When did I watch the original? Was it six years ago? It's been a while. The main things that I remember were the cons of having little story or character investment, but the pro of having more atmosphere than the planet Jupiter. So atmospheric.

Its sequel (and unofficially also the sequel to La La Land, if you think about it) manages to find a decent common-ground between the two. I felt that it had more story, and most definitely more likable characters, while also having a ridiculous amount of atmosphere. Denis Villeneuve packs this film with it. While not quite as dark and as noir as the original, he still recognizes that what makes Blade Runner what it is is the emphasis on directing, and he makes sure to pack 2049 with all sorts of provocative cinematography, lighting, sets, sounds, and musical language. The movie is a work of art. Ridley Scott chose his successor well.

Some people will wonder why Marvel is accused of making factory-produced films, and movies like this prove the point that the accusers are making. This isn't factory-produced. It relies strongly on a directorial vision to complete a picture that few directors can pull off. I applaud it for that. Part of me wants to watch it again because of that, and especially because of the cinematography and lighting. Earlier this year, I praised Logan Noir for having the best cinematography, but now various other films have come out, and now it's hard for me to say if there is any clear front-runner in the Best Cinematography category.

The movie also does a better job than the original of getting people to think about technology, and it really sells this world to me. The new types of artificial intelligence, the ways information is kept, and so forth. It feels incredibly fleshed out.

As for the characters, let's just say that Gosling is much more likable than Deckard back in the day. Deckard was simply an atrocious character who had no charm whatsoever, and his abusive romance with Rachael was cringe-worthy. I know that was the intention of Ridley Scott, but that didn't make it entertaining for me to watch. I'm glad that we had a good main character this time around, and an interesting supporting case, and that the pace of the film let us constantly feel that the characters were developing.

The story had me engaged. At times it also surprised me. It really was its own story and was pretty well put together, and it works incredibly well both as a stand-alone and as a sequel, naturally continuing the story of the original which should leave people satisfied while giving itself its own narrative language. What the story is about, I can't really give that away. Let's just say that the trailers don't give much away.

Some final thoughts: Jared Leto was awesome, but I wanted more of him. There was also a scene with an old character who got the Grand Moff Tarkin treatment, at which I cringed, but fortunately that moment was incredibly brief. Also, Edward James Olmos, whom I regard as one of the greats, makes a brief appearance, which in my mind was the best callback in the entire film, although that's not saying much since this film doesn't use too many "callback moments" that you often get in sequels.

Ultimately, if you really like artistic films, or are a fan of cinematography, or really like this genre, then you should check this out. Regarding its rating, strong language is few and far between, and the main reason that it has its rating is because of strong sexual themes and imagery, which I would argue aren't entirely out of place due to the strong themes of sexuality within the story. Don't watch this film if the nearly three-hour running time is a concern, although for me that extra hour really contributed toward it being a good film. Finally, while the visuals will probably hold up pretty well on Blu-Ray, I do recommend watching this movie in theatres specifically for the sound quality. Villeneuve makes very striking decisions with his music and sound editing that will likely be lost at home, but which reverberate in the cinemas.