The film was actually rather disappointing. As a film it was OK, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, it was terrible. There were some nice in-jokes and references, but overall low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold (it was directed by Villeneuve, so I really shouldn't have expected better, the only thing he's good at is making stupid people think they are clever). Everything seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was trite and cliched, and everything was very predictable. Totally a wasted opportunity ;^<

Strikes a true balance between new and old. Denis Villeneuve has a perfect filmmaking record in my mind, and _Blade Runner 2049_ continues that trend with aplomb. _Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

I don't understand what people like in this movie. It has some good things, but nothing much to deserve such big rating. Soundtracks & atmosphere are really good & it's well shot, however story is confusing & everything is all over the place. I still didn't understand what was the whole story of movie and it is extremely slow & prolonged. Very small amount of talking & a lot observing moments. Every minor action is prolonged. Like you see man laying in the snow for a few minutes & etc... I didn't like the movie & it took more than 2:30 hours of torture and boredom...

**Overall : One of the most visually spectacular, stunning, and beautiful films I have ever seen!** Now I need to be honest; I am a simple man, and the complexities of the philosophical questions presented by the Blade Runner movies are lost on me. What makes someone truly human or real is a profound question with which an escapist like myself doesn't want to grapple. But with all that being said, Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece regardless of your movie taste. The beauty of the bright neon colors splashing across the cold, dismal, muted city of Los Angeles in 2049 is breathtaking. Every scene and moment is a visual feast filled with practical effects despite being a sci-fi film with flying cars and futuristic technology. While parts of the story and action were a little slow, Blade Runner 2049 captivates and intrigues from start to finish.

Ryan Gosling is great in this update of the Ridley Scott story from 1982. He is "K" - working for the new but still all-powerful "Tyrell Corporation" tasked with eliminating the last of the "Nexus" generation of replicants. It's on one such mission that he, quite literally, unearths a terrible secret that could spell doom for the already crippled society of mankind. "K" sets out to gather as much information as he can to prevent this collapse, and gradually comes to realise that the answer might lie with the long disappeared "Deckard" (Harrison Ford); his water ego from times gone by. Thing is, though, as his search nears it's conclusion, will he be permitted to discover and act upon the truth? This enhances and augments the original, rather than try to replace it. The story is well held together by a Gosling who makes his presence felt, but who allows the story to develop using imagery and a sparing dialogue. Robin Wright is maybe not the best as his boss "Joshi" but it does feature one of the better efforts from Ana de Armas ("Joi") as we head towards a denouement that really does look at life as we know it! The photography is dark and gritty, there is a distinct and effective sense of the claustrophobic and the score from Hans Zimmer is one of his best - it really does assist in focussing the attention on the detail of this cleverly constructed and compelling adventure with a conscience. Big screen if you can - the lighting and effects are better appreciated that way.

Visually stunning. That's it. It felt cold as the acting of the main character. Also it made so many assumptions on the original movie that it felt banal. Such a shame, because the concept behind could have been good, but the delivery is just not there, I'm afraid.

Did it really need a sequel? It was beautiful. I mean, it looked beautiful...even if there was one part that made me motion sick, but even that part was beautiful. And that, I think, was really more of a lighting thing than a set design thing or a special effects thing. Honestly, you remember the lighting in this. You remember it the way people remember the lighting in an Edward Hopper painting. But did it need a sequel? The acting was great, it really was. There was honestly no real flaw as to how the movie looked, how it was directed, or how it was acted. It was pleasing... ...but it was also kind of empty. So, did it need a sequel? Questions were answered, but those questions were best left as questions weren't they? The little mysteries that fueled debate that made the first film so...talked about, even if it was initially hated. Why did those questions need to be answered? They were better left as little mysteries to ponder. And the result is the empty feeling you get when a really fun problem is finally solved. There is that A-HA moment of adulation...and than that little depression when you realize the mystery is finally over and you can move on. From now on the questions will be officially answered and as it doesn't hurt this movie, it doesn't take away from the film as a singular entity, it kind of kills the first film. Now we know it all and because of that, the first Blade Runner will never have the same feeling when you watch it.