Disappointment for Intellectuals

Rating: 3/10 (13 October 2017)

The original movie is on my top 5 list. I bought the DVD and play it once a year so i was sad to see the substandard achievement on this so-called "sequel." It's not a sequel, it's a noir thriller in the style of Blade Runner but without the creativity factor.
I detest any movie with a gratuitous scene of cold-blooded murder for our perverse enjoyment and this mishmash has half a dozen.
The writer made serious errors of technology which obliterated the movie's believability. It's main point was that Rachel the android gave birth to a baby!!! That's not a "miracle" as stated, that is a pure Hollywood silliness dreamed up inside drunken plot parties!
Decker, which the movie supposes is a replicant, is supposed to be the father but if he were a replicant he would have automatically self-destructed by 2049 when the movie takes place. If he were a replicant, a lab-created machine, he wouldn't have had reproductive powers, duhhh. (If machines could make babies, Tyrell Corp couldn't have made money by producing them in the factory.)
Another plot problem is that Rachel died during childbirth. She was a replicant and would self-destruct anyway so why add that trite event? That birth led to a mix-up of records and the movie proves to us that the new blade runner guy is Deckard's kid but at the end the runner tells Deckard that a woman who is confined to a habitation cell because of immune deficiency is really Rachels "miraculous" offspring. Boom. Sure fooled the audience. That's the trick ending. sadddd.
The movie had no "score" just booming synth sounds thundering at the wrong places. With a hundred and fifty million dollar budget (mostly spent on CGI which is never the heart of a movie), they couldn't hire a great composer? I will be very cautious before I'll pay to see another Ridley Scott movie. He feels like a Hollywood sellout after screwing up his own classic movie legacy.