Nothing but gratuitous visuals, naked women, no story, and nothing new

Rating: 2/10 (9 October 2017)

Did Ridley Scott really approve this film??
The 1982 film was visionary in creation of a futuristic world, how Earth cultures have mixed, how people live in a dystopian city, and every design element had meaning, was rooted in some concept. The original film already treated the question of whether androids have rights as sentient beings, and whether a manufactured being is capable of love.
I fail to see what this 2017 film adds, while being incredibly loose and contradictory in the story telling (if you can call it that). Maybe the director should stick to music videos for meaningless gratuitous visuals: random elements for visual effect with no utility or explanation; naked women; character responses that contradict motivations and sentiments implied in earlier scenes; naked women; sets and technological elements that have zero function except to "look cool"; naked women; long, ponderous scenes and unnecessary fist-fights whose outcome you already knew 2 minutes ago, meaning it's time to cut! I found it tiresome how good-looking and fashionable every single extra was -- in such a nasty, dead world, they sure have plenty of time for make-up, hair, and slick get-ups.
I love science fiction and am perfectly willing to suspend disbelief, if the writer or filmmaker creates at least a self-consistent world that is plausible given the key premise. This world is half- baked without much time spent on fleshing out at least a little backstory for each scene design and character. Thin, thin, thin. If you want to explore the idea of androids rebelling, watch the 1990's version of Battlestar Galactica, which has the political economy, military science, and existential questions actually thought through.
2 instead of 1 because the HD is very fine on an IMAX screen, but the rest of the movie is a confused, tiresome, meaningless, self-indulgent, woman-objectifying, annoying, male box office marketing scheme.
I don't get the rave reviews. Maybe people are comparing this to comic book hero movies, rather than to the ideas of Philip K. Dick and what the first movie accomplished. Well, if the standard is comic book blockbusters, fine (actually, plenty of comic book blockbusters at least have a coherent story and character development), but this movie does not deserve comparison to the original. I'm flummoxed that Ridley Scott allowed this mess to be produced under his name. Shame on him and Denis Villeneuve for making this film. Now that Harvey Weinstein has been exposed, given the objectification of women in this film, I'm wondering if we will soon be seeing more men in the business being outed, such as...