A lot of people didn't like BLADE RUNNER when it came out because they were expecting an adventure movie instead of a slow sci-fi movie with neo-noir elements. I prepared myself to watch that... and you know what? I still thought it was too slow. It's not about genre conventions or expectations; it's about the big number of unnecessary scenes. That being said, the ideas are deep, the cinematography is hypnotic and the production design is much more detailed than the one in the STAR WARS original trilogy (same time period). Also, Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah's performances are good.
BLADE RUNNER 2049
8/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog (in English, in Spanish or in Italian).
Blade Runner and Star Wars are not even in the same conversation. It's telling that Ridley Scott directed two seminal science fiction movies in a four-year span (Alien in 1979, Bladerunner in 1982) and those movies went on to define the atmosphere and set design of the genre for the next four decades and counting.
Star Wars isn't really science fiction. It doesn't have anything to say about the human condition, it doesn't offer any insight into how technology could impact civilization. It's a classic good guys vs bad guys with candy-colored light swords. Pretty fucking awesome candy-colored light swords, but still.
I look at it like Star Wars is SF Lite for kids and nostalgic adults, and Blade Runner/Alien (the original) are more cerebral SF films.
"My words sojourn, spreading like a slow germ infected Disease is collected and quarantined from my method On the borderline where the animal and divine become separate A deft leopard creating beautiful hell on a record"