Register a SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Sep 11, 2001

Through constant decay
Uranium creates
the radioactive ray.

Blade Runner is a deep film full of futurism and moral ambiguity. It was brilliantly filmed and scored, and it is a rare timeless film. It has a very slow pace compared to most action films, but if you love suspense and ambiance you'll appreciate it.

I've seen the Final Cut yesterday. Don't worry about Harrison Ford's pistol being replaced with a walkie-talkie. The changes are not as radical as the ones from the original cut to the director's cut. A few new scenes were added and some of the production issues every fan is aware of were cleaned up.

If you live in NYC or LA, you should go for it.

5/5 for the Original cut
5.5/5 for the Director's and Final cuts.


Aug 18, 2007

Incredible movie - the visuals and scenes were gorgeous. Every scene change had a beautiful panoramic view of a world that the director really could make you believe you were a part of, and could really exist. The music and sound effects were amazing, and the characters raised a lot of questions to the viewer, as stated in the original review. The action was exciting as Deckard would systematically hunt down each replicant; it gave the movie a Kill-Bill type feel to it; Deckard had a clear-cut objective from the start, and we saw the world through his eyes.
This movie is definitely one of my favorites.

Oct 10, 2005

Gotta find Jason.

I heard great things about this movie and was real psyched when they released it on HD. I ran out to Best Buy and picked this up, what a mistake. Not only was this one of the worst movies I've ever seen but I am already trying to get rid of it. I thought Harrison Ford was going to be some badass.. instead he always looks confused and has almost no emotion to him whatsoever. Every scene felt like it was dragging on forever and it seemed like nothing EVER happened. I never knew what was going on even though I tried really hard to keep up. On the plus side the atmosphere and the soundtrack were pretty cool.. I like the whole Mass Effect vibe.

1.5/5 only because of the great soundtrack and atmosphere

Dec 23, 2003

and god is on your side
dividing sparrows from the nightingales

fromsinkingsands posted:

I heard great things about this movie and was real psyched when they released it on HD. I ran out to Best Buy and picked this up, what a mistake. Not only was this one of the worst movies I've ever seen but I am already trying to get rid of it. I thought Harrison Ford was going to be some badass.. instead he always looks confused and has almost no emotion to him whatsoever. Every scene felt like it was dragging on forever and it seemed like nothing EVER happened. I never knew what was going on even though I tried really hard to keep up. On the plus side the atmosphere and the soundtrack were pretty cool.. I like the whole Mass Effect vibe.

1.5/5 only because of the great soundtrack and atmosphere

I love posts like this. "I didn't understand the plot and didn't get when anything is happening. Harrison Ford doesn't even say 'consider yourself retired' when he shoots that chick. THUMBS DOWN."

Anyway, just watched the Final Cut last night and now that I can actually see what's going on (instead of dark shadows talking that could be Harrison Ford and maybe some neon Japanese signs) I really appreciated it. Its so subtle and downplayed that you really have to focus to get a sense of what's going on with the characters, and even the 'action' scenes have a subdued quality (which I think puts off general audiences and the fellow above me, especially with the garish B-movie cover sort of tricking you at first).

Though everyone notes Roy Batty's final speech as the apex of the film, a bit earlier "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for" used as a cynical punchline leading into murder so concisely hits why this film is perfect to me.


Sep 9, 2003

by T. Finn

I finally got around to watching this movie (years too late, much like Logan's Run) and I instantly fell in love with it. One of the best sci-fi movies I have ever watched and I can understand why it's a "cult classic." Still stands the test of time, visually, even by today's standards. I thought the acting was good, given the story, although sometimes it did seem a little dry.

This movie (along with a few other titles recently, like the aforemention Logan's Run) have made me realize that the sci-fi genre is my favorite genre in cinema. Rutger Hauer was fantastic in this movie. Now I want to read the novel so I can make those comparisons as well.

4/5. It wasn't perfect but it was drat good.

Dec 25, 2007

Think I took a wrong turn...

Saw the new release at AMC 25 near Time Sq back a couple of months ago. I've seen this movie a few times before, and I was excited to see it again. This film still has me torn in opinion. In a way, it's almost like the kind of movie that anyone growing up with Star Wars would hate, and it takes a completely different direction from that. It's like what happened to the Western once "The Wild Bunch" and movies with the cold immoral renegades replaced the Roy Rogers and John Waynes. The cinematography is absolutely stunning, and the film is challenging to watch.

The story is bleak and yet very self-contained. Deckard isn't fighting for humanity or anything noble like that. He's solving a very dangerous case to find and take out Replicants. Drips of details come to the viewer just as it comes to Deckard. The final part of the movie takes place in a nearly abandoned hotel, decadent, weird and ugly, which contrasts heavily with the futuristic pyramids and skyscrapers that the movie is known for.

It's philosophical. It's truly not sci-fi as it has been done before the time, and yet now what every sci-fi tries to be. And it is definitely a film school movie.

Watch it like you would read a good, challenging book. Truly try to absorb the imagery and enjoy the words as it is spoken. It's not a rollercoaster ride like what almost all movies are. If you let it challenge your ideas of life, your ideas of who you really are and what it fundamentally means to be human, then you can truly start to enjoy the movie.

Rating: 2/5 for people expecting something different from what the movie offers
5/5 if you learn to enjoy it.

Ak Gara
Jul 29, 2005

That's just the way he rolls.

I got this on BluRay (Final Cut) the other week and it's still one of the best films I've ever seen. The music is set perfectly to the atmosphere of the film. The visual effects are so good, they are better than a lot of films made today.

The acting is not about radical limb movements in fight scenes, and crazy dialogs while Ford sprints across half a city, jumping over everything, while saying one liners, like some Will Smith movie (not that those are bad) Deckard is old, confused, and reluctant, yet methodically logical in his goal to stop the missing replicants, who are trying to do what every normal person is trying to do, extend their life.

Of course, not everyone will enjoy this type of film. For those that think the acting is bad, that the effects are rubbish, and that the plot is stupid, there's always Lazy Town.


Jul 1, 2008


The sci-fi genre is often easily-ridiculed for being outlandish or unrealistic. If I had a penny for every time I've heard a friend say 'I don't like sci-fi because it's not grounded in reality', I'd have about fifty pence. But with his 1982 "flop”, Ridley Scott proved that not all sci-fi pictures had to be over-the-top, outlandish or realistic. Indeed, what he did that sets Blade Runner apart from say 2001 or Star Wars is that he grounded it in reality. What we get is a dystopian epic which rivals anything else the director has ever done. Instead of talking about a time long ago in a galaxy far away, he decides to set it in what could be a future Los Angeles, and the people are what could be the future of the human race. But most importantly, he grounds his picture be having the core theme something that is important to us rather than important to Luke Skywalker; the effects of us humans playing God.

The plot sees Harrison Ford's Rick Deckard as a retired 'blade runner'. The humans have created 'replicant', robot-like beings who have become too uncontrollable, and a blade runner's job is to destroy them. The world currently believes that all of the replicant have been terminated, but it becomes clear that there are still four replicant alive; Zhora (Joanna Cassidy), Leon (Brion James), Pris (Darryl Hannah) and Batty (Rutger Hauer). A reluctant Deckard agrees to take them out, but things are complicated when he meets Rachael (Sean Young), a woman who he quickly learns is also a replicant. And she's not the only one.

What makes Blade Runner so great is its complex plot. The film doesn't have one strand in particular (although it clearly prioritises one over the others), but has several running side-by-side, all moving towards the final culmination. You have Pris' budding "friendship” with Sebastian (William Sanderson), you have the romance story between Deckard and Rachael, and you have Roy Batty's seemingly eternal quest for immortality. The story was crafted with enough pride and care that it never gets confusing no matter how much it jumps between storylines, and each one of them is as interesting as the last.

However, although the story is something to marvel at, the themes embedded inside the story are what makes the film. At the very core of it, you have the question about whether humans playing God is the right thing to do. Of course, on the outset the obvious answer that Scott is trying to put across is no. The beings that the human race have created are 'evil', the four out-and-out replicant becoming the major antagonists. However, you have to dig a little deeper before you can form your definitive opinion (spoilers ahead). Rachael and maybe even Deckard himself are replicant too, suggesting that a man-made beings is not automatically evil, but must make their own choice. So this brings up other questions. Are the replicant unable to see the difference between right and wrong? Are they unable to recognise consequences? Or have these particular replicant been programmed to be bad? Is the real villain their creator, or even the humans as a whole? There's no easy answer.

So the main question after watching this film is whether or not Rick Deckard himself is a replicant. The main point of support for this is his unicorn-vision, when he dreams of the horned beast running through a field. At the end of the film, Gaff leaves a paper-folded unicorn on the blade runner's desk, suggesting that he knows what he's been dreaming about, and therefore you could argue that Deckard is a replicant. However, if you look at the context of the scene, this could just be a way of Gaff saying to Deckard that he knows about Rachael but isn't going to do anything, but she will always be a replicant living amongst human. The reason that this could be construed is that a unicorn is, in theory, a man-made myth, and by running through a field he is living alongside nature and the naturally occurring. Again, an answer cannot be easily figure out, but I myself like to think that Deckard is a replicant, only because of the extra dimension that this adds to the film as a whole.

If you manage to get your hands on any copy of Blade Runner, I'd recommend The Director's Cut or The Final Cut. The theatrical version is fine on the most part, but I have the usual complaints about the lacklustre, awfully-delivered narration by Ford and the idealistic, Hollywood ending. I just don't think that the manufactured ending is something that is in keeping with the rest of the film's mood. However, without these cuts, what we get is something incredible; a dystopian epic that is more than it looks on the outset. Why this flopped is beyond me, considering its release during Star Wars pandemonium. Maybe the fans of "the trilogy” felt seeing Blade Runner would be a sign of unfaithfulness to George Lucas and his vision, or maybe it was because of the awful narration and ending. But either way, I'm sure everyone regrets it.

This is, undoubtedly, Ridley Scott’s masterpiece, and Harrison Ford’s best performance if you’re marking purely on acting. Just don’t go into it thinking it’s going to be Star Wars Episode 7. 9/10 (5/5)

Jul 7, 2009


I have to commit film-nerd treason and call this one overrated. I do like it, but I think the story could have been much stronger. Where the film really shines is in the atmosphere it creates, for which I credit the great sets and cinematography, as well as the excellent Vangelis score. I do still consider it a must see sci-fi film, but it's not quite as good as its reputation would suggest.


B-1.1.7 Bomber
Feb 19, 2005



I watched the Final Cut two nights ago after not having seen the film in 20 years or so.

Of course, the film is visually stunning, literally dripping with atmosphere and style. 5/5.

I was surprised by the simplistic plot. I'm not talking about themes here, but plot -- it's very bare-bones 3/5.

Deckard searches for 4 replicants and locates them relatively easy ith only one making a cursory effort at hiding from him. While Deckard is on the hunt, the replicants hunt for their creator whom they find without much fuss. The film ends with Deckard disappearing with the creator's secretary who is herself a replicant. The end.

I was also bufudled by Pris' and Batty's behavior towards Deckard; they both capture him and then release him. Why would they do this? I felt these actions more than anything leads credence to the belief that Deckard is also a replicant.

I give the film a 4/5.

Feb 28, 2010

Now the scene's lighting is perfect!

I didn't like this movie at all, even though I should as I like both SciFi and Film Noir. I don't know myself, nothing engages me and I can't relate to anything in Blade Runner. I guess it's the world they created that doesn't appeal to me. I'd still recommend it as it ticks off all the boxes for a good movie and is very well made.

Feb 2, 2005

Blade Runner is a movie that doesn't give a gently caress if you're watching it or not. It is almost like it was meant to be played on a constant loop somewhere and you could watch it if you wanted, but if not no big deal. A piece of genius that earns its place as a classic almost through atmosphere alone.


Jun 17, 2001

I love my brick.

^^ That is about the most accurate and succint review of Blade Runner I've read.

gently caress knows why they thought the 'original' narration was a good idea, luckily they killed it and restored the best film ever made.

Nov 30, 2007

by T. Mascis

I wouldn't say this was un-entertaining like some people.. its truly great Science Fiction. After finding it in my early twenties @ the 2007 re-release I have watched in a hundred times, I love it. There are a lot of subtleties that go right over my head, there has been a lot said on the story continuity being lofty or hard to follow at times and yeah there are parts. To me, the idea of the film, because I don't really analyze films after I get through watching it; wasn't complete or clear until I read the book. So see the movie, 2007 re-release, then read the book for the broader ideas!


Feb 20, 2007

So I've seen bits and pieces here and there but never in it's entirety. Which version of the film should I watch, I know there are many, and why? I love Sci-Fi, just for some reason never gotten around to watching this.

Ak Gara
Jul 29, 2005

That's just the way he rolls.

Final Cut, on 1080 Blueray. Not only did they work over the picture, but the audio got touched up too.

Jul 16, 2011

The atmosphere is really what makes Blade Runner such a prolific film of the early 80's. The story is pretty dense but easy to understand, though I can see where some people would say it's boring. Granted, action scenes are definitely sparse in Blade Runner and if you have a hard time watching movies that are less about blasting replicant scum and more about the moral dilemma involved with blasting emotionally cognitive replicant scum, this one probably won't appeal to you.

Personally I think this is a must watch for anyone even remotely interested in seeing some fantastic effects and experiencing a pretty interesting plot. The soundtrack is pretty good too.


Double Deuce
Nov 26, 2011

Well, I'm happy most scifi fans enjoy this so much, but I'm less impressed. I've seen it a few times, and I've seen both the theatrical and director's cuts. It has some great scenes, like the last one with Hauer. But I need some kind of narrative, a story, some reason to care about what's happening. (Not necessarily narration, although I actually prefer the theatrical version for the narration and extra violence.) In the end, I only remember it for some cool visuals and music and scenes, and that's not a 5 to me. I wish I could explain better what I'm missing, but I don't know what it is. I consider myself a scifi fan, especially of "the good stuff," not just action or cheesy stuff or whatever. My favorite is 2001, which is at least as slow and thoughtful as Bladerunner, if not more. It's supposedly one of those movies I "would like if I like X," for at least a dozen values of X that I do like. But it has never been a movie I would want to own, or one that I would recommend, except to people who care about visual design or music.

Jan 9, 2012

The DC version is one of the best Sci FI movies there is. Visually and thematically it manages to be thought provoking, a mystery, as well as a bit of an action flick. It is a must watch. I give it a 5.

Oct 20, 2003

There are days where I'm sitting around my room doing whatever and I'll just put this movie on repeat as background. I will sometimes catch myself watching this instead of doing whatever else I was doing. By "sometimes" I mean "about every 20 minutes."


Feb 4, 2012

Listen up, you lowlifes who will never amount to anything: this level of titling is reasonable for JudeMaverick. What do you think of this, everyone?

Fabulous Max! Chopsticks! Let's destiny!

Gosh, I must crush her soon.

This is one of my favorite movies of all time. Nothing can describe how amazing and groundbreaking this film is to me.

Feb 14, 2011
Can't post for 2386 days!


Flaky said...

Having watched the Directors cut DVD again twice over the last 2 days, and after reading this thread (particularly the stuff about eyes, which are a huge theme throughout the movie, but which I had not picked up on fully) I have come to the conclusion that Deckard suspects that he is a replicant, and further, that he (and Rachel) become convinced during the conversation around about the 1:00 hr mark.

There are several clues that Deckard is a replicant, much of which is subtly hinted at with almost circumstantial evidence relating to broader themes in the movie. A central theme, perhaps the most obvious is vision. Here is a list of some vision-related references in the movie:

- The flashing pupils, which we are told are characteristic of synthetic creatures, such as the owl. All the replicants, except Zhora iirc, display this clearly, and so does Deckard. The lower quality of the DVD when rendering this feature is probably the main reason people people may not notice this the first time, but it is clear on closer inspection.
- The sweeping searchlights exploring the darkness of the interior of Deckards apartment, and the flashes of brilliance during Rachel and Deckard's conversation.
- The eye doctor, who subtly draws our attention to the eyes of the replicants
- The extensive use of visual devices. Everything from Deckard's photo-scanner and its amazing ability to peer into and around photographs, the Voight Kampff machine focusing on the pupil, the plethora of strange optics used; by the eye doctor, the snake vendor, Tyrell's glasses, even those of civilians in the street.
- The use of photographs, and their association with memory. Rachel hoards photographs of her childhood as proof or a badge of her identity, perhaps to reassure herself that she is real. The same can be said of Leon, who fails to reclaim his 'precious photos' captured by Deckard. And also Deckard's himself; his piano is covered in photographs of his history and supposed relatives. He seems to treat the piano as a place of reflection, somewhere important to him, he is sitting at it when he has his vision of the unicorn.
- Gaff has piercingly blue eyes, which could parallel Roy's. As we understand it, both are by the end of the film honestly 'self-aware'.
- Pris blacks out her eyes with makeup, clearly signaling her uneasy mental state, and Roy also mimics this with his googly-eye joke. I think this intimates their awareness and unease with their emotional underdevelopment or psychological deficiencies at this state, which Roy triumphs over before his death.
- The targeting of the eyes during physical violence. Leon tries the 'V' eye-gouge on Deckard, Roy kills Tyrell by gouging out his eyes.
- The see-through raincoat/smashing through transparent glass barriers of Zhoras death. Perhaps representative of seeing through the superficial to the true individual, or attaining awareness. A single tear rolls down her cheek when her head is turned. Deckard is clearly shaken after killing her.
- Tears. Usually during moments of death/transcendence.

I think Deckard suspects the unpleasant truth that he is a replicant before his discussion with Rachel(though he might be in denial, hence the drinking), borne out by the instance of both their eyes flashing. He is struggling to come to terms with that fact, and thus his attitude towards Rachel becomes more comprehensible. Bryant even mentioned that Deckard looks almost as bad as the skin-job he left on the pavement, combined with Deckards shaken state after the deaths of Zhora and Leon. Deckards vehemence towards Rachel is borne of his own fear and desperation to prove that his identity is not wholly manufactured, that he is capable of human feeling and has known something of true value even if most of his life has been fabricated. Rachel takes some persuading; even after realising that Deckard is a replicant she is still dismayed because feels she she can no longer trust her own emotions, knowing that she is definitely a replicant. This frustrates Deckard, that he might lose the only relationship he can know to be real so quickly, especially given that she has already saved his life, and understands his situation better than anyone. He tries to break down her resistance as much for her sake as for his, trying to convince her that she has value and that they must together learn to trust their own emotions, otherwise, what is to become of them both?

In this light, Gaff's comments about Rachel and Deckard at the end of the film, as well as Deckard's devotion to her, make sense. The paper unicorn at the end is not even wholly unexpected by Deckard, and serves as the final confirmation for the audience. Deckard and Rachel are in it together now, no matter what.

Just the ability to convey such a technically demanding and subtle message is testament to the true creativity and dedication of the film-makers. Great stuff.

Found my quote from last April. I won't go into the specifics, but this film is probably the single most important I have seen. 5/5.

Flaky fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 25, 2012

Apr 29, 2003

What did you do that for?

'Dangerous Days' is a wonderful companion to this. Watching it makes your heart swell.

Tony Montana
Aug 6, 2005

by FactsAreUseless

A partner bought this film for me for a birthday, because I loved it so much and asked her to read Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep (which she did and we were together for 7 years ).

She had to order it from the US, because we didn't distribute it here in Australia then, and of course on DVD because this was before BluRays. So I have here this cardboard cases, dual disk American version of Blade Runner, with a widescreen version on one disk and 4:3 on the other. I had to hack my DVD player to ignore the region coding so I could watch it.

I bought my mother Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep as she is a great reader and it's something we share, but she doesn't like sci-fi and I'm a huge fan.. so it was sort of a peace offering and an attempt to show her why I liked it. Although the dark tone isn't her liking, she did admit it was well written and engrossing.. she finished the book in a week.

This film does what rarely ever happens, perhaps even less so in modern cinema. It takes an incredible source material and turns into into a movie.. that's DIFFERENT from the book but BETTER in other ways. It's actually an adaption, an interpretation.. leaving out parts and highlighting others.. the result is something that stands on it's own as brilliant.

Blade Runner really embodies (from the plot with the replicant fuckery, to the visuals and themes, to the score) what sci-fi means to me. There is an epic quality to it.. sorta like the space epics like Star Trek: The Motion Picture.. but at the same time it's very gritty and real. No white spaceships and uniformed super-men here.. just a whole lot of humanity and a future that may be a lot closer than we realize..

Quite simply if you didn't 'get' Blade Runner or said something like that guy about the 'Mass Effect vibe'.. we will never be friends. We can be superficial, work colleague kinda friends and shoot the poo poo when I have nothing better to do. But we'll never be true friends, that delight in each other's company and look for each other in a crowd.

Blade Runner is like Jazz. If you need it explained to you, you'll never understand.

5/5 or 6/5 or whatever makes the point this is one of the greatest films I have ever seen.

Dec 14, 2004

This is the best boring movie I've ever seen.


Dec 26, 2012


After watching the Blade Runner sequel I decided to go back and watch the original Blade Runner, having not seen it in well over a decade.

What I remembered of the film still held true: the oppressive atmosphere of over-powerful capitalism, the paranoia about who is and isn't a Replicant, Deckard's detachment giving us a window into how Not Right this world is.

But what I hadn't remembered were the details of Deckard's and Rachael's "romance". That was an outright rape scene, with Deckard chasing Rachael down as she tried to flee his apartment and forcing her to kiss him. He'd proven himself willing and able to kill Replicants like her and she knew it, and he was violent to her in a way that suggested this wasn't the first time he'd raped a woman who'd come to his home.

I can't even tell you what the rest of the plot of the movie is. Whenever I try to think about what happened in the film my mind immediately gravitates to that profoundly disturbing scene. The fact that the sequel movie alluded to it as some sort of romance has soured that film for me too.

4.5/5 if that scene was excised.
1/5 with that scene.


Jul 19, 2009




Nap Ghost

Koishi Komeiji posted:

I've seen things the best things and media doesn't believe me. But look the attack ships very big ships huge, bigger than most ships but they're on fire the people of Orion are very nasty people by the way. Very nasty. And the C-beams, big beautiful C-beams, the best C-beams anyone has ever seen and a lot of people are now saying they should change the name to the trump gate. We're looking into that. All those moments the most moments the best moments and they're saying they are bad moments but we know they really are good moments, but they lost them, and the loser democrats are crying there little tears in the rain *does weird hand motion pantomiming crying* and now it's time for me to never die. *slowly dies while ignoring journalists questions*

  • Post
  • Reply