Having missed it as a child and then being unsure which version I was supposed to watch, I never saw Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” until the “final cut” was released in 2007. And I saw that one twice, because the first time didn’t take. I failed to love it, and I thought it might be my fault. Many things are.
But no, it turns out “Blade Runner” is a respectable movie with much to admire that I simply don’t care for. Though beautiful to look at, it’s cold and sterile. I respect it, but I don’t particularly enjoy it. (I feel the same way about a lot of people.)
So no hard feelings if you need your “Blade Runner 2049” opinions to come from a “Blade Runner” enthusiast and you have to stop reading now. For the rest of you, I can report that the melancholy sequel, produced by Scott and directed by Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival,” “Sicario”), is likewise visually gorgeous, likewise admirable in many ways, and likewise doesn’t do much for me, only now it takes 45 minutes longer to not do it.
The action is set 30 years after the events of the first film, with replicants (bioengineered humans) still comprising a major portion of the workforce in the dim, ashy dystopia that America has become. A blind technocrat named Wallace (Jared Leto) bought what was left of the company that used to make replicants, found a way to make them more obedient, and gave them fixed lifespans. But there are still some of the old models running around, the ones that aren’t as pliable and can theoretically live forever. It is the duty of the “blade runners” (cops) to find
[Continue reading at Crooked Marquee.]
C+ (2 hrs., 43 min.; )