Blade Runner 2049

First confession: I don't think the original Blade Runner is a good movie.

Aesthetically, it's revolutionary. The rain-drenched dystopian Los Angeles makes for some incredible images, and there's a palpable sense of the society that inhabits it. As a piece of world-building, I think it's brilliant.

Storytelling and characters though failed for me. I think I only managed to follow the story at the time because I had previously read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, so I understood some of the context that was missing from the film.

As a result, I had high hopes for the sequel - a fascinating universe in the hands of someone who wasn't Ridley Scott (great on visuals, lousy on story).

And to an extent, the film delivered. The storytelling felt more cohesive, the characters felt slightly better rounded, and I felt that the story better delivered on some of the themes (slavery, unreliable memory) than the original.

Visually the film looks great too, although it doesn't feel as revolutionary as Scott's original vision, and although there are glimpses of the background society, the action largely seems to take place on an elevated level, and not down in the gutters like the first film, which made it feel a bit lacking.

The social commentary also seemed a bit absent when it came to female roles. There are some great performances by some of the female actors, but the acceptance of the role of women (either as holograms or replicants) as sex toys is not presented in any fashion that condemns such exploitation, but rather in a way that seems to accept it with no criticism. Granted there's a comment about male replicants, but that too is presented in such a way that it seems to normalise the concept, by the off-hand way in which it is mentioned.

Then there's the pacing, which has been much criticised by audiences. The film could easily have been considerably shorter to no ill-effect. Replacing Jared Leto with someone who didn't pause so ponderously would have been a good start. A bit less lingering over really dull moments would have helped too.

I saw it twice, napped a bit during some of the slower parts the second-time around (nature's fast forward), but aside from those slow parts, it generally held up well for the second-viewing - there were additional details early in the film that made more sense on the repeat view.

Overall, I think I found this more watchable than the original film, but less important.