"He gets a gun put to his head and then he fucks a dishwasher." - Rutger Hauer in mark kermodes excellent documentary On the edge of blade runner
‘Blade Runner’ at 40
181–190 of 435 posts
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I first saw BR in a theater the month it originally came out. It's hard to appreciate from today's perspective just how revolutionary it was. The film itself, especially the original cut, is flawed due to the studio making last minute edits which the director, cast and writers were against. Yet, it is still the one science fiction film that has been more visually influential than any other. It changed everything that…
I also saw Blade Runner in its original theatrical release, and it's still the version I prefer. In this case I think the studio heads did Scott a backhand favor by ending the film as they did. Spoilers: If, as depicted in the original release, Deckard is human and Rachael is a replicant, then the movie is a true love story. The message of a true love story is that the Other is as deserving of love and dignity as I a…
I also don't like late-hour attempts to suggest that Deckard is a replicant. It cheapens Batty's finest act of forgiving him and sparing the life of his enemy who was trying to kill him.
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#183I 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.
I've tried to watch the movie multiple times, always get bored in the beginning and abort early. Once tried to watching with a friend and we were both bored fairly quickly.
To be fair I don't watch movies / TV shows often because I have a low attention span for this stuff, but this is a movie I really wanted to like because I love the genre, but it's too slow paced for me. I do know that pacing was generally slower in older movies (eg. I recently watched "Roman Holiday" because so many older people love that one, and found it incredibly slow).
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I first saw BR in a theater the month it originally came out. It's hard to appreciate from today's perspective just how revolutionary it was. The film itself, especially the original cut, is flawed due to the studio making last minute edits which the director, cast and writers were against. Yet, it is still the one science fiction film that has been more visually influential than any other. It changed everything that…
I also saw Blade Runner in its original theatrical release, and it's still the version I prefer. In this case I think the studio heads did Scott a backhand favor by ending the film as they did. Spoilers: If, as depicted in the original release, Deckard is human and Rachael is a replicant, then the movie is a true love story. The message of a true love story is that the Other is as deserving of love and dignity as I a…
We know he's a replicant, but I don't think he knows with any confidence: all he knows is that Gaff has an uncanny degree of insight, and that a definite replicant thought he was a man and spared his life to share the end of his own life with him. So he faces even more puzzles than them: if he isn't human then he had less free will than the other replicants since then he was created to unquestioningly retire them. Is he now going to enjoy that freedom and flee with Rachel, since he "owes her one", does he even know what his plan is as the lift doors shut?
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#185Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#1862049 is probably a better film in almost every way and yet the original is better just by virtue of the clarity of vision it had.
2049 did so many things well (great visuals, great acting, waaaay better love story, better detecting!), but the main story sucked so much. The messianic human/replicant hybrid and the foreshadowed uprising seemed so cheap. The original asked hard questions that's why it's still talked about, the sequel took it away and answered it itself and quite poorly IMO.
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#187The visual language Bladerunner invented has virtually defined SciFi for the past 40 years. If you enjoy it's worth digging into the work Syd Mead - the film's concept artist - created: https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5642443624/in/... https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5642443252/in/... https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5641873923/in/... https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_…
Can anyone recommend some music that has the same vibe as Blade Runner's synth stuff?
Not exactly, but you may like https://youtu.be/QYVmZ0pEPdo.
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also the failed attempt of Jodorowsky to make a Dune movie: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)#Early_stalled_a... The documentary is pretty fascinating. Jodorowsky managed to put together a stellar team, among them H.R. Giger, Dalí and the script writer who would later write Alien.
> Jodorowsky I recently got a copy of this and could only come to the conclusion that they were doing a lot of drugs in the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Mountain_(1973_film)
I think that was pretty widely accepted? Not sure if total drug use was higher than it is now but especially hallucinogenic drugs were much more popular than they are today.
I don't think the colourful styles of the 60s/70s were a coincidence either, no :)
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Arthur C Clarke is one of the greatest sci fi authors of all time and wrote the book in conjunction with the movie with Stanley Kubrick. They are meant to be consumed together. Read the book and the movie makes a lot more sense. There is virtually zero ambiguity if you read the book.
So what does the ending mean then?
Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40
#190I was bored with it when I first saw it, I'm still bored with it having seen it again recently. It's just so....full of itself. Like oh my god, you think you're trying to say something deep and meaningful, but you really aren't. The cinematography is still incredible and the film deserves all the praise in that department. But the whole philosophical argument being made there has the depth of a teaspoon. I just laugh…
No post body was provided.