(no subject)
I like a lot of this: K being a replicant (most of the characters aren't biohuman, and I like that a lot), the fact that he does more actual detecting- in general, I like (not "love") this movie quite a lot: a respectable, not outstanding, sequel. (Not as good of a sequel as 2010; definitely more to my taste than the Star Wars sequels.) Couplea things:
1) There are too many plotlines that aren't fully developed, especially Deckard's and the replicant rebellion's. Why didn't they kill two birds with one stone, and have Deckard LEADING the rebellion?
a: It would give Deckard a great character arc, from killing replicants to leading them to freedom (as I've said before, it would make total sense that he is one himself- that, in the hypercommercialized environment of the first movie, they could use beings who *think* they can sue the city if, say, a replicant shoots their lungs out (also makes the scene with Holden make more sense: they were probably using him as a sacrificial goat to test a new Voight-Kampff model, or something).
b: makes it about a BILLION times more likely that Wallace would not only invite Deckard to his headquarters, but take the time to study him and hence know that a new Rachael might make him crack. (Great scene.) As is, the ostensible motive (Wallace wants to know about the replicants' being able to reproduce, so he can send child replicants to the stars, or something) is decidedly weaksauce; Wallace's wanting to induce Deckard to betray the rebellion (so that Wallace's creations stop embarrassing/upsetting him by going astray) makes a LOT more sense. Also, Deckard's being with the replicants would make a lot more sense than Vegas, which...b'zuh? Cool visuals; thematically lacks a point.
2) There was a societal collapse? Okay, cool- but then:
a) How the hell does this society function? Is Wallace propping up ALL of society's functions (ie, the economy; religion; social control in general), in which case we should see a LOT more of a societal footprint from him? (In general, the design of this film is a competent extrapolation of Scott's visual scheme, without equalling it- Villeneuve does about as well in this area as Cameron did with Aliens (except the alien queen, which was awesome)).
b) Wallace should have CAUSED the societal collapse- used a computer virus, or something. (His being biologically young but blind makes perfect sense in this regard, as does his general Jesus visual vibe.)(Those protein farms should've been called manna farms.)
3) In general, the birth imagery in well handled and appropriate; that said, K and LUV fighting their way from a tight, cramped shuttle interior, through a salty sea, before winding up on shore may have been a bit much of a muchness in this regard.
4) The cast is excellent across the board; VERY nice grace notes from Dave Bautista (haven't seen a balding replicant before- duh, since they all die early). Mackenzie Davis, as with Margot Robbie, has a habit of being better than the movies she's cast in. (WOLF OF WALL STREET excepted; BIRDS OF PREY is good at different things than a typical, say, Batman flick.)