Blade Runner 2049: Movie Revew

I would like to assure the reader that this review is just for fun and no real disrespect is directed at the actors or anyone involved. In truth, I did not like this movie. However, I also do not like movie critics for 2 reasons- they are as follows.

1. They take themselves too seriously.

2. I usually disagree with their opinions anyway.

I never have fun reading movie reviews. It seems that they feel obliged to present a "balanced" view of a film, offering some good points, some bad, usually more bad than good, and I feel that critics make a couple of complimentary remarks about a movie in order for themselves to be viewed as reasonable, fair, etc. I, on the other hand, would like to take this opportunity to say exactly how I feel about the movie, share with you the things I say while watching, picking apart every inconsistency, patronizing remark, as well as every actor's self aggrandizing/over acting performance. Ahh...it felt good getting all that out and we're just getting started!

First things first. In what year was the original Blade Runner set? Oh yes, 2019. That's next year. I think this makes the case that if you are going to do a futuristic film go whole hog. Don't just go 10 or 20 or 30 years into the future, go at least 100 years so that no one will be alive to criticize your original film when the sequel is made.

Back in 1982 when the original came out there were airborne motor vehicles like in the Jetson's cartoon. It was exactly the same in this movie. Here's a thought- Maybe update the timeline in the sequel to make it appear as if something changed in 30 years other than the fact that there are no trees (probably a slipped in homage to all the global warmers out there). This same problem pops up in the Jurassic Park franchise. Put all the movies side by side and the CGI effects are no better from the first one to the last one Jurassic World with Chris Pratt. In fact, one scene where some kids are playing with a triceratops looks completely animated. Wait a sec...wasn't I complaining about something else? Right, back to Blade Runner 2049.

I don't care how many great movies you've made, sir. That is no excuse for thinking that at age 75 (a dashing 75 for sure) you can participate in an action scene with an actor more than half your age who happens to be playing the part of a bio-engineered replicant, a humanoid with superhuman power. Keep in mind that the replicants in this movie are far superior to the ones in the first movie and you were beaten senseless by them, in fact by all of them! And we're supposed to believe that you would have at it in a "go as you please" fist fight with Ryan Gosling's character? I thought this was supposed to be a futuristic film, not a flat out Lord of the Rings fantasy film.

Also annoying, Ryan Gosling's character's name is simply "K." Why "K?" The movie never bothers explaining why in the future scientists go to such great lengths to create non-human humanoids to look exactly like humans, do everything humans can do except that they are smarter, stronger, faster, and are yet somehow still subservient to the scientists who created them and why (I know this is a really long sentence) they would name them with a single letter of the alphabet. It doesn't stand for the K-56Q854 model, no, it's just good old "K" like Tommy Lee Jones in the Men in Black franchise. Doesn't that bother you??? It bugs the heck out of me. Didn't anyone on the editing team say, "Hey maybe we should call Gosling's character "X" or "Q" or something cuz Tommy Lee Jones was already "K" in something else....I'm pretty sure..."

In short, no more action films for you Mr. Ford. See the hill? When it comes to action movies you're over it. And the next time you think about doing a sequel try not waiting 30 years to do so. The plot trail begins to run cold after 5 or 10 years. I know the Star Wars saga is an exception, but those movies are watched yearly by the fan base while Blade Runner had more of a cult following. One exception would be the movie you did in the late 80's Regarding Henry about a philandering lawyer who gets shot in the head and turns into a nice guy. I've been wondering what his character's been up to? Hmmmm... (pondering)

Do you know that feeling when you're watching a movie, and you're waiting, and waiting, for the plot to start making sense? You keep giving it another 10 minutes because the casting is solid and you think, "Surely they wouldn't make a dud film with all these stars and all these special effects?" When you begin watching this film plan on having that thought throughout. I think this movie will do very well if it is redone by Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Ryan Gosling has never seemed incredibly masculine in my opinion. In fact, he always looks a little too boyish, the kind of kid that got pushed around on the playground. However, in this movie, at 37 he's finally starting to look like a man. The problem is he's wasted all that manliness, all that new found virility on THIS movie. It isn't just me, right?

In summation my main complaint isn't about actors trying to extend their action roles into their 70's or even about movies that run 163 minutes like this one- that's long enough for a hair to turn gray. It is rather about a sequel being so bad it makes you resent the original (the Highlander and Taken franchises made the same mistake) . Blade Runner from 1982 was a classic, no doubt. It has been remastered and re-released in theaters several times. It has a dark, noir quality to it with Ford's overdubbed narrative- he has an excellent voice for that sort of thing- there are quiet moments of tension that is devoid of any sound or background music. This follow up gives the impression that it's going somewhere special, but it never gets there. I kept waiting and waiting to see Ford's re-emergence as Rick Deckard, but when it finally came and he appeared I was already so irritated with the movie that it was more of a "well it's about time" feeling than a "wow." There was no wow. I think we've done just about all we're going to do with knocking people's socks off with special effects. We've seen it all. I'm sure there's more to be done, ok, but I also think we've reached a point in movie making where we have to get back to good story telling. If we saw fireworks everyday the fourth of July wouldn't be special. It's the same with special effects. It just gets old after a while no matter how spectacular. The first Blade Runner had great effects for the time, but more importantly it had a compelling story that kept you on the edge of your seat and it didn't need 2.5 hours to do it. Part of this film's problem is that it just overstated it's case. There were huge swaths of plot and time line sequences that added absolutely nothing to the movie and would've been better left out.

My final thought for the reader is this: If you have never seen the first Blade Runner, check it out. It's one of Harrison Ford's most unique roles. As with his performance in the Indiana Jones movies I couldn't see anyone else but him playing the role of agent Deckard.