Ghastly, ghastliness, ear-bleeding loud, don't believe the silly reviews above.

Rating: 3/10 (7 October 2017)

Spoilers ahead.
Updated Nov 2019:
I just finished reading Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner by Paul M. Sammon, a decent enough book although most of the book seems pretty well covered by the superb documentary "Dangerous Days" by Charles de Lauzirika. The book (Future Noir) was written in 2017 so everyone is all agog about the upcoming Blade Runner "sequel" and it's so disappointing to look back on the movie in this light. I can't even remember virtually anything ABOUT BR 2049. Apart from the awful, pointless "fight" between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling. I saw the original in 1982 and it stayed with me for years, until I saw it again on TV or VHS. Great movies are like that, they linger and haunt you forever. I can't imagine anyone thinking again or wanting to watch BR 2049 again as it plays on HBO or elsewhere.
Who writes reviews titled: "One of the best sequels of all time!" and "A masterpiece of science fiction and possibly one of the greatest sequels ever made" and "A New-Age Sci-Fi Classic"?? Yep, studio shills, hacks, and trolls. These are the kind of reviews which used to get knocked off Yelp because they were so ridiculously and archly over-effusive. Real, regular folk (like you and me dontcha know) don't go in for ratings viewing boosting titles. Read: box office boosters. "Yeah, I know you loved in mom but it ain't THAT good. Aww." They're like testimonials on a CV\resume you've written yourself and then re-read months later and realize you've overdone it. Akk. "Mark really is the best thing since sliced bread. He's the most amazing film reviewer in a generation...."
Yep, I own the 7 DVD European version boxed set. Yes, I saw it at the Electric Theatre in Brixton when it came out. I love the original. I wanted so much to love the sequel. Most of my peeves are listed above and below, mirrored by other reviewers with whom I have forged an unhappy bond of disappointment and disbelief. And I concur. Harrison Ford was too passive. Ryan Gosling was too dull, too toned down. Sean Young's CGI was awful. Why not have her at an age like she is now? HF is nearly 80, so how about a 55-year-old Rachel. CGI of real people is tough - it never looks real and it didn't here. The set lighting was sub-par, the CGI buildings didn't look real. This is all "by the by" - if there had been a real script, a real story then all would be forgiven. The movie started, for me, when Joe gets to Vegas. That's how the trailer editor saw it and that's how you should see it. Get a drink join the movie about 90 minutes in and it's really not that bad after that. Some of the stuff is great. But most of it, including the eardrum-bursting "Music" (which was interesting in Arrival) but here, merely serves to pretend to elicit emotion. As another viewer mentioned: when the film finished, the lights suddenly went on (this was Studio Movie Grill so they needed to clean the food trays etc.) as if the theater was embarrassed at the movie's length and wanted to shuffle us out in a hurry. There was no applause, heck even mediocre films in LA get applause since half the audience works in the industry as grips, extras, teamsters etc., even in the outskirts of town. We all just shuffled out, stunned, not quite understanding how $185 million dollars in Budapest (where they made it) could have born so little fruit. Heck, you could BUY Budapest for $185m right? ;) This seems to be a very polarizing film. Lots of critics seem to like it. My wife liked it. I hated it. I hated myself for looking forward to it. I woke up depressed. I wanted to slap the screen and say: "That's for making me care about you!" Wack!