I'm afraid I don't have either the time or the interest in watching a 34 minute film in order to then read your rebuttal. Life is short and I am not young.

Here's some short explanations why common technologies are useful:

email: "You can send messages to anyone, anywhere in the world, for free, instantly."

The web: "You can put up a web page with any information you like and anyone can see it; and you can search everyone's page's for the information you need."

https: "You can safely send secret information like credit card numbers over the Internet even if someone sees every byte you send."

So why isn't there this story for NFTs, or the blockchain?

Aside from cryptocurrencies, what use does it have that can't be done for 0.1% of the cost with plain old strong cryptography?

Take provenance, an early example of yours. Why wouldn't you do that with strong cryptography alone and save 99.9% of the cost?

The blockchain is so huge and expensive exactly because it solves a hard problem, the Consensus Problem. It offers nothing else over a Merkle tree, which costs a fraction of 1% as much to set up and operate, or any of a thousand equivalent strong cryptography solutions.

But provenance doesn't have a Consensus Problem, and so there's no need to call in the awesome power - and massive expensive - of a blockchain.

All your other examples seem to have the same issue - there's no Consensus Problem, so you don't need a blockchain for them, and thus you could exactly the same thing with roughly a thousand times fewer resources.