Oh, I absolutely agree. The thing with my second viewing, as opposed to the first, was that the emotional impact of the film really hit me. I'm not someone who is moved to tears very often, but the original Blade Runner can always make me cry...especially at Rutgur Hauer's "tears in the rain" speech. Watching Blade Runner 2049 the second time, there were definitely a few moments where I started to get a little moisten-eyed, hence my comment about it being a moving film. As you say, the film focuses on the nature of what is "real" verses what is "artificial", but it couches that philosophical question within the tragedy of mortality. That's an emotionally charged mix, to say the least.

Like its predecessor, Blade Runner 2049 is a brilliant piece of cinema and a far better sequel than we, as fans, had any right to expect.

I'm a huge fan of the original '82 Blade Runner. I missed it in the theater when it was first released, but have seen it multiple times since the early '90's. I also saw the 2007 cut theatrically, and it was one of my greatest theatrical movie experiences.  Though I preferred the '82 cut, with the HF voice-over - that gave the film an intentional noir-ish feel/vibe, and brought to mind those old b&w detective films from the 1940's/1950's.

So, I wasn't sure what I would think of BR 2049, but decided to give it a chance. I just recently saw this on Blu-ray...and felt it was an incredible sci-fi film. It both paid homage to the original & at the same time has a completely unique story. I liked how it was a sequel to the original, but at the same time wasn't a re-make.

Visually, this film was also amazing & sublime...and, like the original, does an incredible job in fully creating an obviously futuristic & grim world - with some familiarity to our current one.

Going along with this, the theme of what it means to be human was the underlying element in both BR films. I.e., can humans create something that has just as much - or more - human emotion/humanity/empathy than humans themselves?! This has been examined in other sci-fi films/TV series over the years (2001 ASO, the Terminator movies, AI: Artificial Intelligence, The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica TV series, etc.) but is explored very effectively in these BR movies. 

The idea that replicants can breed & have children - just like humans - was an interesting idea as well. And, that being the case what truly separates the robots from the humans?! Nothing (or almost nothing) as far as I can tell.

Also, I thought it was clever to try to sync up (as much as possible) the original to the 2049 sequel in "real time". I.e., the original BR took place in 2019, and 2049 is 30 years later. In "real time", the original came out in '82, and 2049 was released in 2017 - so, 35 years later - which isn't that far off.

Making the Ryan Gosling character in 2049

It was interesting that, based on 2049, it wasn't clear

The whole question of Deckard being a replicant or not really distracts from the main theme, if you ask me.  The point of the story is that Deckard finds his lost humanity via his relationship with Rachel and Roy Batty, who were manufactured, regardless of Deckard's own origin.  That is still the central theme in PKD's novel, even as it plays out differently.  In the novel, there is a component where Deckard is picked up by a different police precinct and is believed to be an android, and is subjected to their version of the V-K.  It was the basis for the movie's question.

In my original viewings of the theatrical version of the film (US), I never questioned that he is human.  I noticed the light effect; but, never credited it as deliberate and assumed it was due to the set lighting.  It was only after reading a segment of a book about movies of that era, which featured some stills of deleted footage (including the interview with Holden, in his life support chamber) that I read of the suggestion and the glowing eyes.  It didn't have significance until the Director's Cut, when Scott put the Unicorn Dream back in and I was deliberately looking for the glowing eye effect, that it took on any significance.  I still rejected the idea, as it undercut the central idea.  Listening to the commentary, I don't buy into Scott's thinking and, quite frankly, he comes across as an ass in some of his statements.  I've listened to commentary there, on Alien, and The Duelists and he's got a pretty big ego, though he is far less insufferable on those other two commentaries.  I got the impression that he didn't like his idea being challenged, regardless of how he presented it (in the more ambiguous original or the more deliberate subsequent cuts).

In interviews, Scott kind of comes across like a replicant; rather cold and emotionless.  Maybe he needs a visit from his own Roy Batty.

I will admit that my take on the story is rather informed by reading the novel and the Marvel adaptation, before seeing the film.  As such, the idea that Deckard is anything but a human never entered my mind. It is similar to theories about The Prisoner, and the suggestion that Number 6 is actually the man in charge, testing his system ("Who is Number One?"  "You are Number 6!")  The idea of Number 6 being the puppet master makes for a nice exercise; but, undercuts the entire series and themes; thus, making it totally unlikely.  The concept only works if he is an outsider caught up in the struggle, just as Blade Runner only really works if Deckard is a human who discovers his humanity, thanks to the lessons learned from the artificial replicants, seeking prolonged life.  If society fears undetected and rogue replicants, why would they use other replicants to take them down?  They would seem to be even more feared and suspect; thus, less trustworthy.  It just circles back upon itself.

I liked the concepts at the heart of this one; but, wasn't as impressed by the execution.

Holy smoke! A Michael Golden cover too???