Blade Stumbler

Rating: 7/10 (6 October 2017)

Three points out of ten only for the cinematography, which equals expectations -- and is the only thing about this sequel that does. Maybe if it wasn't so over-hyped I would have been more tolerant of its weaknesses, which follow: there is an hour's worth of fat worthy of Terence Malick at his worst, meaning exposition for its own sake that never carries the story forward but serves as a backdrop for childish indulgence in visuals, that could easily have been cut; while the plot is tortuously convoluted and needed to be far more linear. The cast obviously reveres the material and is intimidated by the source, making for distance in their acting. James Edward Olmos, so sinister and subtly threatening in the original, has an unnecessary cameo as a doddering version of his younger self. And where is Vangelis, whose music added another dimension to the original? The music in this one is mediocre at best. I wonder if Ridley Scott was needed at the helm. Maybe my perspective is colored because I was there the first week the original Blade Runner came out and loved that great film, but if anybody who was there with me in the early 80's feels differently I'd love to know.