It is no secret that the first “blade Runner” was a visual candy, which even by today’s standards looks very impressive. Especially if you keep in mind that the first part straight from 1982. Continued diligently trying to pick up the stick relay and to finish without taking positions. And we have to admit that this aspect of the film was a success. In fact, what do you love the visual range of the first picture: a huge metropolis in the rain; abandoned places; streets teeming with crowds of people of different race under the neon light; color filters. To this is added a rich play with light and shadow. So abundant that it almost feels as if the filmmakers-continue strive to create a beautiful picture for a beautiful picture. No, they do it with pleasure and feast for the eyes. But unlike the first part is that there is the visual part Supplement the story or acting atmosphere and when it is not taken away to itself so much attention. It was part of the movie, not just his thing.
And this bust not only with the visual part. The film is so immersed in the detailed disclosure of the protagonist that takes the focus from the storylines between him and other characters. But most of these lines brings other topics, deviating from the main plot of the film, begun in the first part and received a direct continuation of the second. In the end, they get chopped off for the benefit of the Central plot. Because of this, one gets the impression that the film does not introduce anything fundamentally new in the Universe of “Blade runner”.
As this point emphasizes the abundance of references to the original. And here it is to apply the name “blade Runner” to authors who are trying to balance on the fine line that the film ultimately became a quote of the first part. What these moments are basically not carry any significant information from the previous film. It is made solely for nostalgic purposes.
And if all of the above flaws, like a medal with two sides, so are the advantages of the film: a lot of visual, but it’s so damn cool; the crumpled side of the storyline, but the integrity of the Central plot and well developed main character; not great, but still, the abuse of references. The logic of the actions and motivations of the characters have questions. Perhaps due to the fact that the film is still on the scale its superior to the first part and not the first time you can see all the details.
In General, the sequel turned out to be his ancestor: meditative, beautiful, atmospheric and addictive attention. But in his obsession with recreating the sensations “as in the previous part” the creators of the sequel are a bit overdone. What movie does not look like standalone outside the context of the film 1982.
7 out of 10.