anyone else think it's a bit overrated visually?

Don't get me wrong, this was a pretty good movie, and the imagery in it was generally pretty solid. But I fail to see it as some sort of "visual masterpiece" all the critics are saying it is.

It's a good-looking film, but I don't consider it anywhere near on par with the original in terms of aesthetic beauty. Whereas every scene was gorgeously lit and photographed in Ridley Scott's film, here, a lot of the scenes set in interiors looked quite flat and dull to me. Basically, any scene set in either K's apartment or the police station looked really quite boring and uninteresting. The lighting is nowhere near as moody or atmospheric as Deckard's apartment or the police station from the original.

Like I said, it's still a pretty good-looking movie. But compared to the original, I would say only about 85% of it is attractive whereas I don't recall a single shot from the Ridley Scott film that wasn't visually orgasmic.

Anyone else felt the same way or was it just me?

Discuss...