Reviews by:
@thefilmobservatory
@augustkellerwrites
RATE THIS MOVIE
6
5
4
3
4/5
Sci-Fi/Neo-Noir
The balance of the world is hanging on a thread, when LAPD ‘blade runner’ KD6-3.7 (Ryan Gosling) investigates a case that suggests the possibility of replicant (similar to android) reproduction.
My decision to not reward Blade Runner 2049 (2049) with a higher rating is likely going to be a controversial one, so I’ll offer some clarification for those who believe it to be Villeneuve’s magnum opus. Yes, Roger Deakins’ cinematography is jaw-dropping. Yes, Ryan Gosling and Ana de Armas’ performances are good. Yes, Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch’s score is smartly subtle. And yes, Villeneuve’s bold direction is impressive. However, I believe there to be some rarely addressed flaws present that hold 2049 back from crossing the line between pretty good and great. For anyone who doesn’t want to read this whole review, I’ll quickly say that the main things that hold it slightly back for me are the overly slow pacing and the handling of the story, more-so the lack thereof.
I don’t usually begin an early paragraph of a review discussing cinematography but it’s what stands out to me the most about 2049, so I’m going to go ahead and do exactly that. Roger Deakins is a legend. From the Coens’ black-comedy classic Fargo to Sam Mendes’ moving war epic 1917, Deakins is one of the most talented and versatile cinematographers out there, and his work on 2049 shows no exception. This film’s cinematography is breath-taking. Colour schemes are particularly distinct, from the neon pink in KD6-3.7’s (K) home city to the sharp orange of the ruined Las Vegas. It’s all so creative, and the vividity brilliantly contrasts against the sombre tone of life in this world, since it’s become so superficial – it feels as though everybody in this world is, in reality, a lone wanderer. The different colour gradients convey abstract meaning but also mean that all shots in the film offer variety and prettiness to look at. It’s rare to see a film where the cinematography actually steals the show, but that’s not to say that the cast members don’t more than serve their purpose.
Dear reader, I raise you a question. Has Ryan Gosling ever delivered a bad performance? After Drive and La La Land in particular, I’ll happily say no. 2049 continues to showcase his range, in this role that requires him to be more subtle, and less the handsome, charming leading man. He wasn’t the strongest part of 2049, but that comment possesses no negative undertones; Gosling fits into and adds to the film exactly how he needed to. As a replicant, K is made to be professional and probably quite literally calculating, and Gosling absolutely makes you believe this. However, K serves as a sympathetic and chivalrous anchor to the story that’s so large in scale. It isn’t that he lacks heart, more-so that he stays calm and in control, while also questioning certain aspects of his life and people’s expectations of him, perhaps due to the suggestion of replicants being able to reproduce, further humanising them. Like Harrison Ford in the original film, Gosling is good because he’s able to make an A-lister blend in – if 2049 is a clock, then K is simply a cog in the wider story, rather than one of the hands at the forefront. Ana de Armas is pretty good in the film too, but she is unfortunately underused. Her part is Joi, K’s artificial, holographic (I think?) partner, and she shines for the most part.
There’s an incredibly intimate scene between the two, that stunningly conveys the pain that they each feel at their inability to physically feel each other as humans can. However, it can be difficult to get on board with this romance in a film of this scale, as there isn’t time to solely focus on it for extended sections. De Armas effectively demonstrates Joi’s frustration at her lack of freedom, but in the greater scheme of things, it feels like her main purpose is as a plot device to add to and emulate K’s emotional journey. Jared Leto is in another, even more-so underused supporting role, as Niander Wallace, the creator of the latest and greatest model of replicant, the Nexus-9 (I’m guessing that the creator and writers of Loki are big fans of the Blade Runner films). He shows up too erratically to feel like an important player, despite 2049’s insistence that he’s a very intimidating antagonist. Leto does a decent job with the character but it doesn’t totally work because the film feels confused about how relevant he really is to the narrative. Harrison Ford returns as Deckard from the original and adds an interesting gravitas to our (small) team of protagonists. It’s nice to see 2049 paying respects to its predecessor but the presence of Ford does feel a bit too fan-servicey for a film that’s generally so unique and intellectual. Actors like Robin Wright and Dave Bautista round out a pretty good cast – overall, there’s much talent present onscreen and behind the camera.
Some of the stronger aspects of the film, that work especially well in retrospect, are the interesting themes that Villeneuve blends in with the world-building and visual spectacle. They mainly regard identity and humanity but are played subtly enough to not feel on the nose. K’s quest for humanity culminates when he deviates from his rigid replicant programming – he makes a sacrifice to save others. Throughout the film, his character experiences emotions, such as love and pain, that further question what actually makes a human. If K looks, talks and feels like a human, why should he be treated any different? But nonetheless, replicants like him must live in fear, and are discriminated in this world. The social commentary from the first film continues here, about the humans’ common disregard for replicant life, boiling down to the problematic delusional superiority and selfishness of the people. While the film presents some interesting messaging, I don’t think it’s quite as deep as people believe. 2049 is largely about the bigger picture and not about nuanced character development, other than K’s journey, which is done mostly well, to be fair. However, I never felt that 2049 had a “tears in rain” scene, like the famous monologue that took place towards the end of the original film. That scene is incredible because it’s the moment when Harrison Ford’s Deckard definitively understands that replicants live in fear, despite being a fellow form of sentient and intelligent life. Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty comments on the transience of time, raising a philosophical point for discussion as a human might, and his monologue is delivered in a mature and literary style of scriptwriting and manner. It’s also the scene when Roy Batty does the most human thing possible – he feels empathy. Ironically, though, if the capacity for empathy is solely what defines a human, then Roy Batty is ultimately one of the most human characters in the film. The messaging is powerful and concise in the original film, and I just don’t believe 2049 pulls it off in the same genius way, leading onto the things that held the film back for me.
If a filmmaker wants to take their time to tell an expansive narrative, then by all means, they should stick with their guts and make the film that they want to make. However, that doesn’t mean that the story and pacing will sustain the runtime and hold the interest of the audience. 2049 suffers because it doesn’t have enough plot to hold a 2 hours 44 minutes runtime, so you end up with scenes often feeling pretentiously dragged out. Unfortunately, I have to comment on this as an issue, because there were sections in 2049 where the visuals were gorgeous and the atmosphere was beautifully crafted but I was simply losing focus and quite liable to getting distracted. It’s such a slow film that it can be a challenge to stay fully engaged, and I really wanted to love it after hearing such great things, but the pacing doesn’t work with how little story there is. The film focuses on the main storyline, which is obviously typical, however, it doesn’t seem to spare much time for subplots, so it doesn’t feel like Villeneuve sufficiently explores this futuristic, narratively rich world with endless possibilities. Overall, though, Villeneuve undoubtedly takes an honourable crack at following up such an iconic and brilliant first film: 2049’s main story is interesting and does nicely take the concepts and world in a different direction from the first film.
As previously commented on, the technical elements are executed with confidence and much bravado. It isn’t the strongest of Hans Zimmer’s music but his collaboration with Benjamin Wallfisch works well in 2049. I feel that the often-bass notes may have worked better in the cinema, with effective surround sound but the score works well to not take over or be distracting, but to just help craft the atmosphere. The audio design is calculated and immersive, from drops of rain to explosive gunfire. I don’t need to spoon-feed the reader and explain why the camerawork is great, considering the experienced and well-established crew behind-the-scenes. Deakins makes shots look pretty, be unique and distinct, and contain meaning. While the story and pacing of 2049 are imperfect, all of these technical elements in 2049 are examples of the best that Hollywood can produce. The execution of them is frankly a ‘10/10’, so it’s just a shame that the issues came with some of the writing.
Overall, Blade Runner 2049 isn’t flawless but does showcase some phenomenal aspects, and I think that the cinematography alone makes it a compelling watch for fans of cinema, and how movies are made. Not everything pays off, but Villeneuve injects his own artistic flair to make an original sequel that honours and accords to central elements of the original, but expands the mythology, and core messaging of the film. Its sluggish pacing ensures that it isn’t a conventional crowd-pleaser, but the experience is rewarding for those who follow with their full, undivided attention. I recommend Blade Runner 2049 to fans of Denis Villeneuve, slow-burn science-fiction, and/or thoughtful cinema.
RATE THIS REVIEW
6
5
4
3
Blade Runner 2049 is perfect. The ambition of a pop culture epic met with the detail of high art; this film has everything. The story is grand and philosophical, but captures significant emotion with a bittersweet hero arc. The characters are motivated. The setting is extravagant but extremely relevant. Meanwhile, the imagery is striking and packed with meaningful layers. Color, lighting, texture, and composition are all optimized to orchestrate a shower of visual artwork. Working in tandem with the masterful soundtrack, this produces a mesmerizing experience that teleports viewers to a brand new world.
On that topic, the production design is genius and creates an atmosphere that is fantastically futuristic yet hyper-real. Decaying yet sleek, decrepit yet beautiful, modern yet primal. The world of Blade Runner 2049 seamlessly highlights its class divide. This is driven home by the array of visual effects. Modern CGI mixed with tangible miniatures pushes those united feelings of old and new. Lastly, the acting brings everything together. Ryan Gosling appears stoic at first, but his portrayal of deeply repressed emotions that suddenly explode is exactly needed. A dejected protagonist fit for his dejected world. In conclusion, Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece and everything a movie should be.
Writing: 10/10
Direction: 10/10
Cinematography: 10/10
Acting: 10/10
Editing: 9/10
Sound: 9/10
Score/Soundtrack: 10/10
Production Design: 10/10
Casting: 10/10
Effects: 10/10
Overall Score: 9.8/10
For more of my work: https://guskeller.wixsite.com/moviefilmreviews
RATE THIS REVIEW
6
5
4
3
Comments