In one word... meh.

Rating: 6/10 (10 October 2017)

In more than one word, it's OK, but not even a tiny bit more than OK. And it's way too long. And way too loud. Loud would be OK if the soundtrack weren't so grating and so obviously trying to make the audience feel interest, excitement, and dramatic tension that just is not there. But after a while, it makes you want to confess, if only they'll stop it. Ryan Gosling's performance is flat. If he wants to be a real boy, it doesn't show here. Harrison Ford has nothing to work with and he predictably manages to make nothing of it. Jared Leto is . . . well, he's Jared Leto, and if we ignore him, maybe he'll go away. Perhaps Shia LaBeouf could have done justice to Leto's role. After all, when the part calls for crazy, you might as well go to the source. The three women in the movie far outshine the three men: Robin Wright is totally believable as Gosling's tough LAPD boss. Ana de Armas makes you want to buy stock in whatever company is trying to invent A.I. girlfriends, and Sylvia Hoeks is pretty awesome as Gosling's chief nemesis; but even here, it has to be said that no one can touch Rutger Hauer in the role of Angry Android, or Rebellious Replicant, or whatever. As far as special effects go, you'd think that 35 years and umpteen generations of silicon chips later, that Blade Runner 2049 would knock the socks off Blade Runner (1982). It doesn't. Not a single "wow" moment in 160 long, long minutes. As for the plot, which focuses mainly on whether Gosling is or is not a replicant, if you don't figure it out before he does, then you can be sure you aren't one. And if you do, then you probably have a better screenplay than this one in you.
Overall: Blade Runner (the original) is possibly the best sci-fi movie ever made - certainly in the top 5. "2049" is . . . forgettable. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 6.