Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

This was not a bad movie, but let's be honest, did it really need 2hrs and 45 minutes to tell the story? There was a lot of wasted time in-between the action scenes, or lack thereof .. This is why I tend to avoid the drama genre 🥱 (yawn) but that's just my opinion. What drew me to watch this was the cast, with big names like Harrison Ford, Ryan Gosling and Ana de Armas, it should have kept my interest .. well that's almost three hours of my life I won't get back. It wasn't bad per say, but 90 minutes, or even 120 minutes could have told the same…

Did it really need a sequel? It was beautiful. I mean, it looked beautiful...even if there was one part that made me motion sick, but even that part was beautiful. And that, I think, was really more of a lighting thing than a set design thing or a special effects thing. Honestly, you remember the lighting in this. You remember it the way people remember the lighting in an Edward Hopper painting. But did it need a sequel? The acting was great, it really was. There was honestly no real flaw as to how the movie looked, how it was directed, or how it was…

I loved Blade Runner 2049. It expands the original’s world without losing its mystery, pairing stunning, haunting visuals with a surprisingly emotional story about identity, memory, and what it means to be human. Ryan Gosling’s restrained performance fits the film’s lonely mood perfectly, while Denis Villeneuve gives the slow pace real purpose. It’s deliberate and atmospheric rather than action-heavy, but for me that makes every image and quiet moment land even harder.