Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Blade Runner’ at 40

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#61

Post by jacobolus »

duxup wrote: post #19

I hated that movie the first to I saw it. I was bored with it. Now I love it. I really enjoy how much time they spend establishing the atmosphere and characters. It all feels very real and has depth. I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. So much sci fi I encounter now feels little more than a long trailer with no idea how to end.

This is also a film that most people probably have to watch 2–3 times to really understand the whole plot (much less notice all of the symbolism, etc.).

The first time, a bunch is quite confusing.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#62

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

muro wrote: post #45
willhinsa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2001: A Space Odyssey

The "ages" jumping weirdness just ruined it, IMHO. Beautiful middle part, though.

Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly incomprehensible ending.

Kubrick was no doubt a genius and mystery is a part of storytelling, the entirety of Eyes Wide Shut leaves so much room for mystique and interpretation that we can debate and discuss it forever but I did not find similar in the ending of 2001, it seemed like confusion for confusions sake with little deeper meaning.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#64

Post by Barrin92 »

I like Blade Runner but I don't think it has aged particularly well, it was very much a product of its time even though ironically enough at the time it was very much unique.

What made this really clear to me was the sequel which I think was way too literal about the aesthetics. Flying cars and CEOs living in ziggurats and CCCP banners made the new movie almost seem like a caricature. It's retrofuturism, like Back to the Future almost rather than science fiction. And that has somehow impacted my experience of the original now too which seems more dated to me now.

What does stand the test of time though is Rutger Hauer's performance and the humanism that he has given his character, something that was absent in the sequel.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#65

Post by fartcannon »

As a slight aside, isn't it amazing that art exists?

I like to just stand back and appreciate that humans both make and love art. And it's not one thing, it's so. many. things. I especially like that some people like some art and not other art. It means there's complexity to it. And we can harness it to make beauty.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#67

Post by jogjayr »

deltaonefour wrote: post #43

Blade runner isn't even that good, thematically. But I get why it's considered the best. It's because in most sci-fi movies a lot of effort is spent on the setting and thus the story while many times is good, often lacks the depth of their non-fiction counter-parts. Bladerunner is one of the few movies that has blockbuster level visuals while maintaining a very serious story with a lot of depth. Gattaca is another sc…

Most of Gattaca is shot indoors and the sets have a very minimalist aesthetic. It looks futuristic, but since their budget was quite low* it was also a way to keep costs down. The visuals bear no comparison at all to Blade Runner. It's an incredible movie nevertheless.

* I quite enjoyed how astronauts wear a suit and tie even on spaceship launches. Out-of-universe that was probably because they didn't have the budget for spacesuit costumes. But in-universe it is still legitimately a "space suit" and might be a nod to how formal the Gattacca workplace setting is (I've read too much r/moviedetails).

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#68

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

jerrysievert wrote: post #58
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Calling it the "greatest of all time" seems like a total exaggeration I was thinking this at first but I've struggled with a suggestion of a better, and critically more impactful/influential, movie in the genere.

brazil delicatessen both very deep and dark in similar genres: dystopian future.

Brazil was a good movie, but, was far too unapproachable and would not make my top 10.

I've never seen (or even heard of) delicatessen. Looks interesting, I'll check it out.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#69

Post by fartcannon »

jerrysievert wrote: post #58
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Calling it the "greatest of all time" seems like a total exaggeration I was thinking this at first but I've struggled with a suggestion of a better, and critically more impactful/influential, movie in the genere.

brazil delicatessen both very deep and dark in similar genres: dystopian future.

Brazil is everything.

I've never seen Delicatessen but if it's like these other films, I'll check it out. Anything I need to know (culturally, or whatever) to fully appreciate it?

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#70

Post by gsmo »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25
modeless wrote: post #3

I had a professor in college who was obsessed with Blade Runner and had us watch it in class. I just didn't get it. I mean I love sci-fi, but Blade Runner was just OK. Maybe in the context of its time it was great, pioneering, all that stuff. But in the context of now, or even back when I was in college (closer to the release of Blade Runner than present day, yikes), it didn't seem that special to me. I guess now tha…

I think it still holds up. Very few films are as bold and original today. Everything is CGI focus group contrived garbage now. What good recent scifi comes close? Dune? Bladerunner 2049?

Bladerunner 2049. :-)
Post reply on HN