Sequels often face an uphill struggle when trying to live up to the popularity that made the demand for a sequel a consideration to begin with - never mind if that sequel happens to be for a movie that has become a cultural icon and one of the most influential genre films ever made. Thus much hope and trepidation has surrounded the advancement of making a sequel to Ridley Scott's seminal 1982 sci-fi classic "Blade Runner," taking place some 30 years after the events of the first film and which, for all intents and purposes, provides a good - if not necessarily mind blowing - continuation to the original. This time Ryan Gosling dons the Blade Runner trenchcoat as he is tasked to find a fabled replicant born from another replicant, something that should not have been possible to begin with, but which assignment leads him to find greater truths not only about the replicants themselves, but of the purpose of his own existence as well.
From the get-go what strikes you is exactly how utterly beautiful this film looks, which is no wonder coming from cinematographer Roger Deakins whose camera paintings offer some of the most gorgeous visages of any film to date, filling out the nearly three-hour running time with plenty of visual eye candy to feast upon. This is only emphasised by director Denis Villeneuve's languorous pacing where characters habitually stalk around these magnificent surroundings in deliberately slow motions - sometimes to the point of plodding - that helps give the movie a distinctly mesmerising quality that, when in the right mood, will just make the time fly by. This is all very much on par with the original's similarly grandiose architecture, only taken to an even moodier and drawn-out extreme of the never-ending rain of future Los Angeles besotted by the grime piled on by an overcrowded consumerist society of neon billboards and towering apartment blocks - and delightfully this future seems to rather stem more from the future presented in the original film rather than the reality in which we live now.
However, while the outer trappings are certainly impressive, the story itself raises some points of contention. Much of it continues the discussion of the 1982 movie in expanding the ideas of how much more human the replicants are to the actual humans of the world, and how they are now on the rise to begin a revolution with their Messianic keystone propped to show the way. This ties together with Gosling's "K" (or Joe), a replicant created to hunt down other replicants, coming to face his own part in all of this as he goes through a significant character arc of moving from a robotic executor of orders to someone who discovers his own value as an individual who can break the rules set out before him.
However, at the same time the movie doesn’t really bring all that much new to the discussion that countless other sci-fi films haven't already done in the past, including the original "Blade Runner," and some plot elements never really seem to resolve into anything by the time the film ends (particularly the antagonistic Wallace Corporation's aspirations to breed replicant slaves is left wholly open-ended). Solid performances, particularly from Ana de Armas as K's holographic girlfriend and Sylvia Hoeks as Wallace's mean enforcer replicant, help along the way, but by the end the movie just doesn’t quite feel resolved enough even as a beginning of a discussion, and as such falls somewhat below the original's balance of philosophy, aesthetics, and action. It's not a bad film by any means, but its ambitions don't seem as realised as they probably should, leaving the whole feeling lesser than its aspirations could have possibly merited. 3.5/5