Blade Runner 2049

October 10, 2017 by  
Filed under Movies

In 1982, Ridley Scott brought us “Blade Runner”, an intriguing, cerebral sci-fi flick set in the future, adapted from a Philip K. Dick short story entitled “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”. Make your own assessment of which had the better title; but I know what my answer’d be. The film wasn’t a success at the box office, despite having the star power of Harrison Ford, and some young talent like Sean Young. It was too slow, too dark, and miserable, in a year with “E.T.” and “Poltergeist”; even “Star Trek” gave audiences something to get excited about, in the world of science fiction. But “Blade Runner” was trying to be something different–a throwback to film noir, complete with hard boiled narration (that Harrison Ford reportedly hated). It was visually captivating, but little else.

Then, it gained a following in years to come. Now, it’s regarded as a classic, a golden standard of “thinking sci-fi”. Films like “Dark City” and “Gattaca” would come over a decade later, and were a little better received thanks to the groundbreaking “Blade Runner”. For me personally, “Blade Runner” never quite connected. I think because it had so much “stuff” in it, it kind of weighed itself down. The characters weren’t exactly very endearing, and the plot seemed to move in slow motion. The set design, the effects, were all magnificent. I still like to “look” at the film. But as a narrative, it just left me cold. Certainly I could appreciate what Scott was trying to do, and what message the film was saying about morality and humanity, and what it means to be human. What we take for granted, what we take with us, could be “tears in the rain”.

Now, 35 years later, we have a sequel. I was certainly interested, because I felt that with Scott again involved, maybe he could further develop the world he created back in 1982. Of course now, we are far into the future, with it being 2049. I’m sure this won’t spoil a thing–but Deckard is back, although his presence is couched in favor of our new Blade Runner, K (Ryan Gosling). K is part of a code that he is named after. He’s assigned to a case to “retire” a replicant on a farm. Replicants, if you’re familiar with “Blade Runner” lore, are robots designed after humans to resemble us completely, except for one trait: they lack empathy and are synthetic. They were mostly created as slaves, but some are “retired” (destroyed) if unwanted. If you’re not familiar, all of this explained in the opening sequence in text, so you aren’t completely lost.

Once K meets with the farmer (played by Dave Bautista), a fight ensues, with K being the victor and discovering something: replicant remains. And, the kicker–she was pregnant. This is unprecedented in replicant evolution, and there’s a race to destroy all remains of the all of it, including the child–who is alive. K is pursued by an employee of the Wallace corporation (who took over for the Tyrell Corporation following the first film), led by Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). Named Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), she’s a replicant as well and replicants can have some superhuman powers. You don’t really want to be Blade Runned by a replicant.

K has somewhat of a normal existence: he works for the LAPD, and though being a replicant himself, he is obedient in his job, and good at it. His boss, Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) seems to like him and his ethic, and even somewhat protects him once it gets out that the remains of the pregnant replicant have been taken. K also has a “girlfriend”, an entity that works like a holographic Amazon Echo, and who can love you unconditionally, with only the push of a button. Named Joi (Ana de Armas), after the product, she believes there’s something special in K, even though he thinks he’s just your average…Joe.

But when one of his implanted memories turns out to be seen as “genuine”, something impossible for replicants as they have no living memory, he starts to believe her, and–in himself.

But this sort of self journey only serves as background noise to an otherwise noisy, and would-be thought provoking film. Clocking in at nearly 3 hours long, you’d think director Denis Villenueve would utilize the run time to explore K’s existence more than just a few flashbacks, and link his to Deckard’s and other replicants. But this is an insulated film, and Gosling is always tough to read. So again, there’s an emotional hole that could’ve been filled with the kind of story this is telling–which has to do with literal creation. It doesn’t seem to drown in cliches of religious symbolism, thankfully, but it spends an awful lot of time on lingering shots of the world–colorful at that–that this film exists in. Yes, it’s gorgeous at times; sometimes, ugly. I think there’s a metaphor in there, something that can be divined from all the rainy, claustrophobic city sequences; then, contrasted with quiet beauty of a sprawling desert, or even inside an office building. There’s a lot of empty space, and that rings true for the film’s narrative. Just like in the first film, it seems to suffer from taking a short story subject and putting it into full length feature film mode. “Blade Runner” was only 2 hours though; this is almost 3. With that extra hour, we really don’t get much more juice that had already been squeezed from the original. We get very similar themes of self-worth, what it means to be human–and what the importance of one’s existence can be.

Harrison Ford looks tired in just about everything he does lately, and even though it’s nice to see him again, it feels a bit sad too. His character is alone, and has really nothing to look forward to. Spending more time with him, rather than leaving him for the third act as another MacGuffin, would have really strengthened the film.

The look of the film is exhilarating, and a lot of the film does actually work fine. But the bloated run time, including pretty much all scenes with Wallace, really bog the film down. Leto is a great actor, but his character has really no importance to the overall plot. And his musings are rather dull, instead of being ominous or foreboding. He does have a singular function, of basically being the puppet master of his creations. But Luv, his henchwoman, basically has a mind of her own and makes a fine villain on her own. She certainly doesn’t seem the type who needs to “obey”.

There is also another subplot of an uprising of replicants. I would imagine this would serve as a centerpiece for another sequel–but the film doesn’t work enough for me to want to invest myself in another “Blade Runner” film. As it stands, it falls flat, and only becomes relevant for K’s journey that I think he would’ve figured out eventually anyway. The resolution for Deckard is a little more uplifting and satisfying, but by the time we get there, I was ready to bolt out of my seat.

If you want a thinking sci-fi film, put more thought into it. That should be obvious–but also, make the plot interesting. Make it complete. This came off as a bit fractured, and it really hampered the full enjoyment I think a person could have with it.

If this were a replicant, I wouldn’t have a problem with it being “retired”.

My rating: :?

Surrogates

September 28, 2009 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

The premise of this film is nothing we haven’t seen before. I was immediately reminded of a lot of different films, such as “Blade Runner”, “Strange Days”, “Total Recall”, and even “The Terminator”. The idea revolves around our own feeling that we need to create a perfect self, since we are so full of flaws. Of course, this is primarily driven by aesthetics. Our imperfections on our body, and nothing else, has driven this human race to go through incredible lengths to make ourselves look better. In this case, you can do so by creating a “puppet” of yourself, and hook yourself up remotely to this “double” of yours. They’re known as “surrogates”, and almost 90% of them look like they were spawned from the Bret Easton Ellis universe. You can live out your wildest fantasies with these things, and if they die? No worries. You aren’t affected. You can just buy another one.

Until one night, an operator is killed along with his surrogate. And the operator just happens to be the son of the creator and former CEO of the company that makes them. The FBI is brought in, and the main team on the case includes Agent Greer (played by Bruce Willis); of course a covert plot is uncovered, and just about everything you can imagine from a garden variety action thriller ensues.

The film begins almost like “District 9” does, with a series of “explanatory” scenes that bring us up to date on the technology and progression of the “Surrogate” project; but that would be the only similarity I’d draw between the two. Where “District 9” blatantly has a purpose and an agenda, “Surrogates” plays around and dances around a lot of interesting themes and doesn’t delve into any of them. Instead the film just delivers a tired plot and an underdeveloped theme of losing your identity and self through these robots.

There is a collection of humans, known as Dreads, that have “reservations” as it were, where no surrogates are allowed. Their leader is The Prophet–and would you guess that he’s got dreadlocks? I mean, that is pretty much a guaranteed symbol of enlightenment and power. But there’s a twist with The Prophet–one you can see coming a mile away if you’re paying attention in the least. But again, these scenes with the Dreads are very trite and predictable, and nothing really interesting happens with them.

There could have been a lot to this movie. I’m guessing the graphic novel series it’s based on digs more into the themes of human insecurity and our thirst for beauty and youth. The film only runs at 90 minutes, so there wasn’t a lot of room for these different ideas to grow. But then why make the film? Why did we need another action film with a flimsy who-dun-it story and a pathetic excuse for a car chase climax?

And while I’m on a roll, why does every single IT/Computer hacker have to resemble Harry Knowles? Seriously. Have some imagination!

While the film is an utter disappointment for what it could have been, it does deliver in some respects. If you were missing Bruce Willis with hair, for one, you get to see that. Also, there are some interesting scenes between him and his wife, about their deceased son. But overall, the movie takes itself too seriously and it doesn’t develop itself enough to really care about these characters, nor does it give you any sense of discovery about human worth and whatnot.

But what did you expect from the screenwriters of “Terminator Salvation” and “The Game”? I hope not much.

My rating: :?