Good, but could do with a trim

Rating: 7/10 (7 October 2017)

Despite my love of epic sci-fi, Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford and general futuristic shenanigans, I am possible the one geek out there who never really 'got' 'Bladerunner. I've watched it numerous times over the years, every time hoping I'd see it for the 'masterpiece' that everyone else seems to. The weird thing about my interaction with Bladerunner is that as soon as the credits roll, I forget everything I've seen. About the only two things I can remember are something about a man questioning a robot about a turtle and Rutger Hauer snapping fingers towards the end of the movie. Therefore, when I sat down for the (long awaited) sequel 'Bladerunner 2049' my hopes were hardly high. It's now nearly a day since I've watched it and, although I wouldn't call it the greatest film I've ever seen, at least I can pretty much recall everything the average cinema goer does about a film they've just watched – so at least that's an improvement on the original (from my point of view!).
The first film is set in the future where human-shaped robots (known as 'replicants') live among the human population. Harrison Ford was the cop in charge of bringing in any replicants who go AWOL. This time round in 2049 we have a similar set-up, this time with Ryan Gosling taking over the role of the cop chasing down rogue replicants. Now, he's a good choice for the serious tone of the lead. Just because the original was filmed in the eighties where action movies were a little more over the top and tongue in cheek, doesn't mean either 'Bladerunner' film is anything other than completely serious. And, I should say now that neither should really be considered an 'action' movie. If you're looking for wall-to-wall shoot outs and car chases, you won't find them in 'Bladerunner world.' I suppose as much as I enjoyed Gosling's performance in the lead, I was (and am) always a Harrison Ford fan. Now, he came back in a big role in 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' and I keep hearing rumours of a fifth 'Indiana Jones' movie. So, I hope I'm not spoiling this film for anyone when I say that, despite Ford being featured heavily in the marketing, the overall film is kind of 'Ford-lite.' This is Gosling's film and, to be fair, he does it well. But, I'm being a bit negative. The film was actually pretty good – it's strength lying in its atmosphere. You really do get a feel of what the world is like here. The long (reasonably non CGI!) establishing shots, combined with the haunting musical score bring a sense of gravitas to the film that few others have. I can see this becoming a bit of a cult masterpiece of the future, simply by how it looks and in relation to its score alone.
However, as atmospheric is as this film is and, despite that being a bonus, it's also the film's undoing. The film stands at quite a lengthy two hours, forty-three minutes and much of that is spent watching long, lingering establishing shots of various desolate landscapes. Basically, I'd probably end up editing about ten seconds out of every scene and bring down the overall running time by about twenty minutes (it would help – my opinion!). Yet, as much as the slow pacing of some of the scenes did drag for me, ultimately the film didn't seem the full run time (probably felt more like around the two hour mark). So, I guess that means that I actually enjoyed this one more than the first (rare for a sequel, I know). Due to its length I probably wouldn't watch '2049' again for a while, but I definitely think I'd watch it again as it's left more of an impression on my than its predecessor. Yes, I'd have liked more Ford (and possibly more Jared Leto, too – also underused!), but you can't have it all. In a world of sub-standard sequels it does seem that this one was actually worth the wait.