Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Jared Leto, Robin Wright, Dave Bautista, Sean Young

What has always attracted me to Blade Runner (1982), and part of the reason why it’s one of my favorite science fiction films ever (topped only by Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey) are its themes. The film asks one of the most thought-provoking questions of all time: why must we die? The question of our mortality has haunted us since the dawn of time. Why are we born with an expiration date? One for the ages to be sure, but one that Ridley Scott and his crew weren’t afraid to ask back in 1982. Which is why that scene in which Roy Batty kills his creator for being unable to give him more life struck me as a great example of a film that knows its themes well and truly explores them. “You were made as good as we could make you” is the answer Tyrell, the ‘God of Biomechanics’ gives his creations. Live your life to the fullest, but rest assured, you’re going to die.  That frustration and anger we all feel at the fact that we know we are going to die is explored on Blade Runner with laser clear precision. The film really dives into its themes with reckless abandon. It asks questions and attempts to give us answers, even if said answers are dark and hopeless. And it delivers these dark explorations with beauty and poetry.

Of course, when standing on the shoulders of such a giant, the makers of Blade Runner 2049 must’ve been concerned with delivering a film that was just as compelling and thought provoking as the original. Which of course was never going to be an easy task. Ridley Scott’s film is good on so many levels, it has  memorable characters, incredible dialog, amazing art direction, incredible special effects and music…it’s that rare “perfect” film that is extremely hard to top. I give kudos to Denis Villeneuve’s for having the guts to tackle the sequel of such a masterpiece. Was Blade Runner 2049 a worthy sequel? How does it compare to the first film? Can it be its own thing?

On Blade Runner 2049 we are presented with a new Android Executioner (a.k.a. Blade Runner) called agent ‘K’, who is assigned to retire a rebellious android who is passing itself for a farmer. Agent K ends up stumbling upon a mystery, which will lead him to a discovery that can shake the very foundations of society itself. Will he take the task and open this Pandora’s Box?  

I have to give it to Hampton Fancher and Michael Green, the writers behind this sequel, because they actually came up with some interesting concepts for this movie. The concepts are so good that they could branch off into entirely different films, which says a lot about the complexities of the concepts behind Blade Runner 2049. This movie has more meat to it than 90% percent of what passes for science fiction these days. And that “meat” is merely the backdrop of the story.  The actual plot of Blade Runner 2049 concerns itself with continuing exactly where the original film leaves off, with Deckard running off with Rachel to god knows where. This makes perfect sense when we take in consideration that Fancher also wrote the first film, so he’s picking up the story right where he left it.

Blade Runner 2049 has gotten lots of praise for its visuals and I agree, the film looks astonishing. Denis Villeneuve pays huge amounts of respect to the original film. You’ll feel you are in the same world that Ridley Scott presented us with in the first film. From the crummy, dirty streets filled with mutants to the flying police cars and the nonstop rain. It was great seeing landmarks from the first film like the Tyrell Corporation Pyramids or all those neon holograms promoting every sort of product available to man. I mean, Villeneuve succeeded in recreating that visual complexity that Ridley Scott is so good at conjuring on his films. Fans of the original Blade Runner are in for a real treat. It’s got that classy Film Noir vibe we all love from Blade Runner, its still very much a science fictin film mixed with a detective story. 

I was extremely disappointed that Vangelis was not used as the composer for Blade Runner 2049 because to me, the Vangelis score in Blade Runner (1982)  is a huge part of what emotes in conjunction with the visuals, such a unique cinematic experience. Vangelis’s music is sampled and reused in 2049, but instead letting him come up with a new score, they brought it in Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, which I will admit did an amazing job here anyway. The sounds used to compliment the visuals effectively evoke that dark science fiction vibe, it’s not Vangelis, but its mind-blowing in its own way. I’ve seen the film twice already and realized just how fantastic that musical score is. So prepare yourselves to dive into an amazing audio visual experience.

Though the film is amazing in many ways, it did have some flaws. One of the things that just didn’t work for me were the unanswered plot points, purposely left that way to be answered in a possible sequel. I personally don’t like to see scenes shoehorned in there for the sake of setting up a franchise, but whatever, you might not care. The original Blade Runner wasn’t concerned with establishing a franchise, they just did the one great film. To me it feels distracting, especially if you’re not even sure if there will be a sequel at all. You'll be left wondering what happened to certain characters, so be ready for that. Another thing is that to me 2049 is not as crystal clear with its themes as its predecessor. What is Blade Runner 2049 really about? Is it trying to answer any big questions? It is not as crystal clear as the first film. For now all I can say is that it is a film that warrants a few viewings to really grasp it, which means its a film that begs to be analyzed. I missed that focus in themes I got with the original film. But even with its flaws, the film is amazing on so many other levels that it balances the pros and cons out. I do hope more people go see it because like its predecessor, Blade Runner 2049 isn’t exactly lighting the box office in flames. In fact, last time I checked it was having a hard time making its money back. Which is sometimes a good thing. When general audiences don't like a film, it usually means it has some brains to it, which usually means I'll like it. So there's that. It's not a film made for mass consumption, which is a good thing for some of us.    

This was a risky movie for Denis Villeneuve to make because it’s an intelligent, slow paced science fiction film, and mass audiences like their explosions and fights every five seconds and they like everything spoon fed to them. It also has a lengthy running time of almost three hours, but I’ll tell ya, I was engaged all the way through, I didn’t really notice the running time. I wanted more by the time it was over. When it's over it comes as a surprise. In that sense, it is extremely similar to the original Blade Runner, which also slammed its door on our face, making us wonder what happened to Deckard and Rachel. Well, this film answers us that question, but it leaves so many others unanswered, hopefully we’ll get a sequel, hopefully the answers will come, and hopefully they wont take thirty something years to make the next film. I love the world of Blade Runner and I hope we get to revisit it at some point. I am extremely happy that Denis Villeneuve is doing such an amazing job with the science fiction genre, he is steadily becoming the sci-fi director of this generation. I hear he wants to tackle Dune next! What can I say, after seeing Blade Runner 2049, he has my vote. Final word, even with its flaws, I cannot bring myself to give this film anything but a perfect score. One for the ages in deed. 

    

Rating: 5 out of 5

  

Death and Androids: Explorig the Themes of Blade Runner (1982)

Blade Runner, like so many of Ridley Scott’s films, is an immersive experience. The world of Blade Runner is constructed in such an intricate and layered manner that you can’t help but get lost in the film. Aesthetically speaking, it’s one of my favorite films because it’s just beautiful to look at, those scenes with flying cars over a futuristic skyline filled with metal pyramids? Count me in! A lot has been said about Blade Runner as the quintessential cyber punk film because it’s about androids and because it’s set in a bleak future, like so many of William Gibson’s cyberpunk novels. Who is William Gibson you ask? Well, he’s the father of cyber punk that’s who; Gibson’s the guy who practically invented what we now know as 'cyber punk' through a trilogy of novels, the first of which is the seminal ‘Neuromancer’. If you want to truly find out what cyber punk is all about, I recommend starting there. But Blade Runner is based on Phillip K. Dicks ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’; a novel with its fair share of cyber punk elements, some of which bled onto the film. As a side note to this article, I'd like to mention that the book and the film are two different things all together, so you might want to try and read the novel, it’s an entirely different experience. Actually, you might end up being surprised just how different book and film are! How different is the book from the film? Well, the books main theme is religion! The film has nothing to do with religion! The book explores a whole different set of themes and has an entirely different tone to it. The book remains a special experience, I highly recommend checking it out! The difference between book and film points to one thing, what an amazing filmmaker Ridley Scott is. He basically took the world that Phillip K. Dick presented us with in his book and weaved a story that played with other themes  which though different, are equally relevant.   

Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott

For the longest time, I would just watch Blade Runner because I loved that world, the look, the feel. And you have to admit, the film is a lush production, it’s not a cheap looking film. But it wasn’t until adulthood that I started to appreciate the film from a whole other angle, I started to realize that there was a lot more to Blade Runner than flying cars and murderous androids. What was Blade Runner really about? What was it commenting on? The films central theme is mans own disillusionment with our short time on this earth. We come and go in the blink of an eye and when you really stop and think about it, it’s a really sad thing how short our lives are. I mean, our lives can be so rich, filled with so many memories and experiences, but as Roy Batty muses in the climax of the film, all of it just fades away when we die. When Roy Batty goes up to Tyrell, his creator to ask him for more life, Tyrell tells him it’s not possible, but not without offering a glimmer of hope to Batty’s preoccupations about death. Tyrell tells Batty “The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly Roy!” In this sense, the films offers us the only glimmer of hope when it comes to death, we have to live an amazing life, try and leave our mark in the world, to make what little time we were given matter.   Unless you lived an outstanding life and shined so brightly that your mark will be indelible for time immemorial, chances are, no one will even remember you were 100 years from now. So let’s make that time count my friends!

Now, taking all that in consideration, what would you do if you could go up to your god and ask him or her for more life? What if you could have a conversation with your creator, what would you say? I’d ask him why he allows decease, dictatorships and death. I’d ask him why he is so silent and apparently not even here. In Blade Runner, the Nexus 6 androids or ‘Replicants’  to use the term that they went with for the film get to actually talk to their creator, the “God of bio-mechanics” as Roy Batty calls him. They question him about why they die so soon, they want more life, they want for the god of bio-mechanics to let them into "heaven" so to speak. Problem is that the engineers who made the Nexus 6 androids gave them a four year life span. Why? Because if given any more than that, they get too smart, revolt and kill their masters. When given more than four years to live, the Nexus 6 would get too independent, volatile and unpredictable and that’s not what the powers that be want with a serving class; nope, they want the working class dumb and controllable. Here the film also offers us an interesting allusion to class issues. Should we take our given place in society? Or should we aim for more? The androids in Blade Runner want just that, they want to be like their creators. So, in order to keep the androids from rebelling or getting smarter, as a failsafe device, the Tyrell Corporation gave the Nexus 6 replicants only four years to live, after which they expire and die. In other words, the Nexus 6 are conscious of their mortality and they will fight it to the bitter end. 

So it is with some desperation that Roy Batty and his gang of androids manage to find Tyrell himself in order to ask for more life. Sadly Tyrell tells them that it’s not possible, essentially denying Roy and his crew of life. The frustration is so huge that Roy kills Tyrell, his creator, but not before telling him “I want more life fucker!”  To me this is the most pivotal scene in the whole film because it lets us know exactly what the film is about: our frustrations with death. At the same time, this scene offers some of the films most shocking and daring ideas. On this scene, Tyrell plays the role of God, the creator, while Roy Batty plays the role of the human, close to his death bed, asking god for a few more years. Again, what would you ask God if you were ever face to face with him? Well, Roy asked for more life and when he was denied it, he killed his creator, a shocking idea if you ask me, that of killing God. It’s not just any movie that will deliver the idea of anger and hatred towards God, but this one has the guts to do so. The films characters show certain contempt towards God for not having given us longer life. In this film God has created imperfect creatures with the ultimate decease: death! Not so different from the world we live in if you ask me! But, was Roy Batty justified to do what he did? Did his plea have any weight to it?

Well, if you ask me, Roy Batty may be the villain, but it feels to me like his plea is genuine, it has validity. To Batty, death just isn’t fair. He has seen and lived so much; he is frustrated that it’s all going to fade away “like tears in the rain” as he so eloquently puts it in the last moments of the film; which reminds me just how beautiful and poetic the ending of the film is. I mean, to be honest, I completely get the villain of the film, he may be a bit ‘batty’  as his last name implies, but you have to admit, his anger and frustrations are very real, it’s a cry out to life and death. Roy Batty is a desperate individual, but you have to understand, the guys body is freezing up! He can’t feel his fingers! His skin is turning white! He has to penetrate his fingers with rusty nails in order to make himself feel alive.  I compare this to those moments we’ll eventually get to in our life when we start feeling the aches and pains of old age and we start doing everything we can to battle it. We go to the gym, we eat better, we go to the doctor, doing whatever we can to fight what’s inevitably going to come. Yup, there comes a time in everyone's life when we simply won't run as well, when our resistance will be less, and we'll get tired faster. At some point in our lives, our energies will no longer be what they used to be. Our bodies will sooner or later start to show signs of wear and tear and we'll see death rearing its ugly head.  I find those last scenes in Blade Runner when Roy Batty is reminiscing about the beauty of life, when he starts remembering about that “he has seen things that you wouldn’t believe” just beautiful, like an old man remembering all those experiences he once lived and enjoyed; in many ways, Roy Batty has a lust for life, which is why death deeply saddens him. I have to admit, that scene always gets to me.

"All those moments will be lost in time...like tears in the rain"  

As an artist, Ridley Scott is obviously terribly concerned with death, which let’s face it, is kind of one of the big mysteries of life. What happens when we die? Where do we go? Do we truly just vanish? This is why inquisitive characters have always been a part of Ridley Scott’s films, so they can ask the big questions. Most recently in Prometheus (2012) he revisits the exact same themes as he played with in Blade Runner, but with a slightly more existential twist to them because in Prometheus characters aren’t just asking for life, they want the answers to the big mysteries of the universe, they want to know where we all came from as well. Prometheus is less subtle with its themes; it asks its questions louder. It proposes that our creators not only don’t like us, they also want to wipe us out like some failed experiment that has to be started over again. Hell, even Ridley Scott’s brother, director Tony Scott was obsessed with this theme of death as well; I guess it runs in the family? For example, Tony Scott’s The Hunger (1983) has David Bowie playing a half vampire who is searching for a scientific solution to old age and death. Again the idea is visited on that film, can life be expanded? Can’t we live just a little more? But going back to Blade Runner, this is a film that is extremely consistent with its death theme, for example, when Deckard is confronted by one of the androids in a fight and the android tells Deckard “Wake Up! Time to Die!” we are reminded that it’s not only old age that can kill us. And then again, in the ending of the film, when Gaff, who knows that Deckard has fallen in love with an android, tells him: “Too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does? “  And I think that ultimately, that is the films final message, that we should live our lives as passionately and as intensely as we can, because death will be a part of it, eventually.

   

Dune (1984)

Title: Dune (1984)

Director: David Lynch

Cast: Kyle MacLachlan, Sean Young, Max Von Sydow, Dean Stockwell, Sting, Patrick Stewart, Jurgen Prochnow, Jack Nance, Virginia Madsen, Richard Jordan, Jose Ferrer, Brad Dourif

David Lynch’s Dune is a film that is hated by many but loved by another many, it’s a film that divides people, a love it or hate it type of thing, though if you ask me, there’s very little to hate about Lynch’s Dune. I’ve loved this movie ever since I was a kid, I didn’t fully “get it” back then, but there was something I liked about it anyways, my young mind recognized it as a special film. Dune is a film that I have revisited many times over in my life; it’s become one of those films that I will always love. Many years after I first discovered it, I read the book and appreciated the film on a whole other level. Considering the complexity of the book, I applaud Lynch for taking this gargantuan story and transferring it to the big screen because it was never going to be an easy job, the story that Frank Herbert weaved is epic, always has been, yet Lynch took it upon himself to film the thing, he even wrote the script himself! Many directors tried and failed for whatever the reason (Jodorowski and Ridley Scott being two of the filmmakers that didn’t end up directing) yet Lynch stuck to his guns and took the project head on. He even rejected an offer to direct Return of the Jedi (1983) in order to make Dune! Can you imagine what Return of the Jedi might have been like had Lynch directed it? Yeah, I know, the idea of Lynch playing with the Star Wars universe boggles the mind, yet I’m happy he ended up directing Dune instead because in many ways, Lynch was the perfect director for this project, especially when it comes to the more mystical aspects of the story, the telepathic abilities, Lynch had the perfect sensibilities for the more “weird” aspects of the Dune saga.

Herbert’s classic science fiction tale of politics, witches, religion and rebellion is one of those science fiction novels that any self respecting science fiction fan should tackle at some point in their lives. It really is one of the best designed fictional worlds; Herbert really constructed a fascinating, complex universe you can easily lose yourself in, a world filled with mysticism and inner dialog, of prophecies, false gods and abusive governments. The story of Dune is an all encompassing tale that covers many important aspects of our society, as you can expect, like all good science fiction, our way of life is mirrored in the story. For example, one of the main themes of the book revolves around religious fanatism, because after all, the story of Dune is one about a messiah coming to free his people, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg in this fantastic tale of liberation. You see, Dune is one of those books that is so complex that Herbert created a unique lexicon just for these books. So if you ever decide to read it, just remember your going to be introduced to a whole glossary of words unique to the Dune books, in fact, just in case you get lost, the book actually includes a glossary of Dune words! Words like “Kwisatz Haderach”, “Benne Gesserit Witches” and last but not least, the “Spice Melange”, but same as reading Anthony Burgesses’s A Clockwork Orange which also created its own lexicon, all the new words will end up making perfect sense to you by the time you finish reading the book.  So I highly recommend checking this novel out to all sci-fi fans out there. As with any book to film adaptation, the question remains, was the film a good adaptation of the book?

I’d say that yes, it in deed was a good adaptation of the book. In its essence, the film tells the story of the liberation of the Fremen and the rise of Paul Moadib as ruler of the known universe. And this is coming from me, a huge fan of Frank Herbert’s Dune books! I’ve read almost all of them (still need to read the last one Chapterhouse: Dune) so I can say that yeah, Lynch’s adaptation was faithful for the most part. The only area in which he ended up changing things just a bit was in the last five minutes of film, but the rest of the film is pretty much the book. Of course, quite a few things were left out of the book in order to deliver a two hour movie. Speaking of which, the only real problem for me with the film is that if you’ve read the books, you’ll feel as if you’re seeing the story in fast forward. Truth be told, this book has enough story going for it to make two movies, but what Lynch did with the script and what the producers did when they edited the film themselves was compress the whole story into one movie; a pretty daunting task if you ask me. At the end of the day, the film kept the spirit of the book; even Frank Herbert himself complimented Lynch on the film. Herbert mentioned that he was mostly happy with the film, except for the ending which is where Lynch turned things around towards the more theatrical. You see, in the book, Paul Atreides is a man playing to be a god, without in fact being one; he recognizes the power that being a god to the masses represents, so he uses that to the peoples advantage. But the way the film ends, it makes him look like he is actually a god with powers like making it rain on planet Arrakis. This is why Herbert himself said that while he liked the film, he says that Lynch got the ending wrong. “I have my quibbles about the film, of course. Paul was a man playing a god, not a god who could make it rain” So this is really the only real difference between the books and the film. Though the ending of the film has an impact, and makes Paul Atreides a more powerful character, the problem with it is that Lynch’s ending changes the whole character around going against the actual message that Herbert was trying to put across with his book, that religion is a powerful farce used to control the masses.

In retrospective, considering how much of the story Lynch actually shot, they should have taken the opportunity to film two movies back to back. Lynch filmed enough of the story to make a four hour long movie! That’s right my friends, Lynch’s original cut of Dune was four hours long! So they might as well have split the thing in two and released it as two movies, kind of like what Tarantino did with his Kill Bill movies. But no, instead the producers decided to take the film away from Lynch and edit it down to two hours and seventeen minutes, which is one of the reasons why Lynch disowns this movie. It’s the one he considers a ‘failure’ in his career. In my opinion the resulting film is not a bad one and very far from being a failure. Lynch had shot too much good stuff for it to be bad; the result was going to be good no matter what. But obviously, had Lynch had final cut of the film, it would have been better. This is the main reason why Lynch has always denied participation in any of the dvd releases of the film. I’m wondering if maybe one day we’ll get a director’s cut of the film; which simply put, would be awesome! But considering how Lynch refuses to even talk about this film, well, I’m guessing we’ll never see that happen. As of my typing this review, there are three versions of the film, each varying in length. There’s the theatrical cut, the extended cut you get to see on television and then there’s the special edition version. The most complete one is the special edition version because it includes many scenes that were deleted from the original theatrical cut, which is a nifty extra for any Dune fan. But out of all the versions, I still prefer the original theatrical version best, it’s the one I have always known and loved. But true Dune fans will get a kick out of seeing all those scenes that were left out of the original theatrical cut.  

Lynch considers it painful to even talk about Dune! I can understand why, here’s a movie that took three years of Lynch’s life to make! This was a huge, huge production. Funny how gargantuan productions like this one often times end up in failure! To have so much of your life invested in a film that would ultimately end up not being truly yours can be a huge let down for any director, but such is the nature of big budget productions; it’s the producers or the studio who have the final say, they put up all the millions so that should not suprise anyone. Speaking of which this here movie cost something around the vicinity of 40 million dollars, yet strangely enough, it looks more expensive than some of today’s 200 million dollar movies. The art direction is truly impressive on this film! Dune was made in a time when sets were completely built, not half way digitized like most of today’s films. The film required a crew of 1700 people! 80 sets were built in 16 sound stages! I mean this movie was huge in every way you look at it; and what about that cast? So many amazing actors! And here’s this big budget movie being made by a director used to working on small budgets. The film proved to be too big for Lynch who obviously works better with smaller, more personal material. Still, if you ask me, I think the film we ended up getting is a great slice of science fiction.

Speaking of the different adaptations of Dune, there was a mini-series from director John Harrison which was actually extremely faithful to the books. From a fans point of view, John Harrisons take on Dune was an extremely complete adaptation, he even went further than Lynch’s films and adapted both Dune Messiah (the second book in the series) and Children of Dune (the third book in the series) by making a second mini-series entitled Children of Dune (2003), which by the way was also pretty good. These television mini-series, though faithful, lack the lavish production values of Lynch’s film, which is one of the things I love the most about Lynch’s Dune: how big budget it is! Speaking of the cinematic future of the Dune series, director Peter Berg (Hancock, The Kingdom) attempted a remake a while back and was actively involved in it for more than two years, but stepped down in order to direct Battleship (2012). I know that doesn’t make much sense but that’s what happened! My take on it is that Berg was probably trying to make a commercial film that would make tons of money so that he could then go on and make Dune, unfortunately, Battleship was a huge ass loud flop! So those plans went down the drain. As I type this Pierre Morel, the director behind Taken (2008) and District B-13 (2004) was the last director attached to the project, but so far nothing has come of it, here’s hoping it happens, I’d love to see the Dune universe resurrected for a new generation.

Rating: 5 out of 5

    FOR A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL THE TIMES DUNE WENT IN AND OUT OF PRODUCTION, AND ALL OF THE DIRECTORS AND PRODUCERS THAT FAILED TO MAKE THIS FILM ADAPTATION BEFORE LYNCH GOT A HOLD OF IT, VISIT RADIOATOR HEAVEN WHERE MY BUDDY J.D. LAFRANCE GIVES A DETAILED REPORT ON THE WHOLE STORY IN AN ARTICLE ENTITLED: DUNE: IT'S NAME IS A KILLING WORD.

Keep your eyes peeled for David Lynch's cameo as one of the Spice Miners!