Very Dark, Strong film but nowhere near the caliber of the original

Rating: 8/10 (7 October 2017)

***Warning: Many spoilers ahead***
I saw this movie in 3d and I m a x 2d. I have seen the original dozens of times and have studied the music and filmmaking literature on it extensively. Brief impressions:
This is a very dark movie that builds on the original. On its own it several (acceptable) flaws that do not prevent it from being worth seeing and to be arguably one of the best sci-fi movies of recent years. However it is not on par with the original. Key observations:
-Very dark in tone, thematically, stylistically and musically. There is no resolution of any new themes and the only resolution offered is a copy of the original down to the exact same musical cue (tears in rain) minus the beauty of the original. In some cases, the plot is vulgar (Rachel's skull used as a conversation prop or Rachel resurrected via cloning only to be killed because the eye color was not the same – "what the heck" moment). The AI love story was the best thing in the movie but was not resolved meaningfully. Deckard's android nature was ignored as if it never existed or not mattered. Also the body count in the sequel is 10 times that of the original.
-Editing is kind of mechanical: 4 seconds (most cuts) or 2 (for the short ones). If you start counting it becomes distracting in its repetitiveness.
-Direction/performances: tilted camera angles in many flying shots and not enough time to absorb the landscapes. All mega structures looming over in the background are too far away and no visual detail visible. Pace slow but appropriately so. Performances uneven. Major negative standout is the Leto performance which is a sore thumb (in his defense, his lines were very poor, and he and his organization has a habit of killing people left and right according to the plot). The rest of the cast is great.
-Sound mixing/editing: often unintelligible dialogue. Music too loud.
-Photography: there is the widespread meme that Mr Deakins (a great cinematographer no doubt) has created a visual masterpiece, surely deserves an Oscar etc. I believe that the people who put forward these claims for 2049 do not have a sufficiently educated eye for photography. Specifically, the overall visual impression of the totality of the movie is a bland "dark gray". In addition, some shots consist solely of orange hues, and all flying scenes are a dreadful gray. Most other scenes have analogous color harmony in the earthy part of the spectrum and a few have a 4-color harmony (I am sorry I cannot use proper technical terms, the IMDb spell checker is set at 6 grade level it seems) mimicking the blue-red-orange-green of some scenes of the original. The movie is shot with spherical lenses in digital with strips cut off to simulate wide screen lenses. The dynamic range is limited in many scenes and the lighting is pretty bland. On exception is the mysterious switch from lighted to dark and back in some scenes that does have a great dramatic effect (unfortunately the script in these scenes is so weak that no cinematography can compensate). The composition is in most cases sparsely layered and with the minimalist set design create a feeling of unfinished work or inappropriately empty space. By comparison the original's photography uses strongly contrasted shadows and lights with huge dynamic range and striking visuals with strong allegorical results. In the original releases, black and gold dominated the first 2 acts and blue-dominating 4-color harmonies the third act (in the JF Sebastian building). In latter versions of the original, the whole palette shifted to blue and black-dominated color harmonies. The original was shot in anamorphic & film with dense photographic smoke on set and these created a whole range of desirable artistic effects. The lighting was not only used to create the half-in-shadow effect but constantly moving shafts created a "living" background by connecting the interiors with the world outside. The composition had many layers and combined with the detailed and luxurious set design created a feeling of a real world with many secrets.
-Set design and costumes: sparse and minimalist in the sequel and deep, with many layers and reality-creating in the original. Especially annoying cheapness in the sets for K's apartment and the police headquarters. Compare to Sebastian's apartment in the Bradbury building or the police station in the original to see the difference.
-Visual Effects: this is the only area that the sequel is immaculate. Joi's holographic effects in particular were a delight.
-Music: in the sequel sometimes a "wall of sound", often a "wall of noise", with screeching strings in high registers and TOO DAMN LOUD. The original score -which is probably the finest score ever in a science fiction movie- had strong melodies, a variety of ethnic/multicultural structures and a variety of genres (cutting-edge synth orchestrations, blues, ragtime, ethnic, percussive), old (nostalgic) and new timbres (synthesized). It also had amazing ambiance that created sonic-ally the blade runner world as much as anything. It also fully integrated the sound effects into the music. Finally it had huge dynamic range going from silence to explosions and everything in between. Watch the beginning titles of the movie to appreciate the difference: in the original a single melody line with background explosions and reverb. In the sequel 100+ decibel note clusters (with a couple of chord thrown in, each lasting for ever). The new score is by comparison weak in melodic ideas, weak in harmony, lacks variety, is often migraine-triggering percussive, and is too damn loud all the time as I said earlier.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall this is a fine movie, and well worth seeing, however on par with the original Blade Runner, it is not.