Visually pleasing, if you can stay awake

Rating: 5/10 (29 April 2018)

The visual scenes and CGI are by far the best thing this movie has to offer. Everything else falls short. It seems that 80% of the budget went into CGI, 19% into actor/actress salaries, and the remaining 1% went to music score (oh wait, did it even have any?) and script, logistics, licensing, and coffee and snacks combined.
This creates two fundamental problems: 1) in order to enjoy the CGI and the visual scenes, you have to manage to stay awake and follow the dull, slow, and boring script. 2) The CGI at times seemed overly excessive and irrelevant and misguided use of the production budget.
Perhaps it would have made sense to spent the money that was used to perfect some CGI bug that was on screen for less than 5 seconds into the script instead. While we are on the topic of budget, casting Gosling in the movie was a huge mistake. He plays the same exact super-awkward character he played in 'Drive (2011)' so much that initially I wondered whether this was a cross-over between 'Drive' and 'Blade Runner'.
I would have given this movie 6 stars just because of the visuals and CGI, but I just had to take one star off to reflect just how dull and boring the movie was as a whole making the visuals not even worth it.