She'd read the reviews, bought into the hype and was ready to do her homework.
So when Rachel Bache sat down to watch the original Blade Runner movie in preparation for this week's sequel, she was full of anticipation.
She didn't like what she saw.
"I fell asleep through a few parts," says Bache, who works as part of The Hits' social media team.
"By the time it got to the big fight scene I was so bored and sleepy that I didn't really care about how it ended, I just wanted it to end."
Blade Runner, Ridley Scott's futuristic 1982 movie based on Philip K Dick's 1968 novel, is considered by many to be a sci-fi classic, a slow-burner with big ideas that's grown in status since its initial lacklustre release.
Tomorrow, just 35 years later, a sequel called Blade Runner 2049 is being released.
Directed by Enemy and Arrival's Denis Villeneuve, it's already being hailed by critics as a masterpiece and among the year's best movies.
But Bache says after a bad experience with the original, she isn't that keen on seeing it.
"The pacing is what got me the most. It just seemed to drag forever ... it's just a weird futuristic cop movie."
At 29, she isn't alone. Other millennials spoken to by the Herald had similar experiences as they prepared for the sequel.
"It didn't make me think as much about artificial intelligence as I thought it was going to, it wasn't as deep as I expected," says George Fenwick, 22, an entertainment writer at the Herald. "It didn't blow my mind."
Fenwick called the film's plot "confusing", called Ford's acting "wooden" and said he "wasn't really sure what anyone was doing at any point".
However, unlike Bache, Fenwick is still keen to see the sequel based on Villeneuve's previous efforts.
But Ella Wilks, 32, a video producer at NZME, says when she and two friends tried to watch the film recently, they all fell asleep - and she's not interested in seeing the sequel.
"It wasn't bad, it was just slow ... compared to today's standards. It didn't look out of date, it was just a long movie and took a long time to get anywhere," she says.
No one in the room "made it through" the screening, she says.
Another millennial, TimeOut writer Siena Yates, 27, is excited about the sequel and plans to see it during the first days of release.
But when asked about her knowledge of the original film, she asked if David Hasselhoff was the film's big star.
Movie critic and Herald writer Karl Puschmann, who watches a minimum of 100 films a year and diarises his viewing habits via a blog, has strong views on why the original film is considered a classic.
"It was the first film to show us the future. Not the, 'Gee whizz let's race around the galaxy having adventures' futures of Star Wars or Star Trek, but a more realistic vision that absolutely rings true," he says.
"It's miserable, dangerous, wet. You can imagine living in this reality because we're not too far away from it."
But even he admits the film might feel slow compared to today's offerings.
"Deckard's not a charismatic lead, it's intentionally vague, and everyone talks in monotone," he says.
"But that's exactly why it's so beloved. The film treats you intelligently, leaves you to fill in the blanks and gives you the space to soak in its brilliantly realised world.
"Unless of course you fall asleep."
* Blade Runner 2049 hit New Zealand theatres tomorrow.
Review: It’s a festive favourite. Should it be?