About
Reviews (1)
08 February 2018
An Excellent Follow up to the Original!
2 of 3 found this helpful Look, I realize this movie wasn't a "financial" success at the box office, at least not what WB wanted it to be. That being said, neither was the original Ridley Scott film. It seems films are judged to either be successes or failures more and more by how much money they bring in, which if that's the only metric you're using, a lot of good to excellent films would be bombs. A good example is another Ridley Scott film, his first feature length motion picture "The Duellists". Now, I didn't see how much the film made when it was released in 1977, but the production budget was around a million dollars. And even if nobody saw it, it's a fantastic period piece (like Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" -which was released two years before "The Duellists"). What a film makes doesn't necessarily mean it's a good movie or a bad movie. "The Transformer's" franchise sucks, they're horrible, redundant movies filled with the most base emotional trite story telling imaginable. Yet they're financially successful. "Blade Runner 2049" was not the financial hit WB thought it would be, as the original movie was geared towards a very specific sub-genre of science fiction. The acting in this film is equal to the original, as are the effects. The story telling does get a bit long in the tooth (as my review is getting to be, lol) but it overall satisfies and is compelling enough to have kept me engaged. This isn't a "popcorn" movie like "Independence Day" or any of the "Star Wars" movies (which, I love -mostly). This is a thought provoking, engaging movie that is mindful of it's origins and in continuing the story. I recommend this to those who like the original, and who can appreciate movies that are on this level.