A metropolitan dystopian world in which humanity relies on the slave labor of cloned replicants, and on the ability of ”Blade Runners” in order to destroy rogue replicants–this is the setting for the Blade Runner films. In Blade Runner 2049, the old Tyrell Corporation which used to produce replicants went bankrupt, and the new Wallace Corporation which produces more benevolent replicants takes its place.

“K”, played by Ryan Gosling is one of these new replicants, and ironically enough, works as a blade runner in this film in order to protect humanity from the wrath of the old replicants who still haunt greater Los Angeles.  

Blade Runner first came to theaters in 1982 with little fanfare and moderate box office earnings.  It was praised heavily for its exceptional cinematography and its eerily grounded dystopian world.  The setting was made even more interesting through talented set design; the simple act of Harrison Ford walking down the street in the 2019 impoverished Los Angeles conveyed so much about the vibrancy and construction of the place.  Blade Runner was able to make the viewer escape into the world, and allow one to further understand the plight of Ford’s character.

Contrast this with Blade Runner 2049: the shot composition was smooth and flowed well, and everything in the film was technically well-done.  However, it is definitely not an overstatement to say that many of the sets lacked a distinctive character.  Blade Runner 2049 borrows the aesthetic of the original, but it lacks the personality of its predecessor; Blade Runner’s scenes were filled with hustle and bustle, ornamentation and fleeting yet interesting characters. Blade Runner 2049, on the other hand, is defined by CG models and flat personalities.

That’s not to say that the movie isn’t well done, or that it isn’t entertaining, or even that it completely lacks interesting sets.  It’s just that much of the composition of the film has been gentrified by the current Hollywood mentality.  

Both Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling make phenomenal performances.  Aside from being relatively boring, the sets are well-designed.  The action sequences are well-directed and extremely entertaining.  However, while most of the technical aspects of the film are done rather well, many of the literary aspects feel very contrived.

The plot and the characters had one thing in common: they suck.  The characters aren’t bad in themselves, but oftentimes their reactions toward the narrative and their motivations make no sense.  For instance, when Ryan Gosling’s AI girlfriend (Ana de Armas) gets destroyed by Sylvia Hoeks, one of the main antagonists in the film, there is no substantial emotional reaction written into Gosling’s part, and the moment feels cheapened.  This type of moment is very common in Blade Runner 2049: the inclusion of irrelevant characters and insincere motivations abound in this film.

As for the narrative, it is in good form for the first half of the movie, but around that point it takes a turn for the worst.  Sporadic and ill-conceived plot devices are shoehorned in.  After a while, watching the movie feels more like a chore and less like an experience.  By the end of the film, I could both physically and mentally feel those three hours I spent in the theatre.  It was completely draining.

That’s not to say it didn’t have its moments.  A lot of the action scenes were well directed and extremely entertaining.  The main problem is is that the film isn’t enjoyable as a whole.

Blade Runner 2049 was a movie that had so much potential to be so much more, but was nevertheless bogged down by a tiresome film-producing culture.  It deserves a 6/10.