Type to search

Columns Eleanor Ringel Cater Main Slider

Blade Runner 2049 – a visually stunning sequel of the 1982 classic

Poster for Blade Runner 2049

Poster for Blade Runner 2049

By Eleanor Ringel Cater

“Blade Runner 2049” is admirable and occasionally astonishing. But there is nothing in its entire 163 minutes that matches the gut-wrenching power of Rutger Hauer’s final speech in the original movie.

Ridley Scott’s sci-fi cult classic, “Blade Runner” was originally released in 1982 (since then, there have been one or two revised versions). It was set in the future (2019) in a rain-drenched world of neon and noise.  And human-like androids called replicants.

Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner – 2049

Replicants had an expiration date of four years. But sometimes, a replicant wouldn’t, well, go with the program. So cops called blade runners were dispatched to track down and destroy the occasional rogue. As a blade runner named Deckard (Harrison Ford) soon learns, it isn’t as simple as that.

By 2049, replicants have been replaced by new improved models (also called replicants) that are more obedient, more willing to play by the rules. However, the world still needs blade runners to “retire” the earlier versions, many of which have gone into hiding.

Sent on a seemingly routine mission by his boss (Robin Wright), Officer K (Ryan Gosling) runs into a hulking Old School replicant (Dave Bautista) who’s been up to something more than raising grubs on his protein farm. Just what that something is — and what it means — takes up the rest of the movie.

Along the way we meet mad genius Wallace Neander (a preening Jared Leto, wearing be-fogged contact lenses), who created said new improved models; his killer right-hand woman, Luv (Sylvia Hoeks); and K’s personally-programmed digital companion, Joi (Ana de Armis), who can shape-shift in an instant from adoring ‘50s housewife with dinner on the table to adoring sex kitten with, um, something else on the table.

Poster for Blade Runner 2049

Poster for Blade Runner 2049

Ultimately, the trail leads to Deckard (still Ford, still amazing), who’s been holed up in the remains of a Vegas nightclub with on-demand holograms of showgirls, Elvis and Sinatra (What? No Cirque de Soleil?).

Denis Villeneuve takes his movie-making seriously. His pictures — “Arrival,” “Prisoners,” among others —aren’t always successful. But they are always works of considerable interest. In other words, he is the furthest thing possible from a hack, and he hasn’t taken on “Blade Runner 20149” as a way to enhance his name recognition (as others might’ve). He’s given this his all…and then some.

The film is visually stunning (thank you, genius cinematographer Roger Deakins). And it constantly asks questions, ranging from the metaphysical to the spiritual to the just plain silly  (if you’re a regular person, you have no idea how the blog boys have been obsessing over “Blade Runner” and its long-promised sequel.)

Ultimately, you may find “Blade Runner 2049” something of a replicant itself. It looks right. It sounds right. It may even have some vestige of a soul.



Eleanor Ringel

Eleanor Ringel, Movie Critic, was the film critic for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for almost 30 years. She was nominated multiple times for a Pulitzer Prize. She won the Best of Cox Critic, IMAGE Film & Video and Women In Film awards. An Atlanta native, she graduated from Westminster and Brown University. She was the critic on WXIA’s Noonday, a member of Entertainment Weekly's Critics Grid and wrote TV Guide’s movie/DVD. She is member of the National Society of Film Critics and currently talks about movies on WMLB and writes the Time Out column for the Atlanta Business Chronicle.



  1. Joe Kitchens October 9, 2017 10:23 am

    Metaphors if you like ’em, irony if you don’t. But the plot is overshadowed by special effects sequences that add little to the experience. The original featured powerful romantic motives, Goslings’ character is propelled by a complex but less easily understood motive: he suspects that he is the first human child born of a replicant. Did I mention metaphors? Blade Runner, the original, remains a classic; “2049” could use a re-edit.Report

  2. Ann McLoughlin October 27, 2017 3:46 pm

    Although the original Blade Runner may have led one to believe that Deckard was human, subsequent versions (and the book, and Ridley Scott) were more of the opinion that Deckard was a replicant. Therefore, I was confused by the fact that we have now gone back to the idea that Deckard is human. I also felt that the movie was full of too many cliches (good vs. evil, the coming of the “chosen one”). Visually, I found it interesting. However, the plot was full of cliches, holes, and loose ends. One other thing that has always bothered me-if the world had a food shortage, why did the replicants need to eat and drink? I realize initially the replicants were hunted and wanted appear as human as possible, but as the newer models were “safer” to humans, so why not conserve previous resources?

    I’m also inclined to think some of the loose ends of the plot are based on whether certain characters (like Harrison Ford) will agree to appear in any subsequent sequels. I’m still thinking that two children were really born-both Ryan and his immune-compromised sister. Even if they really had the same DNA, as no half human-half replicant child(ren) had been born before (or so we presume), who would know what to expect re: the DNA profile.Report


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.