I have to agree - I fell asleep for major portions of this movie. I found it to be overlong and boring and a lot of style over substance. There is too much open to interpretation or misinterpretation. I prefer a film that states its case and doesn't go so deep into maybe maybe nots that it ends up making no sense in either context.

When we went to see it at the theatre, pop was most disappointed by the soundtrack. As a huge fan of the original film and its score, he thought this one was more or less just 'noise.' I tend to agree. Beyond that, I thought it was a pretty average film. Certainly not worthy of the great praise that folks had heaped upon it. I was just slightly more bored than entertained.

@Ellison Havelock said:

When we went to see it at the theatre, pop was most disappointed by the soundtrack. As a huge fan of the original film and its score, he thought this one was more or less just 'noise.' I tend to agree. Beyond that, I thought it was a pretty average film. Certainly not worthy of the great praise that folks had heaped upon it. I was just slightly more bored than entertained.

There were different ideas on the sequel, FM Synthesis is one of them. But there were also some similarities such as extended heavy sawtooth pads and such.

@Ellison Havelock said:

When we went to see it at the theatre, pop was most disappointed by the soundtrack. As a huge fan of the original film and its score, he thought this one was more or less just 'noise.' I tend to agree. Beyond that, I thought it was a pretty average film. Certainly not worthy of the great praise that folks had heaped upon it. I was just slightly more bored than entertained.

The score was definitely more jarring than it needed to be at times. It’s a shame because I love old school synth scores and offbeat cues but the classic volume war between music and dialog again was a mess.

The worst part for me was when K drowned that woman,I can't remember her name. That was awful.There should have been a shootout and K should have killed her during the shootout. Also remember that it's the future,she could be resurrected any number of ways.

@mechajutaro said:

Damn, What a Disappointment

Now you know the sentiments of several million parents around the globe, folks who sent their little bundles of joy to parochial school, only to find that the combined costs of the rectal repair surgery and trauma therapy the younguns required afterwards made the costs of lining The Vatican's pockets look like a bargain, by comparison

Overkill?

Sympathetic - but wrong forum for something of that magnitude.

@strangebedfellows said:

Sympathetic - but wrong forum for something of that magnitude.

You could even say, extraordinary magnitude...lol

https://youtu.be/Lydiy-VcB_4

@mechajutaro said:

@Renovatio said:

@mechajutaro said:

Damn, What a Disappointment

Now you know the sentiments of several million parents around the globe, folks who sent their little bundles of joy to parochial school, only to find that the combined costs of the rectal repair surgery and trauma therapy the younguns required afterwards made the costs of lining The Vatican's pockets look like a bargain, by comparison

Overkill?

Underkill. Last I checked, these establishments are still in operation, despite the dirty details having been public record well before The Boston Globe's expose; reference The Magdalene Sisters. Whitewashing our language around it has given lots of feeble minded mommies and daddies ample latitude to minimize the dangers: See For Yourself

I meant overkill in relation to the op... clearly 😉

I don't think that there was much style or substance. I didnt particularly enjoy the audio or visual, and there wasn't anything particularly inventive that I noticed in the set or in how it was shot.

spoilers

I also found chunks of it incoherent, dubious or just stupid with an over emphasis on coincidence, the main gripes being:

• Decker wanted to stay away from his daughter, because he was being 'hunted'and to go near her would jeopardise her life. But at the end he throws such qualms out of the window and endangers both himself and his daughter.
  
• drowning of replicants (why on earth would such expense be made to create that functionality in them?)
• the pink haired replicant recognised the horse and shared the same dream (when she made the on-the-nose outburst about it). Loads of other replicants may have had the same dream, but oh no, it had to be K who both found the horse AND stumbled across where it was stashed. Forced coincidence at its worst.
  
• synthetic creations giving birth (daft)
• the complete lack of subtlety in repeatedly overlaying audio from previous conversations because the director seemingly thought the audience needed led by the nose.
  

It had some things going for it though, so I'd give it a solid 5/10. But it was achingly ordinary in a whole range of areas where Bladerunner was outstanding.

@Fergoose said:

I don't think that there was much style or substance. I didnt particularly enjoy the audio or visual, and there wasn't anything particularly inventive that I noticed in the set or in how it was shot.

spoilers

I also found chunks of it incoherent, dubious or just stupid with an over emphasis on coincidence, the main gripes being:

• Decker wanted to stay away from his daughter, because he was being 'hunted'and to go near her would jeopardise her life. But at the end he throws such qualms out of the window and endangers both himself and his daughter.
  
• drowning of replicants (why on earth would such expense be made to create that functionality in them?)
• the pink haired replicant recognised the horse and shared the same dream (when she made the on-the-nose outburst about it). Loads of other replicants may have had the same dream, but oh no, it had to be K who both found the horse AND stumbled across where it was stashed. Forced coincidence at its worst.
  
• synthetic creations giving birth (daft)
• the complete lack of subtlety in repeatedly overlaying audio from previous conversations because the director seemingly thought the audience needed led by the nose.
  

It had some things going for it though, so I'd give it a solid 5/10. But it was achingly ordinary in a whole range of areas where Bladerunner was outstanding.

Right on the nose. Not a terrible movie, but when great movies are so hard to come by, people seem ready to laud almost anything.

It was never going to measure up to the original.. Ridley Scott is just too masterfull... However, it was a good effort... Undeserving of the heated criticism...

Thank you for taking the time to reply. The fact I am having to wreck my brain to remember anything about this film 2 months after I watched it underlines the lack of impact it had on me.

@Invidia said:

When Decker goes to visit the daughter at the end of the film K has also filed a REPORT with the LAPD saying that DECKARD is DEAD.

Therefore, he's also NOT being HUNTED anymore by anyone that was previously looking for him and the life of his daughter is NOT in danger anymore from his going to visit her

Really? He had grounds to be so confident that the paperwork was correctly processed and filed that he had gone from being an imminent threat to the life of his daughter, to being no risk at all?

K is a BLADE RUNNER. His job is to HUNT DOWN other REPLICANTS and do away with them. When he drowns LUV he was also PROTECTING DECKARD who was being taken OFF WORLD by her to a place where WALLACE plans on DISSECTING HIM to see why RACHEL was able to conceive a child by him. And if he didn't KILL HER, she would also have KILLED HIM (which also makes it SELF DEFENSE when he drowns her which means he both saves HIS OWN LIFE and that of DECKARD).

Plus if she was still alive that would also mean K couldn't have filed the REPORT with the LAPD saying DECKARD was DEAD.

My point here is it would be idiotic from a business perspective to invest in the technology to make a replicant drown in a human fashion. What next, let's spend money on R&D to give replicants realistic warts, diahorrea and lisps?

The other REPLICANTS would probably NOT have the SAME BIRTHDAY as K had though, which is also ENGRAVED there on the BOTTOM part of that LITTLE WOODEN HORSE.

Presumably one in every 365 or so would thought which was loads. Plus I dont think the birthday was central to discovering the horse?

As for SYNTHETIC CREATIONS giving birth, how do we know for sure that every single part of RACHEL was SYNTHETIC???

Since TYRELL also said he'd placed the MEMORIES of his NIECE into RACHEL, perhaps he also placed other things (such as HUMAN BODY parts inside of her as well).

Therefore creating the EQUIVALENT of a FRANKENSTEIN type who was also made with a combination of the body parts of others.

Only whereas that other creation goes on a KILLING SPREE, thanks to DECKARD falling in love with her RACHEL remains SANE and doesn't become the kind of a MONSTER that the other one became.

Or maybe she was his NIECE and he found a way to EXPAND the LIFE SPAN of a HUMAN so that they had no EXPIRATION DATE???

This is just pure speculation. There was no hint of any of that in the various different cuts of Bladerunner. There certainly wasnt in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

If you're referring to the AUDIO TAPE where DECKARD INTERVIEWS RACHEL asking what she'd do if she had a BEE on her arm, then the REFERENCE to the BEE also ties back in with the other BEE that we see in the SIMULATION right before K meets the daughter of DECKARD inside of the SEE THROUGH BUBBLE.

I'm referring to the part where the director felt he had to treat me like a child with a heavy handed voiceover. The same point could have made more deftly in more skilled hands.

But apparently some people would rather BAD MOUTH the MOVIE instead of taking the TIME to STUDY IT in more DEPTH and realize how what they've said about it MAKES NO SENSE once they realize other things about it and what they SYMBOLIZE and REPRESENT.

Why would I study in detail a movie I gave 5/10? If there is someone who is making no sense here, I think it is more likely to be the one MAKING THINGS UP TO FIT AN ARGUMENT. :p