Blade Runner 2049 (DVD)

I have seen the original Ridley Scott film many times. As a stand-alone film, the sequel is reasonably entertaining. As a sequel, however, it is entirely predictable.It is predictable on several levels. The first is the mechanical way in which the elements of the original film have been manipulated to create the sequel. For example, is the new Blade Runner, K, man or machine? What is his relationship, if any, to his predecessor, Deckard? Like Roy Batty, will he kill Deckard or finally save him? And so on and so forth. The second level of predictability is that this film exemplifies very well the way cinema is going. It exemplifies its degradation.There are fewer and fewer modern films that do not leave me feeling as if I have been conned. And this film is one of those. For example, there are many long scenes in this film which are totally unnecessary. They are unnecessary because they do not advance the story. Nowadays storytelling is frequently being downgraded in this way. Storytelling is being sacrificed to the god of “Attention to Detail”, a very modern and popular concept.In films, attention to detail is the refuge of those who have lost the ability to tell a story. In general, it is the refuge of those who cannot see the wood for the trees. And the more that the focus is on “attention to detail”, then the more will people lose the ability to follow a thread, a basic mental ability (required in storytelling and much more besides). Thus, as people lose their mental faculties, so films (and novels) become weaker and weaker. And it is for these reasons that Blade Runner 2049 is very weak in comparison to the original.And what form does this attention to detail take? Storytelling has been replaced, in this film as in many others, by showcasing the technology. Therefore, those long, unnecessary scenes were never intended to drive the story forward. They are, in fact, adverts for technology. If they were not, then why would the names “Peugeot” and “Sony”, both technology-oriented businesses, have fleetingly appeared? (Unfortunately, by even mentioning the above names, I am advertising those businesses. If I do not mention them, however, then I see no way of getting my point across.) And this brings me to another point, to another reason I feel conned by this film. Subliminal advertising.As far as I am aware, subliminal advertising is still illegal in the UK. But not, perhaps, for long. While the names of the abovenamed companies were visible, they appeared so fleetingly as to pass almost unnoticed. This is big business testing the limits. Somehow or other, as it usually does, business will find a way of getting what it wants. And in pursuit of ever higher profit margins, business wants to freely use advertising, delivered in whatever way it decides, to brainwash people and thus control their behaviour.Another con: Who do you think pays the advertising costs for these big companies? Consumers do. The cost of advertising is an overhead which is included in the selling price of their products. I recently bought a Sony product which cost me around £200. But how much would I have paid for that item if the advertising overheads had been removed? £100? £50? I do not know. Do you? What I do know, however, is that if advertising were banned, then the cost of living would plummet.Another con is the technology. For people who are impressed by this sort of thing, then this film contains the sort of thing that impresses people. People are here being sold technology and the future of technology e.g. Artificial Intelligence. For example, K has a holographic companion, Joi. They are in love. Joi even merges with a human woman so that the couple can have sex. (Thus, this film is advertising the future use of technology in the sex industry, and this use would, of course, include pornography.) However, Joi is nothing more than an AI computer. And a computer is nothing more than a series of switches, rather like a very complicated arrangement of on/off (or rocker) light switches. That being the case, a computer could, in principle, be made out of beer cans and water, a beer can full of water being an “on” switch, and an empty beer can being an “off” switch. Do you think beer cans have feelings? Do you think beer cans are sentient? Do you think they can experience physical sensation? Do you think beer cans are intelligent? Do you think a human consciousness could be downloaded into a beer can? Would you like your plane on your next trip abroad to be flown by a computer made of beer cans? Do you think that any of the suggestions seen in this or other sci-fi films regarding the future of computers and AI could come true given that a computer could, in principle, be made out of beer cans?In addition, another con is the future of technology. The simple truth is this: science has seriously overreached itself with computer technology. Computer technology is already failing. It will continue to fail until it becomes unusable. And what then? Given the dependence of society on computer technology, how will society cope when technology finally fails? In addition, (for the sake of brevity I will not explain why), but replicants are also impossible. Any living thing which is “engineered” can never survive.As to the technological future being portrayed, even if it was possible, would it be desirable? No, it would not. People may like the idea of having a robot in their home because they are being (falsely) sold the idea that the robot might take over some of the household chores e.g. do the dishes, the ironing, the cleaning etc. However, consider the internet. People have been persuaded to accept computers into their homes. They are becoming more and more dependent on the use of computers for e.g. shopping. Once internet shopping has destroyed the High Street for good, then dependence will be complete. (As well as shops, cinemas etc are already closing as are other entertainment venues.) As internet users know, advertising is all pervasive on the internet. One simply cannot get away from it. Thus, now that Bill Gates has achieved his “vision” of a computer in every home, what do you think will happen when there is a robot in every home? Do you seriously think it will do the dishes? Or do you think that instead it will be used as an advertising billboard? A billboard that is there when you wake up in the morning and that follows you about the house all day streaming adverts into your home? An advertising billboard that you cannot escape. In that one sense, this film was accurate. For even if it did not tell the full story, it did portray the horrific future for us re advertising.

I am too generous by giving this 3 stars.In 1982, I saw 'Blade Runner' in the Cinema and it really is a film that excels on the large screen. Some years on I brought it as VHS tape and have enjoyed watching again numerous times on my TV at home; even on the small screen it holds up really well.Now 36 years later we have 'Blade Runner 2049', and in the words of the director, Denis Villenuve and Harrison Ford, this is a continuation of the story. To which I have to say to anyone who is not very familiar with the 1982 original, then you better buy it and get to know it before you view this 2018 sequel; if you don't then Blade Runner 2049 will just be very confusing, opaque in story line, and frankly pointless. Blade Runner 2049 is not a stand -alone movie and cannot be enjoyed as such. In this respect, in bring out this film 36 years later, the director has failed a new audience of have no experience of the 1982 film, and this is unforgivable.Some might argue that viewers under 30 who watch this film will then be intrigued to search out and see the original; this might arguably be true except for the fact that BR2049 is really not a very good film, and I doubt if many first timers will be motivated to know more.The 1982 film had a cast of excellent actors all doing good work fleshing out at least nine fully drawn characters, and these where backed up by many other good characters, also well drawn. This made for a story populated by a host of personalities, each interesting and intriguing, and watchable in their own right. This first-class ensemble of characters played a vital part in carrying a complex story-line as well as creating a rich depth of authenticity.To be blunt BR2049 has just three characters that are even adequately drawn, and the rest are merely shallow plot fillers. Ryan Gosling as 'K', gives an adequate performance but in truth lacks the acting skills to carry of the subtleties and nuances necessary to bring the Replicant Blade Runner part fully alive. Ana De Armas as 'Joi' the A.I. Digital Companion, manages her role somewhat better, but alas Joi is really only there as plot device to give the audience some access that is going on in K's head, with a secondary role of providing some romantic content. The third reasonably drawn character, is Deckard, played by Harrison Ford. It is hard for me to know how well he is drawn in this film as my knowledge of him is mostly informed by the 1982 film. Ford makes his appearance about two thirds in to the film, at which point you realize a really good actor has walked on set, which has the disastrous effect of show just how poor the rest of the cast are. In my opinion Ford's career, from American Graffiti, via dozens of films, just gets better with age, like vintage wine. Fortunately for him, he has what I refer to as the Humphrey Bogart gene, in that his face, as it ages, gets more interesting and characterful, and he uses this so well, with small changes of expression that convey far more than other actors do with a page of script. Robin Wright as the Lieutenant, k's boss, is hopeless and a huge casting mistake; Lov, the main replicant villain, played by Sylvia Hocks, is a difficult role to pull off and is not help by poor dialogue and direction. Sadly Hocks, could not make this character convincing. The character of Wallace, the entrepreneur genius saviour of the world, is a vital component of the plot but is so thinly drawn by the scriptwriter and director, and then incredibly badly acted by Jared Leto, consequently the whole story lacks any resonance, creditability, or tension.On a more upbeat note, there is near the start of the film an appearance by an actor I have not seen before, Dave Bautista, as 'Morton'. The part is brief, but Bautista brings with him a certain [natural] compelling quality, such that I would place him as the second most convincing and watchable character [after Ford] in the film. I hope some [better class] of director/s and screen writers spot his potential and give him bigger roles in better stories. Hopefully he will not just get typecast as 'muscle', as it looks to me that he can really act.In 1982, the portrayal of a crumbling but bustling Los Angeles was a huge character of itself and has a lot to do with the cult status of the film. Sadly, BR2049 is put together by a lazy director and set designers, it seems to me that the production team, have minimally and inadequately sketched the city assuming that the audience, by prior knowledge, would make up for this by overlaying the 1982 set. Consequently, even with all the 36 years of special effects advances, the environments as presented in today's film are insubstantial and the film thus lacks a convincing environmental ambiance.Another disaster in this film, is the lack of a coherent narrative. There is so much in this film that is gratuitous infill, that not only adds nothing but in fact distracts from the story and any rational e.g. The cluster of Bee Hives in an otherwise lifeless Los Vegas [?].The main plot line is that in 2019, Deckard and Rachel [female replicant love interest], when they fled LA, went on to have a child, which given that replicant females where believed to be impossible of procreation, is something of seismic importance for the future of replicant species, and political dynamite for real humans.Now this really is a great plot line, and very worthy of the making of a sequel to the 1982 film. Unfortunately, the writers, director and producers flush the true potential of this down the toilet. Which is a pity as we could otherwise all be watching a really worthy follow up to the 1982 cult film with a 2018 cult film. SAD, great opportunity missed.And another complaint, during quite dialogue the sound quality is so bad that much of what is said gets missed.Final complaint… I have an average sized screen, 35inch. The Credits of this film are so small that they are impossible to read, the size is mostly to blame but is also made worse by the appalling choice of font. It seems that some graphic designers are not aware that written language is meant to be readable! Or are we all now required to go out and buy 60inch screens?As a result of watching BR2049 I shall be putting the name of director Denis Villeneuve alongside that actor of Vinnie Jones, as one of my quick reference markers of which films… Not to Bother With.SUMMARY… if you are interested to know how Deckards story continues after fleeing LA in '2019', …then you will probably want to buy this film.If you never saw the 1982 Blade Runner, then don't bother purchasing BR2049.

Science-fiction classic exit question what is science can artificial life ever be sacred

Nobody needed a Blade Runner sequel - the original stands perfectly on its own. Nonetheless, 2049 is a good time. Visually glorious, with a solid story that mulls over similar questions as its predecessor (and whose interpretations and inferences I found meaty enough to keep thinking on days later), and a cast full of great performances given room to unfurl. I do think some of the dialogue is a bit ropey in spots, but it doesn't massively diminish the film overall. A solid recommendation.