|
Directed by: Ridley Scott Starring: Harrison Ford, Darryl Hannah Blade Runner is based, partially, on the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick, the legendary Sci-Fi author. While the circumstances are widely different in the book and the movie (for example, Director Ridley Scott's Los Angeles circa 2019 is an overcrowded nightmare of filth, people, and ominous looking buildings, Dick's LA is a virtually abondoned ruin, where everything, including the people, decay into dust and obscurity, "kipple," a little more every day), the central theme remains the same. Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a retired and disillusioned Blade Runner, a special type of police tasked with hunting down and "retiring" escaped androids used for labor and entertainment in the Off-World colonies. Deckard is conscripted back into the service by his former boss, who makes vague threats to Deckard being a "little person" when Deckard tries to refuse. A ship has recently crashed near LA that had been hijacked by the latest model of android, the Nexus-6 (I think that was the model number, at least). These androids are nearly indistinguishable from a normal human being, save that androids of previous models were known to consistently fail a special test designed to create an emotional response. As we find out, these androids are not so easily defeated by this particular test. The androids themselves are desperate to find a way to lengthen their engineered 4-year life span, which has nearly expired. The theme of the movie, and indeed the book itself, is the question of what makes us human. The Nexus-6 androids prove themselves as capable of unimaginable cruelty as they are of love. Meanwhile Deckard must cope with the morality of killing what might be considered human beings, and in the course of the movie shows himself just as capable of cruelty and love as the androids. Of course, the movie doesn't answer any of life's big questions, but it does give you something to think about. The technical side is also excellent. Future LA really looks like a bleak and dark place, and the people who inhabit it match their habitat closely. The music is sparse and lonely, which also adds to the atmosphere. Also, for a movie made in 1982 the special effects are impressive, and if I remember correctly it won some awards in that department also. So don't watch it expecting your usual 80's crappy effects and props. All of these are well done. On a final note, if you do watch this movie, be sure to get the director's cut. It removes the burdonsome narration and inappropriate "Happy Ending" and show the movie as the director meant it to be seen. This my favorite movie of all time, and the film that secured Harrison Ford as my favorite actor. If the movie interests you like it did me, I suggest picking up the book, and maybe reading other works by that author, which are all fascinating. RATING: 5.5 PROS: Incredibly deep Sci-FI movie CONS: Leaves you with more questions than answers ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
Awesome movie, full of great quotable quotes as well. Make sure you see the Directors cut if you haven't. My brother saw the theatrical cut and hated it, but then I convinced him to watch the Directors cut, and it's one of his favourite movies. Also, supposedly when (if) the new DVD boxset comes out, Ridly Scott is preparing a new cut, to address the rather obvious flaws with the first (bad dubbing, unclean print etc).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 10:12
|
|
|
I'd say the "leaves you with more questions than answers" point belongs in the pros category. *shrugs* But I see where you were coming from. I just really like that in a movie. Anyway, Blade Runner is such an impressive milestone for SF cinema that it's still taught today in SciFi film courses like the one I took as an undergrad. My big gripe are the few spots where I think Scott was being a bit too artsy and obscure. Can anyone explain the origami thing to me as a symbol? For those moments where I felt I was being made to feel stupid, I'll take off .5, giving Blade Runner 4.5/5 for my part.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 11:53
|
|
|
Easily my favourite movie ever, and containing the only death scene I've ever shed a tear at.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 17:58
|
|
|
I believe the origami crane ties into the whole Deckard being a replicant controversey. I won't begin to speculate on that here. Anyway, this easily qualifies as the best science fiction ever. Absolutely stunning filmmaking. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 18:48
|
|
|
I want to love this movie. I loved the book, it is directed by one of my favorite directors, scored by one of my favorite musicians, got one of my favorite small time actors (Rutger Hauer), and has a real cyberpunk edge to it. The begining is excellent, and the last 15 minutes may be the best 15 minutes of any movie ever (assuming we're talking about the directors cut). However the plot doesnt really cut it, its just not very good. Meanwhile, the characters have no real development (well, Fords character has a little, and of course Roy Batty undergoes a rather large change), so you cant really pull this as a character peice. About all it has going for it is the message about what makes some one human, and even that is kinda tacked onto the plot. I still love the movie. Great music, amazing directing, and as I said the last 15 minutes are some of the best there have ever been. The tears in rain speech, followed by "its too bad she wont live, but then again who does...", and then that excellent ending of the doors closing, leaving the future of the characters undetermined. Hell, the whole movie is one string of great scenes. I guess thats what it is, it isnt a plot peice, nor a character peice, its a series of great scenes. Of course the rest would probably have been there too if they hadnt run over budget and been forced to cut a whole bunch of it (including a nice scene from the book about a police station). However I can still only give it 4.5. As much as I love this film, it just seemed lacking in certain areas.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2004 09:49
|
|
|
I couldn't really get into this movie the first time I watched it, but I felt like I was just missing something. I went back and watch it again, and again, and again. I was liking better every loving time. I have only seen the directors cut by the way. As far as the origami goes, I don't know what they all mean, but Deckard has a dream about a unicorn and is also told that they engineered Rachael's dreams. When the guy leaves a little unicorn outside deckard's door and says the ultra baddass sounding "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?", that just basically confirms to me that Deckard is indeed a replicant. The performances in this movie are quite impressive, the two best being Roy Batty and Pris. I also recommend the book, as it struck be as very differant, but equally entertaining. Phillip K. Dick has some very hosed up books out there. Check them out. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2004 01:14
|
|
|
you know, i love that the Director's Cut removed the "happy ending." but i hate that it removed the International Cut's violence. so, hopefully his new cut will fix that. though it won't fix Scott's ridiculous Deckard=replicant bullshit. but really, Blade Runner is a great film no matter what cut you watch. 5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2004 03:29
|
|
|
This movie is all about style and atmosphere, but it has the goods to back it up. It's dystopic, dark, engrossing, and drat visually appealing! Definitely one of my favorite movies. 5/5 Edit: I just wanted to say it pisses me off when there's a general consensus on the quality of a film based on consistent high votes, and there are a few people who come along that vote the film 0.5-2 and don't even bother telling people why they don't like it. Pitnicker fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Jun 17, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2004 14:11
|
|
|
It may have been symbolic, artistic, and enlightening, but that's not what I want a movie to be. When see a movie, I want to be entertained. Long, silent scenes, dreary atmosphere, and predictability made for an essentially boring movie. Like poetry, it wasn't stupid, but it definitely wasn't interesting. 1/5 EDIT: vvv You posted to troll my opinion, then hastily added a review to save yourself from a banning. Fantastic work, rear end in a top hat. 1227 fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jun 18, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2004 02:35
|
|
|
quote:1227 came out of the closet to say: gently caress..some people just shouldn't watch movies...or at least not give out votes in this forum. Might as well give my review while i'm here: This movie, gattaca and Solaris(original and american version) are probably the best thinking man's sci-fi movies of all time. Amazing visuals(again far ahead of their time), fantastic minimalistic dialouge, and although slow paced the context was perfect for the atmosphere. I also tend to think this is one of Harrison Ford's best acting performances, very subtle and gritty throughout. Let us also not forget the stoich Roy Batty, played amazingly by Rutger Hauer. Tears in the rain indeed..  5/5 vivisectvnv fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jun 18, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2004 04:54
|
|
|
quote:Scott's ridiculous Deckard=replicant bullshit. Well, it is a tech-Noir after all, it's entirely logical that deckard could be indeed what he is chasing, that's a common theme of Noir. It all adds to the ambiguity that Noir as a style provides. The first time I saw it I thought it was rather average.. but on subsequent viewings the film's complexity revealed itself, and even now it's difficult to fathom how everything fits together. It helped that Phillip Dick was a complete paranoid amphetamine nut-job, so the script really lent itself well to the Noir cinematic style. By the look of how things are going re legal issues with the special edition, we aren't going to see it anytime soon, even though Scott has already cut it. It's the director's cut for now.5.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2004 13:27
|
|
|
I won't add too much except to say that this is probably the best sci-fi movie ever produced, and the one that all (non space opera) future sci-fi flicks should be compared to. It had action, it had 'deep thoughts', it had enough atmosphere to support a planet. This movie has still, decades later, some of the best set, character, and visual design ever committed to film. Everything from guns, to flying cars, to futuristic buildings, to dystopian slums, to photograph enhancing computer interfaces, is perfectly and ideally presented. What's amazing to me is that this movie has yet to hit its due date visuals wise, though I may be biased. I can watch blade runner and not think "oh those effects look so cheap now" unlike nearly any genre exercise from that era (star wars and alien, I'm looking at you). This is both rutger hauer's and harrison ford's best work ever (and larry's brother darryl or whatever his name was). In a way it's disappointing that both of them ended up being disappointing afterward (harrison ford has been pretty safe and undramatic since then and well, rutger hauer had that blind guy movie). The rooftop scene can literally still give me chills. The problem is, don't go in expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster of the contemporary mold. I've had people express disappointment upon first viewing this film because it had been built up so much as a modern triumph of film-making blah blah blah. It's not just about the shooting and naked snake ladies, you gotta think too. 5 golden replicant babies
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2004 15:51
|
|
|
This was the most boring movie I have ever seen, seriously. Very little action, lots of doing nothing. I rented it because of the high reviews here but was sadly disappointed. 1/5
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2004 23:24
|
|
|
The Director's Cut is 5.5/5. My favorite movie. The theatrical release is 3/5, because of the terrible voiceovers. I voted assuming it was the DC we were talking about. Unfortunately the DVD is a peice of poo poo. Only stereo sound, all sorts of artifacts, etc. The movie is amazing, so it's such a shame that box set will never see the light of day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2004 08:07
|
|
|
One of the biggest elements that made this movie so engaging was the soundtrack by Vangelis. The soundtrack not only harbors some amazing synthesized songs, but the songs themselves are very subtle yet mood-setting and really put you in the setting. The music matches each scene perfectly and is, in my opinion, the best soundtrack I have experienced in a film. Although I'll concede that the characters can be a bit shallow, superficial characterizing is consistent with the themes dealt with and also the film noir style in which it is filmed. Best special-effects ever (in a tie with Tron), my personal fav. movie evAr, great acting, etc., etc. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2004 18:44
|
|
|
To put it short, it was worthwhile to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2004 20:46
|
|
|
Boring, slowly paced, even though I hadn't been introduced to a lot of sci-fi when I originally saw it (when I was younger) I still thought it was pretty dull. The world that the story takes place in is the best part, and I did enjoy seeing most of what was going on in the movie. However, I didn't come away feeling it was all that great of a movie since none of the action particularly stuck out in my mind as being special. Maybe it's just that it was built up so much that I can't help but feel let down. I certainly didn't hate it but I guess I'm doomed to never quite understand what makes this film so brilliant and worthy of 5's and 5.5's. 3.5
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 22:07
|
|
|
I just watched this again for the first time in about 4-5 years, and i was blown away. Priss's death scene is probably the most disturbing I have ever seen commited to film. The kicking and screaming. Shudder-worthy. When Roy dies it's the only time I've ever really felt sad about the villain's death. His final speech "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain." The fact that this movies deals with probably our greatest collective fear, being forgotten after we die, without being too annoyingly philisophical requiring a degree in anything is amazing. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2004 02:00
|
|
|
I saw this movie when I was in my early teens and it blew me away at the time. I pulled it out recently about 10 years later and saw the directors cut, and was once again, blown away. The directors cut is far superior to the theaterical release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2004 18:57
|
|
|
I love love love this movie. Easily the best sci-fi movie ever made, and one of a very few that show how sci-fi can be a serious and genuinely good (not just campy good) genre. I'll readily admit that I above all love the visuals and the settings in the movie; even if it hadn't been as deep as it is, I still would have watched it over and over again just for the visuals. I saw it for the first time when I was 13 or so and I was sorely disappointed, since I thought it would be an action flick. I then watched it again a few years later and it started to grow on me. Roy's final speech is very short when you think about it, but somehow Rutger Hauer manages to make it totally amazing - one of the most beautiful "famous movie quotes" out there. I saw the Director's Cut version recently, and I definitely agree that it is superiour to the theatrical cut. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2004 21:43
|
|
|
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" Brilliant. It took me till I was over 20 to really appreciate (and understand) the philosophy and ideas behind this film. Now I can say with confidence it is easily among the top Sci-Fi's of all time. After viewing both the Theatrical and the Director's cut I have to say I lean towards the latter. The voice-overs aren't a bad idea, and while they do contribute to the film-noir detective feel, they just feel a bit out of place. 5/5 Director's Cut 4/5 Theatrical
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2004 12:18
|
|
|
Superb. Bladerunner is constantly hovering around my personal 'all time favourite' list, and considering how fickle I am, that's pretty good going. I saw the film relatively late, in 1989. I was fifteen. I thought it was an amazing film, even if I didn't really understand it on anything other than a superficial level. I think it was '93 that I saw the director's cut, and it was strange not hearing the voiceover narrative, as I'd got so used to it. However it works ever so well, and I can understand Scott's reluctance to spoon-feed the audience (which the voiceover does, a little). Yes it's slow-paced, and there isn't actually that much talking, but all the dialogue is perfect and this measured approach actually allows you to take in the films staggering beauty. Top marks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2004 18:12
|
|
|
Amazing. Simply the best Cyber Punk movie ever made. Only problem is there wasn't more of it and I feel now is too late because if Holywood made a 2nd part it would suck balls with stupid CGI crap and lovely actors of today. That is my only problem... they didn't make 5 parts, which just makes me fill empty. It's like being hungry and someone giving you a small bite of a perfectly grilled steak. But, we still have this one and I rate it a 5.5, one of my favorite movies of all time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2004 21:04
|
|
|
Pictures. The replicants had an insatiable desire to keep and get their "family" pictures. Dekard has a bunch of pictures on his piano. "Have you ever taken the test, detective?" She asks him. hint hint. He dreams of a unicorn and whatshisface leaves a unicorn origami. Gee, what a coincidence. "None of us live." He was a replicant. Using a replicant to hunt replicants makes sense. Too bad he started getting feelings too. I think a lot of people view this movie in today's eyes. It is impossible to detail the number of films this movie inspired. From the apocolyptic future city of fire to the human robots to just about everything. Much of the credit for the ideas of course goes to the book. But visually this movie was amazing. Hovering police cars, little jokey robot servants (recently reseen in Ghost in the Shell 2), the rarity of live animals. "Tell me about your mother..." 5
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2004 18:36
|
|
|
This is one of those movies that is kind of embedded into my perception of any sci-fi film, because it was just so drat definitive. Blade Runner just has this great timelessness about it, I think. It's a bit slow at times, but I love movies that can slow down like this one does. I think Rutger Hauer is far superior to Harrison Ford in terms of how he pulled off his character in this film. My favourite scene in the movie is the enoucnter between Batty and Tyrrel, where Batty first beats Tyrrel at chess, meets him and kisses him on the lips, then gouges his eyes out. If I ever meet my maker, this is what I might end up doing as well. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2004 02:02
|
|
|
Blade Runner...wow, such an awesome movie. It is my second favorite movie of all time. I can't explain the impact it had on me. I've found myself in various places around this world of ours equating the setting to an atmospheric scene in Blade Runner. I give it a 5.5/5. No need for a long review. See the movie if you haven't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2005 07:12
|
|
|
I saw Blade Runner about a month ago, the theatrical cut. I have not seen the director's cut, but I absolutely loved the movie. It's a typical Harrison Ford kicking rear end, but in the future! Great movie. 5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2005 02:14
|
|
|
My friend and I rented the Director's Cut and watched this last week. We are both big fans of well made Sci-Fi films but we were both very dissapointed with this. So many rave reviews, but it failed to deliever on almost every facet. I really felt no connection with any of the characters, and the half-baked plot didn't help much either. On top of that the movie drags, and draaaags, and draaaaaaaaaags, with embarrassingly cheesey acting. I couldn't wait for this to end. I'll stick with Brazil as my favorite dystopiate film.
Rolodex Propaganda fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jan 11, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2005 06:14
|
|
|
First off <- Now that is out of the way, let is be stated that this is (in my opinion, of coruse) THE BEST CYBERPUNK MOVIE EVER If you are an idiot, look elsewhere. This movie WILL make you question humanity. Also, the special effects are just amazing, even for today. This movie is the most accurate depiction of the future ever made (go to LA today and see for yourself, it is edging closer to the BR look). The acting is superb. This movie is, without a doubt, the most influential cyberpunk flick ever, if you haven't seen it, do so NOW. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2005 02:06
|
|
|
I really don't think my words can do justice to this movie. Yes, it isn't a brilliant character piece, but I don't care. Words are cheap anyway. Those questioning this movie's merit should check out http://filmsite.org/ This is a great resource for all classic movies and Blade Runner is listed as one of its (unranked) top 100 movies of all time. Every aspect of this movie is sensational. The visuals, the sound effects, the premise and underlying themes, and the music. Oh the music. I listen to the Vangelis soundtrack all the time because it is the perfect chill music. Every time I hear it, I picture myself in the dark, wet, and foggy city. Rachel's Song, which I don't think is even in the movie, is perhaps the loveliest song I've ever heard. The visuals are amazing and I can only imagine the impact they had 23 years ago. I think the visual style of Blade Runner is closer to 2001 than it is to Star Wars. The movie moves a lot slower, but I feel the pacing is perfect for the style of the movie. The themes of this movie run deep and any nonbelievers should read the review listed at the site above. The questions raised about humanity are done so in a profound way. I think a movie like I-Robot is what would come of a modern day remake or sequel of Blade Runner. Less style and substance and more bullshit. (AW HELL NAW!) Yes, Blade Runner runs heavily on style, but I also think it rivals many classic novels in analyzing the human condition. 5.5/5 (Hanging with Vertigo as my favorite movie ever) Let me also say that everything above refers to the directors cut not the original release. Here's an excerpt from the review at the site above: "Since that time, the 1992 revised 'Director's Cut' (of 117 minutes) was released to mark the film's 10th anniversary with a new digital soundtrack - it dropped Harrison Ford's mostly redundant voice-over and restored the film's original darker and contemplative vision. Many Blade Runner afficionados prefer the subtlety of the film's images in the restored version rather than the slow and monotonous tone of the earlier film with voice-over. The 'director's cut' also substituted a less upbeat and shorter, more ambiguous, non-Hollywood ending, and it inserted a new scene of a 'unicorn reverie' at the end. It also emphasized and enriched the romantic angle between Ford and a beautiful replicant played by Sean Young, and more clearly revealed that Harrison Ford's character was an android himself." SkoubyDoo fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jan 20, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2005 01:37
|
|
|
Maybe I need to see this a few more times, but I only found this to be a good film, not excellent. I thought the acting was good and the world was simply awesome (reminded me of Metropolis), however something intangible is holding this back from being a 5 from me for some reason. That being said, I found the final scenes of the film to be particular touching and Rutger Hauer was simply amazing as Roy. Tears in the rain was a very powerful little speech. EDIT: Upgrading to 4.5/5 because it has stuck with me days after watching it. Mike_V fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 23, 2005 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2005 08:28
|
|
|
I can appreciate why this is considered one of the best sci-fi movies of all time. Everything everyone says about the powerful message, the great effects, and the well-done ending are all true. I guess I saw the director's cut, because there was no narration. One of the mental notes I made to myself at one point was that "all of this dead time [and there is a LOT of it, I'd say about one third of this movie lacks dialogue] could be better used to have some noir-like narrating". Maybe I'm an idiot, or maybe it was done particularly poorly in the theatrical version; I don't know because I haven't seen it. I'd watch it again and I'd recommend it to anyone to at least see once in their life, but it's not the kind of movie I could pick up and watch at any time. It can seem really boring and confusing unless you're paying 100% attention, and even then it can still be really boring and confusing. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2005 06:22
|
|
|
DukeRustfield posted:I think a lot of people view this movie in today's eyes. It is impossible to detail the number of films this movie inspired. From the apocolyptic future city of fire to the human robots to just about everything. I wrote a paper on this the other day, so I felt like adding my two cents here. This is definitely thinking man's sci-fi, and isn't out to amuse you with cheap thrills and explosions, so people looking for that sort of thing will naturally not be pleased. There is a huge amount of symbolism in the movie, mostly involving eyes, but also Gaff's origami, as has been mentioned. The matchstick man he creates with a gigantic erect penis symbolizing Deckard's sexual frustration is pretty amusing. The Vangelis soundtrack is probably my favorite in a movie ever, and the visuals match it in awesomeness for the most part. If you showed a random person this movie, they would probably not guess that it was from 1982. Blade Runner is memorable not just aesthetically, but because it raises important questions about humanity, mortality, and how we will control the vast technological power that we are destined to possess. It's much more relevant today than it was in 1982.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2006 02:22
|
|
|
I just watched this movie last night (Directors Cut), expecting it to be completely awesome based on reviews from friends and a 94% on rotten tomatoes. Well, the movie was so boring, slow-paced, and the acting so poor that it was not a great experience. This was the general consensus of the people that I watched it with, so I'm totally confused as to why it is so loved. The (supposed to be) "emotional" scenes were actually just stupid and devoid of feeling (as in, evoked no emotional response from me), and the action scenes, especially Priss's death were actually hilarious. I laughed out loud at not only that, but another one of replicant deaths. The "love scene" between Deckard and the replicant appeared to be Deckard raping someone with the emotional age of a 3 year old and was both hilarious and awkward and creepy. Visually, it IS pretty decent, especially for 1983. Apparently the world is a bunch of pyramids with lights on them and what isn't a pyramid is a broken down clock tower or apartment complex with gargoyles. If it is supposed to be post-apocalyptic I never exactly caught what the apocalypse is and also why almost everyone is Asian. There had to be some sort of apocalypse because someone talked about "having enough money to move to off-world" but almost no background is given to any of the characters, the world, off-world, or much of the story. If you want to watch another generic post-apocalyptic cyborg-on-the-loose sci-fi movie with a horrible try at being emotional, go ahead. You'd be better off watching a 1980's B-Movie if you want to have a good time though. 1/5 Zand fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Sep 6, 2007 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2007 20:17
|
|
|
Blade Runner oozes style and atmosphere. The visuals are amazing for the time - and still impressive now - and the soundtrack is a fantastic compliment to the on-screen action. On that basis alone it is worth seeing - especially once the restored Final Cut is released this December. This is a pretty polarizing film, generally being acclaimed but with some people hating it. Often people seem to be coming to Blade Runner with the wrong expectations. It isn't a fast-paced thriller or action movie, so if you're expecting that you're going to be disappointed. A lot of it IS slow paced, and a lot of the appeal is just taking in the visuals and sounds. If you don't like the sound of that, don't watch the movie - you won't like it. And some people don't seem to grasp that what they're calling "bad acting" and "devoid of feeling" was DELIBERATE. Many of the characers were SUPPOSED TO BE emotionally stunted, and this is clearly explained in the movie if you're paying attention. The creepiness of the "love scene" is giving you a pretty important hint or two about the characters involved; it isn't supposed to be all nice and cozy like something out of Titanic. What it means to really be human is a major theme of the movie, and how the people act is supposed to be telling you something about that. Some characters are depicted as more vivid or more "flattened" for a REASON. I don't think the movie is perfect - some of the pacing in the old Director's Cut isn't just slow, but seemingly "off," as if they didn't re-cut it to account for the narration they removed from the original theatrical cut. And the narration on the theatrical cut was just bad. The old Director's Cut DVD was pretty terrible in just about every way as far as image & sound quality goes, though the new Final Cut should fix all that, and so give the visuals & music even more impact. 4/5 for the existing Director's Cut, partly because it was literally one of the worst-quality DVDs made by a major studio. The Final Cut isn't supposed to be very different, but the restored picture & sound should kick it up a notch once it's available, and depending on how they re-edited it might make it flow better. Edit: I've since seen the Final Cut on Blu-ray, and it's fantastic. It doesn't change much from the director's cut in terms of content, but it looks and sounds incredible. Looking back on my old review I was apparently super angry for some reason  , but my basic points still stand. If you go into it expecting a slow-paced and thoughtful visual feast you'll probably really like it; if you're expecting an action movie you're going to be very disappointed. 5/5 for the Final Cut.
sean10mm fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2007 15:42
|
|
|
Yamon Etoch posted:I believe the origami crane ties into the whole Deckard being a replicant controversey. I won't begin to speculate on that here. This film has the best atmosphere of any sci-fi film I've ever seen. Each scene is completely immersive, from the decrepit noodle bar to the giant Coke ads, it is rapidly becoming a more and more realistic view of the future. Scott took the mediocre book and filtered it down to the core elements, and put his own twist on the story. I recommend seeing both Director's Cut AND Theatrical release. The director's cut is clearly the superior cut, but the theatrical release has the cool, film noir narration, which helps the viewer get into Deckard's head. And if you're not sure whether or not Deckard is a replicant, read the book. The main reason the book is not as good to me, is because there is NO QUESTION whether or not he is a replicant, Dick slaps you over the head with the answer. THe movie was subtle enough that people are STILL arguing about it to this day! It is not a crane, but a unicorn that is in Deckard's memory. The fact that someone else knows about Deckard's bizarre memory proves that the memories were implanted, and that he is known to be a replicant by the police at the very least. 5/5 JohnnyRed fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Sep 7, 2007 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2007 20:18
|
|
|
I just love this movie beyond words and I have an undying jealously for everyone who got to see this in the cinema when it first came out. The atmosphere, the scenery, the acting, the characters, the story, you just cannot fault any of them. I am going to approximately soil myself ten times over when the HD release comes out at Christmas. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2007 13:31
|
|
|
This is one of the few films that was, for me, immeasurably improved by "Director's Cut". When it first came out and I saw it in the theater, I was bitterly disappointed that such a beautiful, ALMOST perfect film, was marred by two significant flaws for me, the annoying voiceover narration, and the incredibly "forced by the studio" tacked-on feeling happy ending, also related via annoying voiceover narration. I was SO glad that these were taken out in the director's cut. 5/5 for the director's cut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2007 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
Zwabu posted:This is one of the few films that was, for me, immeasurably improved by "Director's Cut". I agree the director's cut is much better, but I find the narration helps move the story along and helps ease the pacing and potential confusion. I am very glad that I got to see the Director's Cut, then the Theatrical, then Director's Cut again. That, to me, is the best way to experience the film
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2007 18:29
|
|