I’ll say it right off the bat, I’m not the biggest fan of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” from 1982. It’s a movie I usually would like, it’s sci-fi and deals with the complexities between man and machine, it’s directed by the guy who made “Alien,” and it has Harrison Ford! What’s not to love, right? Thankfully I’ve learned recently that I’m not alone when I occasionally claim that the original “Blade Runner” is… sort of boring.

I do have to say that I respect it immensely. While I’ve never been able to really immerse myself in the characters or the story, I totally recognize the craft put into the effects, the setting, the music, the atmosphere, everything. “Blade Runner” is such a beautiful craft of work that it’s hard to look away from, even though I find myself falling asleep within the first half hour. I’ve tried about 4 times to get through the entirety of “Blade Runner” and only achieved this goal once, and that was the morning before I saw “Blade Runner 2049.”

I don’t know why it’s such a chore for me to watch “Blade Runner,” I’ve sat through much worse movies and stayed on-board for the whole movie. I think it might be the slowness of the movie’s pace but I never really find myself interested in what’s going on, I goggle at the beautifully made sets, miniatures, models and projections utilized to create the scene but my interest dies down very quickly. For these reasons, I wasn’t really looking forward to “Blade Runner 2049” at all. I had dismissed most of the trailers and it wasn’t on my radar whatsoever. The biggest thing I noticed in the marketing was just how tired Harrison Ford looked the entire thing. In every shot of the trailer, he looks so bored and uninterested, which didn’t bode any confidence for me.

“Blade Runner 2049” is a sequel to a movie released a little more than 30 years ago. I think that’s a bit too much time that has passed, the audience didn't seem like it'd be interested in another "Blade Runner," right? Looking at the box offices numbers at the time of writing this, “Blade Runner 2049” really did not perform as well as many thought it was going to. I’m going to say it’s because nobody was too curious in checking this out, 30 years too late and there’s a sad, grumpy-looking Harrison Ford. It’s the recipe for disaster, just look at the 4th Indiana Jones!

The movie is a hefty 2 hours and 49 minutes, and boy does it feel its length. I personally don’t think this runtime is a bad thing, I think if a movie wants to slow its pace and take its time with a story then it should by all means. I do think, however, that looking up the runtime is an easy way for someone who’s 50/50 about this movie to say “almost 3 hours? Yeah right, I’ll be skipping that one.” I initially was not planning on seeing this movie anyway. It seemed like it’d be an off-week and I’d be writing about my undying love for the movie “Gremlins” or something of the kind! Then the reviews started coming in, I couldn’t stop hearing praise for “Blade Runner 2049.” So many reviews were stellar, and some of the high praises were some people who weren’t too fond of the original movie to begin with! This pushed me over the edge and got me to cancel my entire afternoon so I can watch “Blade Runner 2049” but it felt like I was clearing my schedule to watch a philosophy seminar.

“Blade Runner 2049” is exactly what the reviews are saying it is, it’s great! It’s a huge improvement from the first movie and expands the universe so well. The environment is much more fleshed out, as are the rules and logistics of this futuristic society. Ryan Gosling plays a perfect blade runner, cops with the duty to hunt down rogue Replicants. He honestly played this cop/detective character much better than Harrison Ford did in the original. You could actually see some detective work being done progressively throughout the movie, whereas Ford just spoke in a very dry, monotone voice and watched video monitors during the original.

The sets are gorgeous, each time Ryan Gosling’s character "Officer K" visits a new area you can be sure the movie will spend 5 minutes giving you shot after shot of him walking through the hallways. This both works and slows the movie down at the same time, I can’t help but be impressed by the scenery however after about 45 seconds of establishing shots you’re thinking “Okay, we get it.” It seems like half of this movie’s runtime is spent on a shot of a location. On one hand I feel like a lot of these establishing shots could’ve been trimmed out of the movie, but on the other hand it’s done so many times that you end up wanting to take a nap. Or you can just use this time to pee, you won't miss too much. Just more K wandering a hallway.

I was pleasantly surprised by Harrison Ford’s performance, as I mentioned earlier I was worried he’d be uninterested and just not “there.” Well, he was there and he was great. It reminded me of how enthusiastically he seemed to return to the character of Han Solo in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” These two performances show that Ford is most definitely willing to be self-inspired and continue his old character seamlessly, meaning “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was a fluke! Hopefully the praise for his performances in the new “Star Wars” and in “Blade Runner 2049” will lead to Spielberg and Ford making a good “Indiana Jones 5.” After the horrendous “Crystal Skull,” there’s nowhere to go but up.

I thought the supporting cast did a great job, including Dave Bautista and Robin Wright. I’ve been really impressed with Bautista’s newly found Hollywood career. He killed it in the first “Guardians of the Galaxy” but he was mostly just dumb comic relief in that movie, his role in “Blade Runner 2049” shows that he has some more acting chops up his sleeve. The fact that he’s a massive wrestler also adds a nice touch during action scenes. Robin Wright played a really great “chief” for K. It reminded me a bit of her performance as Claire in “House of Cards” but ramped up to a higher degree. She plays this position of authority really well throughout, making her yet another standout actress in a 2017 movie (first one being her “Wonder Woman” performance.) Jared Leto made a triumphant return after that disaster of a performance as the Joker in “Suicide Squad.” I don’t even know what he was trying to do there, if they wanted the Joker to be weird and loud like Jim Carrey they should’ve just hired Jim Carrey. He plays the “evil monologuing” villain which “Blade Runner” would be incomplete without. He was menacing and I felt he was a much more serious threat than the Replicants in the original movie.

The character of Joi (Ana de Armas,) a sort of “AI girlfriend” had a great arc with Ryan Reynold’s “K.” You learn pretty soon in her introduction that she’s a hologram but with technology in the year 2049 allows her features and actions to be incredibly realistic, serving as a companion to K. As the movie goes on, Joi starts to evolve and the emotional arc between them along with the visuals of her projections are really satisfying. A lot of people regard the romance arc in the original “Blade Runner” as very forceful and abrupt, which is because it is. Harrison Ford and the actress playing Rachael, Sean Young didn’t like each other on set and it led to some bad chemistry while filming. Joi and K have a much more believable relationship and it’s evident in how the actors play off of each other.

I give massive props to filmmaker Denis Villenueve for pulling this off and I thank the Lord every day that Ridley Scott did not return to the director's chair for this movie. We already saw what he does when returning to his old franchises, just watch "Prometheus" and "Alien Covenant." Both movies aren't necessarily bad but they are definitely a departure from what made the original "Alien" and James Cameron's "Aliens" phenomenal. Denis Villenueve, hot off his Oscar nominations with "Arrival" went right for the franchises and boy did he succeed. Usually, new, up and coming directors will try and create more standalone projects rather than jump into franchises but Villenueve did it with ease, honoring the original and adding new ideas throughout.

I enjoyed the movie but would most definitely not watch it again if I’m being honest. It’s really quite a chore to get through, as is the first one. I do believe this is one of the better sequels to be made simply because it takes interesting aspects of the world and the characters and expands on it like a sequel is supposed to do. Nowadays a lot of sequels are just “the first movie...BUT a little bit different!” It’s good to see an actual continuation of a movie’s atmosphere and tone. I think the trailers really undersold the movie and didn’t leave people curious enough. The trailers don’t tell you anything about the plot or what’s going on in the movie, it seems to expect everyone in the audience to already know the intricate details of the original “Blade Runner” right off the bat. Most people I’ve seen this trailer with at the theater didn’t realize it was Blade Runner until the title showed up at the end. This is definitely not aiming itself at new audiences which it probably should’ve done. I think the only people going out to theaters to see this are those who both like the original Blade Runner and those who were just curious to see how a sequel after a 30-year old movie would shake out with modern technology. I think the last movie that completely immersed me because of its visuals rather than the story was "Mad Max: Fury Road." These two movies have the best thing in common which is that almost every shot is like a painting, I feel like the only time I'll be seeing "Blade Runner 2049" in the future is as a wallpaper on my computer's desktop.

What is it about long overdue sequels that produce such beautiful imagery?