Review of Blade Runner 2049 (2017) by Paul H — 15 Oct 2017

"Like ARRIVAL, the director wants you to pay attention and THINK.".

Except he's apparently running on the 68030 processor that was in the old Mac IIsi whereas I'm running on an Intel i7-8700 processor. And what was there to think about in any event?

SPOILER ALERT!!!

SPOILER ALERT!!!

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Someone wrote that there was a foreshadowing of the final twist (there were only two purported twists). The foreshadowing was two with the exact same DNA, which is not possible, while the boy lives and the girl dies. And so given the attempt to hide, create a mystery, the girl is the child, with the boy the misdirection, albeit an entirely lame misdirection, since if K can figure it out, with the rather minimal information that he had at hand, so can anyone else with access to that same minimal information, and so not even coming close to a good misdirection. The usual misdirection is fake your death and then assume another identity. Here they went with the lame, fake her death and have someone else assume the identity.

But that wasn't the worst of it as the worst of it is owing to, well, read some of the other comments re the notion of humanity and what that notion means. Would help with this movie if there were some actual humans in the movie. Seriously, how many were there? For the Deckard is a replicant crowd, well, make it even one less then.

And that whole "romance" with Joi thing. You're special, you need a name. How about I call you, Joe. Then picture our later enormous hologram. Joe. So the movie could have made that point in about two minutes and never mind the other wasted screen time. For how bad that all was, we get to the point where we can relate to her what with the whole, I love the rain, thing. Then she goes out with him for some investigation, then she gone for the rest of the film, save for her being that giant hologram who calls everybody Joe. So beyond two minutes or so, what was her point in the movie? So I can begin to relate to her, then she's gone from the movie (for all intents and purposes) save for a 30 second bat to the head, it was all a lie moment. Some real brilliant story-telling there.

Lastly, for how much we think compared to those commenting that we don't think, what is one to think of Luv? The arch villain, since the dude with the fancy eyes didn't have enough screen time or any real character depth to give him that moniker? If my recall is correct, she tears up when she kills Joshi, she tears up when fancy eyes guts the newly "born", and she tears up when kissing K after she stabs him. So which side is she on? Did we all ask that question? You see, some want our gal to lead the replicant revolution. Some others don't want her found owing to her being being precious so no dissecting of her in order to unlock the secret of the miracle. Perhaps ole Luv was thinking, pity that some have to die here, witness those tears, but I say we dissect her, learn the secret, and then when there's more of us for the revolution, and with the ability to procreate, then the time will be ripe for revolution.

You see, what is the point of the replicant revolution if they can't reproduce? Their revolution will last only so long as they manage to live. When the last one dies, end of story. So unless you're prepared to believe that Luv was indeed the hero, then what was the point of the movie? To introduce us to a revolution than can last only as long as the longest lived replicant? And why the need for the movie otherwise? I needed this film to tell to me that dying for some cause makes us human? Sorry, but I already heard that (some things are so precious, some things are so eternally true, that they are worth dying for, and I would submit to you that if a man has not found something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live, or did the masses never listen to or read MLK?). And for why Luv is the hero, she's only who teared up when somebody was killed. For not human the rest of them, or human in the worst sense, the rest of them had as much sadness and tragedy in the face of violent death as does your serial killing sociopath. So Luv, more human than the human.

Now for a bonus freebie, can we all please stop with the mantra of dystopia. Those MLK speeches, only necessary in a dystopia. But the sky was blue and the waters clear, and we had trees all over the landscape. Could be that again. Now for the not thinking part, some need the cinemagraphic porn and the eardrum popping audio in order to cue them in to the reality that we have a dysotopia here, which illustrates rather perfectly the idiocy of the comment that I am relying to. You need this vast panoramic hell on earth landscape, featured time and time again, and way too long each time, with eardrums about to burst, when you might get the reality of dystopia simply by observing the relations of beings featured in the film. Frankly, you'd have a much better film if the background, the externality, appears to be all sweetness and light. In other words, with all of the externality appearing to be as bleak as it is, I'm rather more inclined to give some a pass on their treatment of others, since hell on earth invites hell on earth. So let's see the dystopia in our relations with others amidst the backdrop of a paradise. Then we might actually have to think.