Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Movie Review: Denis Villeneuve’s Gold Standard Legacy Sequel

Share it

When we look at the timeline of the science fiction genre, some pictures stand out as moments in time that define the eras in which they were released, pushing the genre forward beyond where we ever believed it could even go. The likes of Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis”, Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”, George Lucas’ “Star Wars”, Ridley Scott’s “Alien” and “Blade Runner”, and the Wachowskis’ “The Matrix” all spring to mind, amongst others. Included in that list is Denis Villeneuve’s legacy sequel to Ridley Scott’s iconic “Blade Runner”, “Blade Runner 2049”.

Tackling a follow-up to a beloved cult classic, 35 years on from its release, is no small task. With Villeneuve himself even stating that it was “Probably the worst idea I’ve ever had”, during a conversation with “Ted Lasso” star Brett Goldstein at the BFI London Film Festival. Despite the monumental pressure, though, Villeneuve delivered a genuine modern classic that immediately cemented itself as one of the defining science fiction flicks of its time. Complete with some of the finest sound design you’re likely to hear, groundbreaking VFX work that brings to life Villeneuve’s grandiose vision, and breathtaking cinematography courtesy of the one and only Sir Roger Deakins.

What made Villeneuve the perfect filmmaker to tackle this gargantuan challenge is the groundwork that he had laid in the lead-up to the movie. Most notably, his effort that preceded “Blade Runner 2049”, “Arrival”. Villeneuve had established himself as one of the world’s finest filmmakers thanks to a run that included “Incendies”, “Prisoners”, “Enemy”, and “Sicario”. “Arrival”, though, is ironically, perhaps where Villeneuve truly arrived as a master of the science fiction genre, putting images to screen that fully realised fragments of ideas that had been present in some of his earlier work.

This set him up to tackle a sequel of unthinkable magnitude, as “Blade Runner” isn’t exactly the kind of movie that established the foundation for more to come. Its strength is in its ambiguity; there’s an absence of a distinct ‘lore’, much of the plot is relatively uncertain, and it even lacks a satisfying answer to any questions that you’re sure to have across its runtime. Attempting a sequel, then, runs the risk of ruining the film’s greatest strength, as if you do it wrong, the more you answer, the less interesting the world becomes.

But what makes this sequel so special is how, in an era of lacklustre sequels that reheated the nachos of its predecessor, this one successfully expands on the material and manages to justify its existence not through pandering to the masses, but by rewarding those who are familiar with the original, whilst giving them something entirely new to love.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Movie — A still from “Blade Runner 2049” (2017)

Notable sequels of this time, such as “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” and “Jurassic World”, took the foundational material of their respective franchises and gave it a fresh lick of paint for a new generation, whilst providing fans of said originals with cheap fan service, making for an entertaining spectacle in the cinema, but ultimately leaving an unremarkable lasting impression. “Blade Runner 2049”, on the other hand, had absolutely zero interest in accommodating a wider audience in such a way. And though that would likely be why its box office return paled in comparison to its contemporary sequel releases, it’s also why we look back on it with much fonder reflections.

It did so by making the assumption that you, as the viewer, were familiar with Ridley Scott’s original work. At no point spoon feeding the audience exposition to catch anybody up. It’s presumed that everybody tuning in for this one is aware of what a Blade Runner is, who Rick Deckard is, and why we should be excited to see this world’s triumphant return. And when we are given moments that could be described as ‘fan service’, they feel earned and relevant to the story being told, playing into the idea of expanding on the original material rather than rehashing it.

One of the ways that this movie furthers the “Blade Runner” narrative is that, where the original keeps to the confined space of California, this one begs the question: What does this world look like outside of the city? Not only does the answer provide us with some of the most striking images of the 21st century, but it also expands the scale of the narrative beyond what was imagined in its predecessor. Strengthening the story thematically and improving on an original that ultimately prioritised style over substance, it successfully navigates the fine line between diminishing Blade Runner’s strengths and going above and beyond to strengthen its weaknesses. Creating what might just be the perfect iteration of this world. All the style, with a whole lot more substance.

But beyond Blade Runner 2049’s impressive expansion of the overarching story, the film simply has some of the most awe-inspiring craft the medium has ever seen on display, and it’s exactly why it holds its place as a defining moment for the genre. What all of the aforementioned movies that pushed the genre forward have in common is that each of them, in one way or another, demonstrated something that pushed the boundaries of what was deemed to be possible.

For “Metropolis”, Fritz Lang’s futuristic landscape practically laid the groundwork for what ‘the future’ would come to look like in cinema for decades to come. The towering architecture, class division, automated societies, and the idea of the city in the sky, it all came from the mind of Lang. For “2001: A Space Odyssey”, it was simply the scale of what was possible to put on screen, as prior to Kubrick’s efforts, no one had managed to capture the endlessness of space in quite the same manner.

For “Star Wars”, it arguably birthed the idea of ‘the blockbuster’, though some may argue that Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” is to thank for that. Nevertheless, “Star Wars” proved that sci-fi could be at the heart of pop culture relevancy, completely revamping Hollywood’s economics by proving that science fiction filmmaking might just be where the money really is. As for the work of Ridley Scott, whilst “Alien” stands out for its fusion of sci-fi and horror, as well as by simply being amongst the very best the genre has to offer, “Blade Runner” popularised the on-screen ‘cyberpunk’ aesthetic that would go on to dominate much of the mainstream material we still consume today.

“The Matrix”, though, provided a complete reset, not just for the science fiction genre, but for film as a medium. We can look at movies pre- and post- “The Matrix”; it was that important. From its never-before-seen usage of the camera, making it feel completely free from the restrictions of the laws of physics, to its big philosophical ideas that feel more and more relevant with each passing year, it entirely redefined what was expected on-screen.

Amongst many others that were just as monumental, “Blade Runner 2049” holds its place next to that sci-fi royalty, thanks to the sheer magnitude of its visual delight. Depending on who you ask, it could just be the single most aesthetically and sonically pleasing movie of all time. And with Denis Villeneuve, Roger Deakins, and Hans Zimmer all coming together at the peak of their powers, who’s really going to argue against it?

Alongside something like Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar”, it set a new precedent for what sci-fi filmmaking can look like in the 21st century. As well as redefining what a legacy sequel can really be when handled by a filmmaker with real vision and a hunger to create something new. At the heart of it all, though, is a crop of performances that humanise this outlandish digital landscape that, without them, might just be beyond our comprehension.

Ana de Armas provides perhaps a career-best performance, Harrison Ford is as magnetising as ever, Dave Bautista is as tender as he is menacing, Jared Leto is there, and Ryan Gosling gives a wonderfully heartfelt lead performance as ‘K’. Where Deckard was a more classic noir detective in “Blade Runner”, ‘K’ is a more complex role to tackle.

Gosling is challenged with the task of embarking on an emotional odyssey that takes an obedient and clinical outsider to a more human than human emotional being, complete with all the blessings and curses that come with feeling. He’s unlike almost any other sci-fi protagonist in this way. He isn’t flashy or conventionally heroic, but rather introspective and really quite modern. K is quiet and vulnerable, despite his physical capabilities, and it requires a performer of a certain calibre to pull it off to this degree.

All this to say that “Blade Runner 2049” is pretty much everything you could ask for from a sequel. It expands on the universe in a way that justifies its existence, whilst recreating the gorgeous visual experience from the original, and standing alone as a singular, defining piece of art of its time. Something that we’ll look back on as a moment that raised the ceiling for science fiction filmmaking and redefined what a legacy sequel could be, of that much I’m sure.