Entertaining but not Blade Runner

Rating: 7/10 (1 July 2012)

I enjoyed it and would rate it 7 out of 10.
But I did so by taking it as a Hollywood movie, and was thus pleased by it being in the top range of this kind of films (fine acting, great visuals, rather elaborated story...)
However, I cannot see it as a masterpiece, falling short of the required features. If you take Blade Runner as an example, there is something more. Whether the aesthetics, poesy, atmosphere, music, rhythm or a more accomplished story, Scott surely tried hard, but didn't deliver to the same standards - in my view-.
What's more, the film exhibits some of the usual Hollywood pitfalls that I won't describe here as they have been superbly laid down in michael- albertsen's review. Basically some "details" are just not credible (people running right after a surgery etc.) and other are too much predictable.
But again, if you just want to be entertained for 2 hours ("popcorn moment"), this is a best fit.
PS. I'm not convinced by the urge some people have to deem a review as not helpful. After all, we all spend time and effort writing them, no?