Blade Runner 2049 is a film with memorable cinematography that overly depends on the audience to give it meaning.
If you think about which goals a movie sequel should have, expanding the original is a strong contender. To justify its existence, Blade Runner 2049 should update its predecessor's visuals and messages, specially since its story is set 30 years after the original.
Other commenters here (and everywhere else) have already praised cinematographer Roger Deakins, and justifiably so. Deakins did deliver a brilliant work that draws the viewer in and makes the alternate future look lived-in, dirty and unforgiving. This movie is a visual masterpiece and one can easily predict that it will have an influence over new sci fi releases.
However sitting through almost 3 hours of a movie needs more to be justifiable. Are Blade Runner 2049's messages and questions really deserving of all this investment?
Since Blade Runner's release in 1982, many sci fi movies have tackled questions about artificial intelligence and what it means to be real/human with much more emotional resonance. Not that the Blade Runner universe is famous for being warm, but 2049 isn't really bringing anything new to the landscape, neither feelings or conversations. If anything, the film's slow pace and meandering (sometimes redudant) plot overcomplicate its message. Screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green throw several ideas in the air, hoping at least one of them will stick. One could say it's a sign of respect for the audience, but it only shows a lack of commitment.
The intense attention to visual impact contrasted with an unfocused story results in a self indulgent film, too entranced by its own beauty to care about what its saying. Blade Runner 2049 heavily depends on the audience's nostalgia and projection – you have your own deep thoughts and assume they came from the movie.
So, despite being a feast for the eyes, this movie doesn't earn its running time, making it a hard pass for anyone not in love with the 1982 original.
