Entertains but falls sadly short of the original, rather drawn out too.

Rating: 7/10 (19 October 2017)

Blade Runner (1982) was for me an absolute classic. I was enthralled the first time, and have seen it many times since, including the morning of the day I watched Blade Runner (2049) in the afternoon. The whole 'feel' of 1982 conveyed something original. The 1982 Vangelis sound track is superb and creates the perfect ambiance, the cinematography is dark and surreal, and rain is just ever-so- slightly featured! Sure, 1982 has the odd 'cheesy' 1980's content as viewed now, but back then the whole was utterly brilliant.
Die-hard fans of the original will appreciate the huge amount of careful detail that has been brought over from 1982. It is very obvious how much effort has been made to re-create the same atmosphere. Sadly, 2049 just doesn't quite make it. The film contains an unmistakably firm nod to 1982 (eye at the start, city, rain, dark, cyclists, road crossings, electronic billboards, 'Chinese' culture, etc.) but despite significantly better imaging quality and technology, doesn't quite communicate the underlying grim portrayal of the 'grime' of 1982.
I will also say that unless you know your 1982 narrative and characters there will be large amounts of 2049 that you'll either simply not notice, but more frustratingly, simply fail to comprehend. Unlike, for example, I Robot (2004) that stands alone as a complete film (you don't need to be familiar with Isaac Asimov), 2049 relies to a large extent on the 1982 premise. The film does start with several statements that attempt to contextualise the circumstances, but for most non-1982 fans these statements won't help that much. There is a 'story', but those who don't know 1982 will most likely struggle to keep up with it.
1982 moved along at a reasonable pace, well, at least engages throughout. However, 2049 is very much laboured. I love Sci-Fi, I'm a huge fan of 1982, but I actually found myself yawning during some parts of 2049! Overall it's worth a watch, especially as you get 'value for money' - almost three hours long! Soundtrack is great, not a patch on the original, but still firmly of the same genre.
Would I watch it again? Not paying, no, on TV in several years, maybe. As a sequel it disappointingly fell short.