In 'Blade Runner 2049,' 'visionary' is synonymous with slow and monotonous

There are flashes of visual grandeur in “Blade Runner 2049,” which was shot by the always inventive Roger Deakins, but there’s not much reason for this film to exist outside of its fan base.

Stephen Vaughan/Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
Ryan Gosling, (L.) and Harrison Ford in a scene from 'Blade Runner 2049.'

Denis Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049” is the long-awaited sequel to Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner,” the dystopian 1982 sci-fi classic that has proven to be one of the most influential movies ever made, even though some of that influence – such as the substitution of startling production design for compelling story – has been dubious at best. The dubiousness, to a far greater extent, continues with “Blade Runner 2049,” which is impressive to watch and, at 163 minutes, often a chore to sit through.

Ryan Gosling plays Los Angeles police officer “K,” whose job it is to “retire” the few remaining old-style Nexus 8 replicants, which have been replaced by the more controllable Nexus 9 series. Since most of this movie, co-written by Michael Green and Hampton Fancher (Fancher co-wrote the original) resides in the realm of Spoiler Alert, suffice to say there is talk of a pregnant replicant, “K” suffers an identity crisis, his Nexus 9 girlfriend Joi (Ana de Armas) is easily the coziest hologram ever seen on film, and, as has been well-publicized, Harrison Ford shows up for the last half hour or so in his old role as Rick Deckard, looking appropriately grizzled and massively annoyed to have been tracked down by “K.”

Like Villeneuve’s “Arrival,” “Blade Runner 2049” is heavy with portentous and pretentious hoo-ha. Like so many filmmakers, and not just sci-fi filmmakers, Villeneuve seems to think that “visionary” is synonymous with very slow and very monotonous. Poor Ryan Gosling, who is required to intone his lines with extreme soddenness, has to shoulder the brunt of the monotony. There are flashes of visual grandeur in “Blade Runner 2049,” which was shot by the always-inventive Roger Deakins, but there’s not much reason for this film to exist outside of its fan base. Grade: C+ (Rated R for violence, some sexuality, nudity, and language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.