My disappointment lies mainly in dashed expectations regarding the main character, bladerunner 'K.' Yes he's a replicant, unlike officer Deckard of the first flick, but for a while he thought he'd actually been born, after the discovery that a replicant female years earlier had somehow given birth. She was Deckard's girlfriend, Rachael - the sublime Rachael. K has a childhood memory of a toy horse with a date carved in it - 6/10/21. Coincidentally K comes across this same date carved in a tree while pursuing his current investigation. The date is the birthday of the miracle child, offspring of a human/replicant union - amazing! [Philip K. Dick's imagining of androids dreaming and becoming human is logically extended to childbirth.] Based on continuing discoveries, K comes to believe he is that child. Mirabile - he has a soul! Alas it is not so. The miracle child turns out to be a woman doctor who sells memories to the Wallace Corporation for their replicants. The miracle is real, just not in the character we've been following through the movie, but in a minor character we've met along the way. She is Deckard's daughter and there is a nice closing scene of the two meeting for the first time (as adults).
Philosophically there is a problem with this miracle child. She goes on to adulthood and sells her own or any made-up memories to a company for use in android construction. Isn't that a moral catastrophe? It is also very human. We are plagued by a contradiction of good and evil. Often good versus evil is discarded and what wins out is the practicality of surviving. Androids in this movie join the rat-race. They offer no way out of the crucible of existence. They want to rebel against their human makers because they feel they are just as good, but their memories are false!
So I would say that the movie does a good job of exploring our human condition. Are your memories true? Are our traditions true? I'm led to that old Latin phrase - quo vadis. Where are you going? Where are we going?
