WHAT WERE THE DIRECTOR/WRITERS THINKING?

Rating: 2/10 (25 June 2018)

VAGUE, PRETENTIOUS, AND PREDICTABLE PLOT WITH LITTLE OR NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. AND, WORSE, THE MOVIE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL. YOU ALMOST HAVE TO WONDER IF THESE 30-SOMETHING DWEEBS HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN THE ORIGINAL. IT'S ONLY SAVED BY SOME GREAT COMPUTER GRAPHICS, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THAT SEEMED LIKE FILLER. (HOW MANY LONG, DRAWN-OUT CGI PANS CAN ONE MOVIE TAKE?).

UNFORTUNATELY, WHATEVER CGI MOOD/ATMOSPHERE THE DIRECTOR WAS TRYING TO CREATE WAS LOST BY THE FACT THAT ALL OF THE CHARACTERS KN THIS MOVIE LACK ANY EMOTIONAL 3DIMENSIONALITY AND NONE OF THEM WERE PARTICULARLY LIKEABLE (EXCEPT JOI). THIS IS JUST BASIC MOVIE CHARISMA STUFF.
AND SO ON.
1-1/2 GENERATIONS AFTER THE ORIGINAL MOVIE THERE NOW SEEM TO BE 2 TYPES OF MOVIE GOER: THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY VIDEO GAMES AND FANTASY WORLDS AND ARE PUT INTO A KIND OF MINDLESS TRANCE BY CG SPECIAL EFFECTS, AND THOSE WHO ARE STILL FULLY CONNECTED TO REALITY AND THINK CG IS GREAT, BUT ALSO EXPECT BASICS SUCH AS PLOT, DIALOG, AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT - THE THINGS THAT MADE THE ORIGINAL MOVIE STILL GREAT AFTER 35 YEARS!!! READ THE REVIEWS: HIGH RATINGS AND OBSESSIVE COMMENTS ABOUT CG SPECIAL EFFECTS GO HAND IN HAND.
IF THIS WEREN'T A SEQUEL TO A GREAT MOVIE IT WOULD BE MILDLY ENTERTAINING, BUT FORGETTABLE.
AFTER THIS SEQUEL HAS LONG BEEN FORGOTTEN, HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WITH TALENT WILL TRY AGAIN. THE ORIGINAL "BLADE RUNNER" DESERVES MUCH BETTER.
A TRULY WASTED OPPORTUNITY.