I also saw this over the weekend. Broadly the same impressions. Good movie:
mostly quality performances, amazing sights and sounds, story hits all the detective beats effectively. The movie has a lot of ideas to throw at you, and not all of them work, but I always respect creative ambition even when it's not 100% successful (we all know I have a soft spot for flawed but adventurous productions). I'd recommend that people see it, just like I'd recommend any science fiction movie that's interested in doing what science fiction is really for, asking searching questions about the nature of humanity, instead of just using futureland as an excuse to blow shit up. Like its predecessor, it deserves a better reception than it got. There's a fair amount, narratively, that could've been patched up better, but most of it holds together on its own without needing to build off of an established property. As far as unnecessary, decades-late sequels go, it is on the better end of the scale (it's no Fury Road, but what else is?)
Blade Runner 2049: saw this with the fam yesterday. It's good! I really liked the music, which was reminiscent of Hyper Light Drifter, often overwhelming the action with electric, alien sound. I assumed HLD picked that up from an 80s sci fi movie, but I didn't think the original Blade Runner did that. Maybe it did and my memory is failing me.
2049 pays dutiful homage to the venerable Vangelis soundtrack on more than one occasion, but it is also doing its own thing. The descent into oppressive noise is its main original contribution, and this can be extremely claustrophobic and effective with theater surround sound blasting it at you. Prime example: the scene where the guy finds the thing (you know the one). It just feels like someone's world has been pulled out from under them. Sound team did a man's job, sir.
And yeah, movie looks amazing, brilliant visual stylist director checking in. There is some straight-up Drakengard scenery happening later on.
Who builds a city out of giant naked lady statues? Yes, I'm spoiler-tagging scenery, because it's disarming enough when it happens that I don't want to ruin it for anyone.What wasn't so good was the villain, who was too much of a baby eater to make an impact. Is this all this Jared Leto fellow is good for?
Pretty much. I think the issue was more with the philosophy of the character as written than with the performance, though. One thing I did like about him: just how off he was, visually, while interacting with anyone else. It's the eyes. Not the weird sheen they have to them, but the way he never seems to be looking directly at whoever he's talking to. Eventually you realize, oh, he's blind, and those technoglobule drones that float around his office making alien dolphin noises are how he sees. I appreciate it when a movie lets you pick up on your own details that are not entirely obvious, but still fairly apparent when you think about it for a minute, without taking time to exposit them at you. (As you pointed out, this narrative is not always that considerate elsewhere.)
I don't consider him the villain, though, at least not anymore than Tyrell was in the original movie. The antagonist of importance to the narrative was Luv. She gets way more screentime and takes an active role in ruining things for, well, pretty much the entire rest of the cast. There's probably something being said in the fact that the movie's most eager killer also cries the most, but I dunno what exactly. Compare with Roy in the original film: the replicant with observable motives is the protagonist's opposing force, not their creator who just wants to make a buck (or uh EXPAND THE LANDMASS through slavery).
Also also: don't future police stations have security cameras?
A thought that I had while watching this movie.
I think the main sticking point is just: did it absolutely have to tie in directly to people and events from the original Blade Runner? And the answer on a production level is probably, "Yeah, otherwise people wouldn't be suitably nostalgic." The movie's smart enough that I don't think having to pay homage totally derails the narrative or proves an irredeemably compromising distraction, but I also think the story could've stood on its own without ever providing a direct connection to the original movie, and maybe have been better for it. Harrison Ford feels like he belongs here, though. This didn't feel true when he had to come back for Star Wars. That felt phoned-in to me, but Deckard looks, talks, and even moves like a broken old man who goes on living only because he doesn't know how to do anything else. It helps the last third of the movie land successfully when the "Look, it's a sequel!" arc could've proven terminal. The only time this aspect of the movie proved too intrusive for me was when Leto floated the whole "Deckard, maybe you're a replicant too because that was THE PLAN ALL ALONG," theory, because just no, god no, okay? I don't care how much Ridley Scott likes to tell people these days (unless he changed his mind again, who knows) that Deckard was always meant to be a replicant. The idea makes no sense, and the suggestion was only ever of value in the original film as a means of making you question whether the hunter was actually any more human than the hunted.
The police chief's relationship with our totally not Kafakesque protagonist Agent K* is so weird. It reminds me of this bit from Top Ten, when a woman admits that her old robotic servant was the best confidant she ever had. The implication is the same: because he's property and therefore subhuman, I know he'll never betray me, so I can feel confident communicating in a more direct way than I would feel comfortable doing with an actual human.
(*Jesus, someone even calls him Joe)
