← Back to Reviews
in
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
The production itself is very impressive. The production design, cinematography, and special effects will certainly win some awards.
The story is engaging enough, and carries some suspense with it. However it would be helpful to watch the original Blade Runner from 1982 in order to understand the significance of some of the characters and plot points. The Rachel character, e.g., is integral to the understanding of the story. I had seen the original when it was released, but I couldn't remember the finer points of the story; only what a blade runner was, replicants, and the then wonderful special effects.
As others have mentioned, the pacing was too slow. It isn't that the movie was too long, but it was the way it was wound out. Still, 20-30 minutes could easily have been removed, and the narrative tightened up. The film may have relied too heavily on the assumption that the viewers would be very familiar with the base story. The story might have been explained a little more obviously for first time viewers, even to the point of using a narrator. "K" or another character might have offered some recaps.
The other contributor to its slowness was the relentless portrayal of the dystopian, bleak atmosphere, undergirded by the ponderous electronic droning music score. Those two elements weigh down the experience, and could have used some contrasting breaks to refresh the audience.
The time setting was anchored to the original, which was supposed to take place in 2019. So adding 30 years gave them the title. Yet no one could expect the conditions displayed in the new film to possibly occur in 2049- 31 years from now. A more apt year would be 2149 or even 2249. But as a sequel (which in itself was "mis-yeared") they were stuck with the time frame.
To sum, I thought it to be a good film, but being familiar with the original would be a big plus before watching Blade Runner 2049.
The production itself is very impressive. The production design, cinematography, and special effects will certainly win some awards.
The story is engaging enough, and carries some suspense with it. However it would be helpful to watch the original Blade Runner from 1982 in order to understand the significance of some of the characters and plot points. The Rachel character, e.g., is integral to the understanding of the story. I had seen the original when it was released, but I couldn't remember the finer points of the story; only what a blade runner was, replicants, and the then wonderful special effects.
As others have mentioned, the pacing was too slow. It isn't that the movie was too long, but it was the way it was wound out. Still, 20-30 minutes could easily have been removed, and the narrative tightened up. The film may have relied too heavily on the assumption that the viewers would be very familiar with the base story. The story might have been explained a little more obviously for first time viewers, even to the point of using a narrator. "K" or another character might have offered some recaps.
The other contributor to its slowness was the relentless portrayal of the dystopian, bleak atmosphere, undergirded by the ponderous electronic droning music score. Those two elements weigh down the experience, and could have used some contrasting breaks to refresh the audience.
The time setting was anchored to the original, which was supposed to take place in 2019. So adding 30 years gave them the title. Yet no one could expect the conditions displayed in the new film to possibly occur in 2049- 31 years from now. A more apt year would be 2149 or even 2249. But as a sequel (which in itself was "mis-yeared") they were stuck with the time frame.
To sum, I thought it to be a good film, but being familiar with the original would be a big plus before watching Blade Runner 2049.