Plot holes so big, they're practically chasms

Rating: 5/10 (10 October 2017)

Please be aware that my review contains spoilers so please do not read further if you do want to have key plot points revealed.
First things first, I'm a big fan of the original and have enjoyed immensely with each viewing, first from when I was a 10 year old until 2 weeks ago so I was interested to see what Villeneuve would do with the sequel.
Watched it Saturday and must say the experience left me somewhat underwhelmed and frustrated at seeing such an opportunity to do something original go to waste, that I have decided to post my thoughts here on IMDb for the first time.
In no particular here are some of my questions and general points about the film.
Jared Leto's performance. How the hell is he such a high paid star? I cannot think of anything he is particularly memorable and this is no exception.
His eyes. Are they distracting on purpose?
If his character saved the world from starvation, how come there aren't millions of people worshiping him? Humans are suckers for finding idols and why should his character be any different. Crikey, we have dictators in our world who had days and months of the year named after family members.
Why doesn't Wallace have a massive army organised to hunt down Deckard instead of entrusting this to one replicant and a few goons?
Monologues giving exposition is lazy storytelling and old Wallace loves a monologue.
What is his plan? He wants to produce more replicants but kills one at the start for some spurious reason. Hint hint, to show the audience he is a very naughty boy. He also has the Rachel replicant killed. No wonder he cannot make enough replicants if he keeps killing them.
Ryan Gosling plays Ryan Gosling again and although I don't dislike his performances, I find it hard to root for his character here, as I've seen it before in a much better film (Drive).
The music wasn't particularly memorable and only made me think of the much better soundtrack from Bladerunner. Apparently this was intentional on Villeneuve's part as he removed the original composer who wanted to do something original. So instead, the director opted for Zimmer to make it more Bladerunnery and therefore less memorable for this film.
The film did not merit or need the run-time it had. I appreciate the original BR took its time but it had a new world to show us
The ending was goofy and ridiculous. Why would K bring Deckard to his daughter who is the most wanted person in the history of wanted people? This will definitely endanger her given that Leto's character has a relationship with her and probably has her under some sort of surveillance.
Hero comes back from the dead to save the day cliché at end was extremely predictable and had me rolling my eyes, which I shouldn't be doing when watching a film for the first time.
The blackout sounds like a much more interesting story than this. Caused by replicants? A solar flare? Was there a Trump two term presidency in this universe?
Robots reproducing and creating their own has already been covered in Battlestar Galactica, who did it in a more compelling fashion with characters and stakes I cared about
Plus, how come Leto's character hasn't figured out on to get replicants to reproduce? Why can't he produce them faster? How many has he killed before delivering a monologue
Some of the visuals are stunning though lack depth or colour. The future looks fairly boring in comparison to Bladerunner 1982, which offered some very unusual street shots and characters. One scene included a guy with a eagle on his head. Nothing to really catch the eye in BR2049.
Why not have Rachel as leader of the rebellion instead of some random person the audience has no connection with.
When the capture Deckard, why on earth wouldn't they kill K?
How did K know how to find the car with Dekkard at the end? We don't see him doing any investigative work to discover this information, despite the long run time.
They made a replicant clone of Rachel but get the eye colour wrong? Seriously?
How heavy handed was the prejudice? No subtlety whatsoever. Jeepers, you spend all that money on effects but then go minimum wage on screen writers.
That sex scene reminded me of Ghost with all the syncing going on. Watching Whoopi do her thing was just as sexy as watching this scene, despite it having two incredibly attractive women present, along with Ryan Gosling who is no slouch himself in the looks department.
The replicant rebellion feels shoehorned in rather than something which has grown and developed organically. Need to take lessons from Star Wars on how to introduce a rebel alliance story.
The golden rule of cinema is broken here when they show/play clips from a much better film.
Critics are only offering gushing praise for a film with considerable flaws because they don't wish to get caught out like the critics of 82. Back then, the critics hated it because they couldn't see the hidden depth. This time they see depth that simply isn't there. Even one of the characters says something along these lines to another.