Blade Runner 2049

Hot new feature! Instead of exerting the energy required to read the review, why not listen to me read it to you with limited enthusiasm instead?

He should have found a turtle.

A slow, pointless rehash of the slow, overanalysed original, in Blade Runner 2049 Ryan Gosling gets shot, stabbed, punched by Harrison Ford, blown up and forced to recite poetry, he makes out with a hologram, burns an innocent man's house down, drowns a woman in the back of a waterlogged car, wades through urban sprawl, junkyards, wastelands and two and a half hours of droning Hans Zimmer bombast, and eventually dies of sheer boredom and the odour of Harrison Ford's sweaty t-shirt.

Right, now that I've got the facetious version out of the way, let's get to the real review.

It's not a real sequel 'cause none
of these got squeezed out.

I have to admit that, despite natural cynicism, aspects of Blade Runner 2049's marketing campaign worked on me, particularly the teaser. Seeing our new protagonist, Ryan Gosling's Officer K, in an orange-tinted wasteland led me to imagine that we were going somewhere new in this far-removed sequel, perhaps to see something different. The full trailer impressed me less, as it seemed to be going down a dramatic route which didn't seem particularly unusual, but I was willing enough to see the film.

What if there's a big crowd on the bridge?

Probably the best compliment I can give to Blade Runner 2049 is that it feels like a strong sequel to a slightly different film. I rewatched Blade Runner a few days before seeing this, specifically the Final Cut, and having not watched the film in its entirety for probably ten years I was reminded most strongly of how abstract and dreamlike its tone is. The score by Vangelis is a major contributor to this, of course, but the cinematography, including long, lingering shots, and the performances, intentionally or otherwise, also create a haziness and distance which focus the viewer primarily on the ideas the film is contemplating, rather than a strong narrative, which the original notoriously lacks. As a result, I found myself feeling increasingly convinced that making an authentic-feeling sequel to Blade Runner was impossible, that the characters and setting did not and could not exist outside the boundaries of the text; the film accomplishes what it sets out to do, and is complete. That's not to say that the film is perfect; it is probably slower than necessary at points and arguably suffers from a seemingly-uninterested performance by Harrison Ford and a lack of onscreen chemistry between him and Sean Young, which makes the relationship between Deckard and Rachael less interesting than it might otherwise be. Nonetheless the excellent visuals and score and the performances of the replicant characters, particularly Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty, are very compelling.

Probably paid over $5,000,000
per minute he was in the film.

A good sequel preferably expands upon or investigates new possibilities suggested by the original, rather than simply rehashing what happened before, and it's to Blade Runner 2049's limited credit that Ryan Gosling's K is not simply hunting down a fresh batch of rogue replicants, perhaps with the assistance of Harrison Ford's Deckard. Rather, he is investigating a possibility of replicants becoming capable of natural reproduction, a situation which would threaten the humans' dominance over them while simultaneously resolving their new manufacturer's supply problems. Despite the fact that this is, ultimately, heavily related to Deckard and Rachel's story from the original, it is certainly a different direction. The extent to which we ought to give the film credit for avoiding this fairly obvious pitfall is, however, worth bearing in mind.

I heard that to prepare for the role he bred
a family of artificial humans and killed them all.

To the same extent, that direction itself is arguably less compelling than that of the original, in that while the 1982 film's topic of interest is fundamentally existential, Blade Runner 2049 is to a greater extent political, and while there is of course no bad time to warn of the potential technological advancement has to enslave us, or to create new slaves, I can't help but feel that this new film's concerns are ultimately more mundane than the first. This perhaps is appropriate given how much more grounded the sequel feels compared to the original, but also suffers in terms of the relative lack of attention it receives, as the idea of the abuse and suffering of the expendable replicants is only touched upon lightly until the concept of an underground replicant resistance is, in my view, clumsily inserted into the film in the final act. This left me, at least, thinking about the political ruminations of the film despite the fact that so much is devoted rather to the growing inner life of the protagonist, Officer K.

Not Emma Stone?

Ryan Gosling generally has a solid reputation and I feel like he was an appropriate casting choice for this role. K's story is certainly interesting, although I can't help but wonder how much it retreads that of both Rachael and Roy Batty in the original, particularly in his search for truth and meaning in his life. As such, probably the most engaging part I found to be the relationship between K, who is a replicant, and his hologram companion, Joi, to the extent that I started to think as I watched that a film about a relationship between two artificial life forms would make for a better film than a story about replicants being able to have babies. That being said, anti-replicant prejudice must be pretty bad if, in this world, even Ryan Gosling would need to purchase an electronic girlfriend.

At least banning plastic bags helped a bit.

K's character development is effective, as he transitions from a law enforcement killing machine to a man in fear for his life to one who is disappointed when his subconscious desire to be "special" is thwarted, to finally making a choice and acting to help others, although I'm not entirely convinced of how striking the resolution is. It's the steps in between which are arguably more memorable and perhaps not followed through to the extent that they could be. Are we really that surprised when K, a man of the law, decides to save Deckard from off-world torture so that he can be reunited with his lost daughter? For me, at least, it lacks the impact of Roy Batty's decision to save Deckard's life at the end of the original. Given that we only see K retire one replicant in the course of the entire film, the narrative appears to be drawn in morally simpler terms than the original, which ties back to the political angle of the plot. Despite the strength of Gosling's performance in particular, this made the film to me feel equal parts redundant and simplistic in light of the original. Perhaps I would perceive this differently if this was not a sequel, but it is. It's worth noting that K's serial number and his nickname, Joe, both evoke the protagonist of Kafka's The Trial, which arguably has more in common with the tone and atmosphere of the original Blade Runner than this sequel.

If this reminds you primarily of Fallout: New Vegas,
you need to read and watch more stuff.

The strengths of the film, beyond the performances, are primarily visual. Part of my homework for this film, besides watching the original, was watching two of Denis Villeneuve's recent works of apparent relevance: the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival, and the 2013 psychological thriller Enemy. This film is consistent with Villeneueve's strengths at creating atmosphere, suspense and a feeling of unease, although as I've said I think the atmosphere of the original is more fascinating. While I believe the film has been criticised for being too slow, I personally found it to be paced quite well, the lingering camerawork matching K's confusion and blunted emotional state. The film also takes us beyond the rain-swept LA to a protein farm, junkyard San Diego, snowbound Southern California, and atomic wasteland Vegas. In all honesty I feel as if these settings, particularly the Vegas one, deserved more use, and that the film ultimately spent too much time retreading the streets of LA and the Tyrell building in particular. I still don't believe they gel with the atmosphere of the original, but they're interesting enough on their own. The most dubious visual is probably the elaborate means used to depict Rachael in the film with the appearance of 1982 Sean Young. One could make the excuse that she's meant to look fake, but that doesn't really change the fact that she doesn't look like the real deal, and in the wake of this, Rogue One and the increasing number of films which try to reuse the likenesses of older or even dead actors I suspect we have a glut of trips down memory lane ahead of us.

"Who are we again? Am I a replicant?"

The film's soundtrack is adequate, but apart from a few moments in Vegas, for instance, I don't think Hans Zimmer brought too much to the plate. His trademark, now cliché, droning fits this film to a degree and is used with more flair than in other features, but it can't compare to the original's Vangelis compositions. It's noteworthy that the most musically memorable moment in the film is during the scene at the end featuring K lying down on the steps, during which Vangelis' 'Tears in Rain' track from the original plays, linking K with Roy Batty. This somewhat emphasises to me, however, the extent to which K simultaneously has to fulfil the roles from the original of Deckard, Rachael and Roy, exemplifying the dearth of well-developed original characters in the film.

"Two. Two. Four. And noodles."

As I've said, the performances are all strong, but new faces including Luv, Joshi and Mariette don't have much to do as characters despite each having a number of scenes. If anything I think Luv is overused, underwritten or both. Jared Leto's Wallace is effective in the two scenes in which he appears, but in my opinion was too openly evil as a character compared to the polite hollowness of Tyrell from the original. Dave Bautista gives a very different performance to how I'm used to seeing him, as Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy, and I could have seen more of him, and the character of Ana Steline was similarly well-realised as someone who appears to be a detective-story side character who takes on greater importance later. Edward James Olmos has a nice cameo as Gaff which perhaps reminds too much of the strength of the original film. Harrison Ford was, in my opinion, better in this than in another recent reprisal, The Force Awakens, but despite the greater range I felt he conveyed, nonetheless I didn't see him as Deckard, as he lacks the languor of the character as originally portrayed. Of course he might change over thirty years, but it'd be nice to see something of the original character still in there. It might be argued that his original performance was lacking, but as it suits the tone of the original, I missed it in this.

Part time.

Blade Runner has been criticised for its limited narrative, but I would argue that Blade Runner 2049 does too much to avert this. As I've said, the story seems to offer less room for meditation upon loftier subject matters, and given the strength of the visuals and some set pieces I'll discuss in a moment, it almost becomes a distraction. Certainly, by the time K found Deckard, and perhaps earlier, I felt that the iris of the narrative started to narrow more and more, taking the film in a direction which I thought risked becoming too formal and too structured in contrast to the best parts of the film when the stoic K stalks through the collapsing world around him.

I think she's in the film more than Ryan Gosling.

In this regard, another of the film's strengths are a number of visually or dramatically pleasing moments which stand out amid their surroundings. These include a scene in which Joi uses Mariette as a physical presence to allow her to be more intimate with K, and sequences in which K is obliged to take a baseline test to confirm his emotional detachment from his mission. It's noteworthy that while these serve K's characterisation, they seem like distant memories by the time the film leaves Las Vegas, at which it becomes a routine sequence of secret societies, interrogations, a climactic battle and an emotional departure. The final punch-up and drowning of Luv in Wallace's car is strikingly shot, but again pales somewhat compared to the confrontation between Deckard and Roy in the original, and it significantly shows how little characterisation Luv is afforded despite appearing in the film so much.

You wouldn't know he was a wrestler
if it wasn't for his tiny head.

It's probably worth pointing out as well that when the film focuses too greatly on its own plot, that plot shows limits. For instance, Joshi takes K completely at his word that he has eliminated the child, presumably simply because replicants are believed to not be able to lie. The question of why the child's records were doubled was not resolved as far as I could tell, although I may have missed something. It's not clear why Wallace needs to have Deckard sent to an off-world facility for further interrogation when he seems to be able to act with impunity on Earth. Furthermore, K simply states that Deckard will appear to have died in the car crash at the end even though there is no body. I was somewhat amused by the lines from Wallace which touch upon the "Deckard is a replicant" idea, implying that he was intended to couple with Rachael by nature or design, although it reminded me substantially of Alex Garland's 2015 film Ex Machina in which a character was manipulated in a highly similar manner. As I've said, the appearance of a replicant resistance movement also seemed trite and clumsily-included to me, an element out of place in the disaffected world of Blade Runner. Oh, and I guessed that the remains discovered at the beginning would be Rachael's bones almost as soon as they appeared. At least K turned out, in the end, to not be the child, which would have been much too neat and convenient. I appreciated that.

Rather than 'Joe', she should have started
calling him 'Special K'.

Perhaps my impression of Blade Runner 2049 has been excessively coloured by the original, but I think that comparisons are only fair when a film utilises not only cast and creative minds but even archive audio and footage from the earlier text. The fact is, Blade Runner 2049 is a very solid, nice-looking, well-performed, reasonably engaging science-fiction film, but I think it was always doomed in trying to be a sequel to the original. If anything it reminded me of how much I like the original, despite how flawed it is, and how much I'd appreciate a return to that kind of filmmaking. This shouldn't take away from the new film's strengths, and it probably merits a rewatch, but I can't help but feel like this piece, given its reheated elements and box office performance, is most strongly embodied by the duplicate Rachael who gets rejected and shot.

Red Dwarf: "Back to Earth"

I really like "Back to Earth". I know that's not the most popular opinion among Red Dwarf fans. I've only ever been to one Red Dwarf convention in my life and even the MC felt the need to take a crack at "Back to Earth", and Craig Charles was almost apologetic about it, which I think is unnecessary. It's fair to say that it's not exactly bog-standard Red Dwarf, but that's surely the point; it was a set of specials celebrating the show and testing interest for a TV revival. I also hate to be one of those people who says that its critics have missed the point of it... but I kind of think its most vocal critics have missed the point. It's not meant to be three more episodes of standard sitcom fare, but more of a tragicomedy with a sci-fi premise.

Nonetheless, let's get what are, in my opinion, the major weaknesses of "Back to Earth" out of the way first.

1. The premise is a repetition of "Back to Reality", as both involve a group hallucination in which the characters appear to discover a terrible revelation about themselves. They even derive from the same source, a hallucination-inducing squid, albeit a different one (of course) to the one encountered in Series V. Nonetheless, it's another group hallucination, the main difference being that the world it takes the Dwarfers to is more realistic than the world of "Back to Reality" and they're not in nearly as much danger.

2. The idea of breaking the fourth wall is not particularly original. Self-aware storytelling can potentially come across as the place that narratives go to when they've run out of other ideas. It might also be said that even with the in-story explanation, something feels a bit off about the characters walking around in the 21st century looking at, and talking about, Red Dwarf merchandise and stuff; it feels a tad inconsistent with the tone of a lot of the programme.

3. The Coronation Street element might seem effortless and like a ratings ploy, depending on your view of Coronation Street. I don't really know much about it, but if you're aghast at the idea of soap operas receiving acknowledgment in your favourite sci-fi comedy show, this element could be considered annoying, reminiscent perhaps of that Doctor Who thing, "Dimensions in Time", although in this it's a fairly small element which only takes up about five minutes of the third part.

4. The Blade Runner parodies and pastiches become pretty heavy-handed fairly early on. To someone unfamiliar with Blade Runner they might seem weird and pointless; to someone who does know the film they might seem laboured and obvious. I'm certainly curious about the claim both within the show and outside it, as Doug Naylor says this in the director's commentary, that Blade Runner was a big influence on Red Dwarf. Was it? Perhaps the idea of holograms is related to the idea of replicants, but the most Blade Runnery things in the show, like simulants and planned obsolescence, only seemed to emerge in the years following the show's initial production. I can't see too much Blade Runner in Series I and II.

5. I might argue that there's not enough payoff for the character of Katerina, who features quite heavily in the first act of the sequence and then only appears in one scene afterwards. While she more or less serves her purpose as Rimmer's antagonist in the specials, I can't help but feel like that aspect of the narrative doesn't have quite the structure it could have. I feel like she could have appeared slightly more once they got to "Earth" to make this element seem more cohesive.

All right, we've got that out of the way. Those are my main issues with "Back to Earth". Other than that, and the fact that admittedly some of the jokes aren't funny, which is inevitably going to be the case in any comedy, I enjoy the specials a lot. It could be said that they suffer from the lack of a live audience or background laughter, but in this case I think this emphasises the more dramatic qualities of the specials and the sense of loneliness and isolation that this was trying to recapture. In terms of the things I enjoy about "Back to Earth", there are a few major highlights:

1. The restoration of the "classic" premise. It's just Lister, Rimmer, the Cat and Kryten alone on Red Dwarf. There's really no need for any explanation of the Series VIII cliffhanger. Suffice to say "it was resolved somehow". Lister's back to being the last human alive and Rimmer's a hologram again. I really like the idea that the characters have been together for so long that they don't really annoy each other anymore, which is captured perfectly by Rimmer's reaction to Lister ironing his sneezes, as he imagines Lister "going down to the supply decks, trawling through the crates, getting half hysterical at the thought of my face." I also like that it seems the Cat is mostly back to mucking around and singing while grooving around the decks like in the early series.

2. The design and costuming. The specials really recapture the distinctive looks of the different characters. I do think the "Back to Earth" Rimmer uniform is a little overdesigned, and prefer the Series X one, but the Kryten costume seems to capture the blockiness of some of the best past Kryten get-ups, Cat's suit is a nice progression from the old days and a transition past the "pvc undergarment with changes of jacket" ensemble of Series VI to VIII, and Lister's biker costume is distinctive and classic, matching Craig Charles' appropriately grizzled appearance.

Furthermore, while arguably the bunkroom is a little too bright and clean by the standards of previous series, it looks nice, and some great details are visible; observe for instance that Rimmer's bunk has his revision timetable, the old newspaper headlines and his duelling pistols, while Lister's has a picture of Fiji, the picture of his grandmother, his Zero-G football poster and so on. A nice addition, retained in Series X, is a couple of photos of Kochanski. There's even a book about aliens on the table, presumably Rimmer's. One thing I will say is that the table looks a bit too much like a cross between the TARDIS console and the computers from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Nonetheless, the ship looks good, including the CGI backdrops, and as the cast point out in the commentary the CGI work in the cargo bay, for instance, gives an excellent sense of how truly vast the ship is and how alone the crew are within it.

3. The exploration of Lister's character and of the concept of the revival and continuation of the show. Appropriately, these specials focus on Lister as the central character of the show, although admittedly the first part does arguably focus a little more on Rimmer. It's an interesting concept, however, because it explores the premise of Lister being stuck on Red Dwarf for what must be nearly half his life, of him losing hope and purpose and gradually finding it again. It also doesn't beat around the bush about the fact that the cast, and thus the characters, have aged, and tries to re-frame the show in relation to that. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the characters' quest for more life is Doug Naylor's appeal to the public for more interest in Red Dwarf and in that regard it obviously succeeds.

4. The action sequences are, in my opinion, very well put together and shot; I'm thinking here of the fight with the joy squid in the diving bell and the vision in which they run from the Creator in a parody of Zhora's death from Blade Runner. They're entertaining and, despite the limited sets, quite visually striking. The squid fight is probably a little confusing to watch, but rewards multiple viewings, especially if you look at the screens in the background while Rimmer's dancing and see Lister and the Cat furiously stabbing the tentacles and stuff. I've always liked the fact that in the street death vision they bothered to show Rimmer's light bee getting hit as he goes down.

5. The concept of the joy squid. Even though it is of course a rehash of the despair squid from "Back to Reality", and even though the idea that "the male causes despair while the female causes joy" is a pretty tired gender dichotomy, I think it's a clever and interesting idea, and a good way of catalysing Lister's character development. My one issue, probably, would be that it doesn't entirely seem to affect the other characters, although as has been pointed out, as a self-aware narrative it appropriately mainly affects Lister who is, after all, notionally the "main" character.

6. The Kochanski cameo. I think this was a really effective way of hybridising the fact that the special is a continuation of the previous show, in which Kochanski was ultimately a main character, with the fact that this special was in some ways a celebration of the "classic" concept, and therefore ought to focus primarily on the four best-known characters. Her appearance in this, as an actually rather sinister embodiment of Lister's dreams and doubts, also restores a bit of mystique to the character.

7. The opening titles. I can't quite explain why, but I personally think that "Back to Earth" has the best opening titles sequence of any Red Dwarf. It's put together well and the shots of the cast synchronise more effectively with their credits than in the Series X titles. The pacing of the clips matches the rhythm of the opening theme and despite the lack of material available the footage used is well chosen. The shots of Rimmer dancing and Kryten peeking through the mail box slot in particular have always amused me. That's a nerdy thing to like, but I've always liked it.

What else do I like about "Back to Earth"? The first joke that amuses me is "Who's next? The egg whisk? Two weeks in Mauritius?" Probably my favourite bit in the whole thing is when Rimmer dances in his chair to Ray Conniff's cheesy version of "Getting To Know You/I Whistle A Happy Tune" from The King and I, which sounds very much like something Rimmer would listen to given his love of other naff musical genres, while the others are flailing around in the diving bell fighting the joy squid tentacles. Their unique diving suits are also amusing; I like that Lister has the rugged old-school one, a nice contrast to the unflattering one from Series VIII's "Cassandra", and it's nice to see a return of Kryten's floaties (or "water wings" as I believe they're called) which he also used in "Terrorform". Rimmer's "what's in the bag" raises a smile from me as well, as does the Cat's "huge testicle" description.

The way Kryten says "Oh my gosh" when Rimmer informs him that there's a monster in the water tank cracks me up, as does his high-pitched "We're not real! What are we gonna do!" His best prop gag might be when Katerina says Rimmer is "bit crap", Rimmer says "What?!" and Kryten says "Look sir, confirmed," with the psi-scan also saying "bit crap." "Simple people, simple tastes" I always found funny, as well as Noddy at the sci-fi shop not listening to music. Noddy in general is an amusing piss-take at Red Dwarf fans, and as someone who plays with toy soldiers, his line "Sorry to interrupt the Warhammer" has always made me laugh. The two kids who talk to Lister on the bus are some of the least objectionable child actors I've seen, and the boy gets some funny lines, especially "Kiss her. I would." One of the best jokes in the whole thing comes in Part 3 on the set of Coronation Street, when Lister says "This is just like where I grew up, except there's less burning cars." Kryten's "I could get some new sponges" tickles my fancy for some reason. Lastly, Rimmer's suggestion that he could be in "a sitcom in a biscuit factory" makes me chuckle as well.

One effective thing I noticed on my latest viewing is a background element of the narrative that emerges over the whole set of specials. In Part 1, Rimmer tells Katerina that Holly is offline because Lister left a bath running for nine years. In Part 2, Noddy at the sci-fi shop has a bath prop that he says Lister was in when Kryten ran in and told him Kochanski had been sucked out of an airlock. In Part 3, he finds out that this never really happened. So what happened to Holly? Kochanski left Red Dwarf, Kryten decided to spare Lister's feelings and tell her she'd been accidentally killed, he ran in and told Lister, who jumped out of the bath he had running to find out what was going on; in his distraction and despair he never went back and turned the bath off. I happen to think that's quite neat bit of storytelling conveyed purely through incidental dialogue.

Obviously, "Back to Earth" has its weaknesses, but I've always liked it and I think it was a pleasing way of reviving the series. While the Blade Runner stuff is definitely overstated, I think it's funny and visually engaging, and a reasonably effective piece of self-reflective commentary for the show. The characters seem to reappear very naturally despite a long absence and it makes a number of sensible decisions about the premise of the show, indicating that the long hiatus after Series VIII was definitely in the show's best interest. If nothing else, it's what got us Series X, and that alone was worth it.