The overall sensory experience of this movie feels about as good as cinema can get.

Rating: 7/10 (18 December 2017)

The acting in this sequel leaves a lot to be desired, notably that of Gosling and Leto, especially when you reflect on the many incredible characters that were in the original. I'm talking monotone dialogue and lack of facial expression throughout the majority of the movie, especially when it's the protagonist, I mean I get that he's a replicant, specifically a nexus 9 replicant, made to be more obedient therefore the role may require to act in such a way (or not act). BUT, even if that's the case I feel like casting such a role as the main protagonist is a bad move as it detaches the audience from the story. We're usually engaged with the protagonist to feel more connected with the story because we feel like we can connect with them, that we can feel what they feel, can empathise with them, and care about their fate. I feel like when the main character is designed to be so devoid of emotion, closed off from the audience, it makes it more difficult to care about them and ultimately disconnects the audience with the story, at least in relation to the main character. The opposite in fact can be said about Hoeks' portrayal of Luv, who despite also being a nexus 9 replicant is actually a much more interesting character to watch on screen, which goes to show that Goslings wooden performance was completely unnecessary. And as for Leto's acting, given that he's playing a human character, and especially given that he's the main antagonist, we're given no explanation as to why he would act (or not act) in such a way. I mean seriously, is it just me or is his acting in this movie really really bad, I mean his portrayal of the joker wasn't exactly idyllic, yet from Dallas Buyer's Club it's no secret that he can in fact act his socks off, so why is his acting here so goddamn bad?
There's on more gripe that I have with this movie, that is the ending (or lack of). Not only did it's predecessors have far superior characters and acting, but the movie as a complete whole was much more accomplished. It feels like they've tried way to hard to keep the story open to a sequel, and in doing so have failed to create a well structured movie. It doesn't really build to any grand finale, the ending for me falls very flat, and it feels like sure it'll flow nicely into a sequel, which I'm sure is exactly what they want because that means there's more money to be made, but it just takes so much away from the movie. Clearly they've been able to make a sequel from the first movie just fine, which means that it didn't have to be left so blatantly wide open for a sequel, and on the contrary the original stands alone as a solid story. I ultimately found the first half of the film to be dare I say it, a bit too slow, followed by a lack of thrill/build up, and finally a very underwhelming ending sequence, especially in contrast with the prequel.
Despite these two major flaws the movie still holds up, thanks to the first class directing of Villeneuve, and the incredible sound design. The overall sensory experience of this movie feels about as good as cinema can get, it really is that good. This combined with a solid continuation of the original story and some interesting plot twists makes for a memorable viewing experience, and something I'd happily revisit. It does feel like it's begging for yet another sequel, and so I'd gladly welcome a finale to give us a satisfying trilogy, and ideally with a solid ending this time and some decent acting/iconic characters. Until then 2049 feels like it has unfinished business.