Stunning photography. If it doesn't get an Oscar then we should stop paying attention to Oscars. Otherwise it's pretty much what I said it would be: Villeneuve delivered competent sci fi movie that would probably work much better as its own thing. I stand by my overall opinion on its bladerunnerness from trailers - yes, the movie looks perfect within its own merit, it's like a three hour long camera benchmark demo, but it's like a "inspired by" thing rather than "set in the same universe" definitive. If you think about it - it didn't really need Blade Runner universe to be the same stunner. It doesn't really continue noir world of Blade Runner in a true manner, and Blade Runner universe didn't really require any further movies, especially not ones that change that world from what it was. That world didn't need fixing. If anything - cramming Deckard into it created more plot issues and overly stretched the premise as co-penned in by the Sex & The City and Everwood scribe. Before you start screaming at me - do this - forget about visuals and summarise the plot in your head as if you were to tell your friend what the movie was all about and not say anything about visuals or music. See what I mean?
Also there might be a moment where you have to rejig the boundaries of word "android" ever so slightly in your mind for both movies to fit in the same Philip K Datswearwordfilterstillstarshisfamilyname universe, which perhaps wasn't really that clear and obvious as part of the first movie.
Is it worth seeing? Like nothing else this year. Is it good sci fi flick? Hell yes. Up there with the best. Is it a good Blade Runner sequel? Not really. Somehow it felt it needs to change more of the old universe than required to deliver the premise that could have done without any such destruction. Will it be a sci fi classic like the original? All the signs are there - it's already bombing at the box office, now it needs 4 to 5 director cuts, preferably without director's involvement and voila.