Hollywood has finally just gone the sequel route. The result: a passable sci-fi movie set in the world that you probably love with little or no context to care. Good job, Hollywood?

Look, from a clear aesthetic point of view, Blade Runner 2049 is a beautiful movie that never misses a chance to show off its weird future world. Future Los Angeles is still just as much a sight to behold as it was in 1982, there are partially successful attempts to reconcile the original's themes with the sequel's story, and, in an about face from the original, most of the cast (instead of just Rutger Hauer) put in enough work here to make me actually believe they cared this time around. Even in the hands of weirdo director Denis Villeneuve, the movie feels like the people who made the original memorable were still involved in some heavy degree. That's dedication.

Unfortunately, much like its predecessor, the movie is still an overlong, mostly predictable (even I saw the twist halfway through the movie) chore of a movie whose only memorable quality is its commitment to its own nihilism. Sure, you could argue that some of the action scenes (at least the ones you can see properly) play out well enough to understand, but it all comes down thematically to the same stupid question Ridley Scott asked back in 1982 and just can't seem to escape from now that he's almost 80. “How do we determine what is real in an artificial world?” just isn't that interesting of a question this time around.

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Considering it was the only major release and Friday the 13^th is coming with the promise of seemingly better action movies (The Foreigner), better horror movies (Happy Death Day) and even better historical dramas (Breathe, Goodbye Christopher Robin), my best suggestion would be to just take an off week this time around. Are you an unrepentant fan of the 1982 original and cover your ears to its myriad criticisms? Knock yourself out here.

Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) continues to make aesthetically beautiful, if thematically frustrating, movies about existence without deeper meaning. Basically, replicant Blade Runner 'K' (Ryan Gosling) discovers a conspiracy involving older model replicants that could cause a war between human factions and machines. Along the way, Harrison Ford will appear and act like he really needed a paycheck, hologram assistant Joi (Ana de Armas) will somehow display more depth than most characters despite being a soulless, body-less A.I., Robin Wright will sell her throwaway character's part for all its worth and, when it finally ends after two-and-a-half excruciating hours, you'll feel like the whole mess of a plot was literally for the sake of nothing while scrambling for deeper meaning. Thanks, Hollywood, but I already own every season of Rick & Morty. I don't need any more case studies on existential nihilism.

My score: 4/10. Seriously, if you want to have an existential crisis AND be entertained, just watch Rick & Morty. It's the only show that makes you laugh from the humor and cry at the horrors of existence in the same breath.