Don't rate Blade Runner

Sean Quagmire

This dvd has been sitting in my house for about 8 years now and I have never had the urge to watch it.
After being told how good it is and seeing that its always mentioned as being a masterpiece I thought id it would be worth a watch. (original directors cut)

Admittedly I fell asleep on two attempts and barely made it to the end on the third I can safely say its not my cup of tea, probably because im not a massive fan of sci-fi films …don’t really see why it is rated so high??

Nolanger

Never liked that movie myself - guess it receives so much acclaim because it's an intelligent multiplex sci-fi movie with shades of Film Noir. A typical Empire magazine type movie.

thewing

Cinematography, Originality, Futuristic Vision, Cityscapes, the Noir, the diaglogue, final death scene.....a total classic, prob my all time fav

But then if Sci-Fi ain't your thing, then it ain't your thing.

Crapjob Sean

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

Don't rate Blade Runner

Okay, I won't.




A-
Gotcha!

Galvasean

I hope this trend of people making a new thread every time they didn't think a film was all that great doesn't catch on.

Sean Quagmire

i hope it does

Jack Sheehan

I watched the original (theatrical release) version and was a bit 'Que?'. But after watching the proper version I liked it. I find it difficult to love because it's based on one of my favorite books, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, and I'm constantly comparing them.

johnny_ultimate

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

I watched the original (theatrical release) version and was a bit 'Que?'. But after watching the proper version I liked it. I find it difficult to love because it's based on one of my favorite books, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, and I'm constantly comparing them.

I'm the same. As a massive Phillip K Dick fan I always find the films don't quite match up to the complexity of his novels. Even a Scanner Darkly - a pretty much straight adaptation - felt lacking, possibly better suited to the printed page. Minority Report is my favourite of the lot, mainly because it builds upon the short story and themes, and carves an identity for itself.

Blade Runner left me cold though. Nothing wrong with it from a technical standpoint or anything, but just didn't feel engaging in the slightest and was a chore to get through. Its been a good five years since I watched it though, and one night I will try again, but the first viewing didn't impress. I remember watching Brazil and Blade Runner on the same day, and Brazil was a vastly prefferable option with scathing humour, distortion of sci-fi conventions and wonderful visuals. Two very different films at the end of the day though, and Blade Runner will get a revisiting soon.

Shryke

I like sci'fi and I'm not a fan of the film either. The source material isn't Dicks best either, though PKD was incapable of writing bad fiction.

steveone

same here...
I don't rate it and I do like Sci fi..

Mr. K

I still haven't gotten around to watching The Final Cut. I like the film overall, especially Rutger Hauer. It's certainly not for everyone though, it's quite unusual in a sci-fi noir kinda way!

Running Bing

Galvasean wrote: »

I hope this trend of people making a new thread every time they didn't think a film was all that great doesn't catch on.

As long as people explain why they dont like the film I hope it does...best way to start a debate imo. Plus I prefer threads about individual films rather than the "recommend me a film" type threads.


As far as Bladerunner goes I thought it was beautifully shot and one of the most interesting depictions of the future I have seen. I dont think it was a great film or a masterpiece though.


I think a lot of people have genuine reason for calling it a masterpiece but at the same time I think all too often people are too quick to praise something just because it mixes genres or includes Noir elements in an interesting context.


For me the pacing could have been a lot better and I never felt the plot or characters developed enough.

I did like the final scene though and I also liked the ambiguity as to whether Decard was a replicant or not (Im not sure if that was intentional it was just something I took personally from the cut I seen)

MooseJam

and Sean Young is hawt

kaimera

It insists upon itself..

anyway, must watch it again. Been a while.

Sherifu

I like scifis most of the time. I thought blade runner was ok, perhaps it had more impact when it was released.

Galvasean

Suppose I best wade in with my own opinion so. The original release cut is not great IMO. Just feels quite messy. The 'director's cut' is a big improvement. The FINAL cut is actually great. I think its remarkable how a few small changes can totally alter a film.

FionnMatthew

Sandor wrote: »

I like sci'fi and I'm not a fan of the film either. The source material isn't Dicks best either, though PKD was incapable of writing bad fiction.

Not sure about that last bit, actually. I've his collected short stories, and the first three volumes (which are from very early in his career) are quite patchy, very samey.

That said, his novels are de rigeur.

At OP:

Blade Runner grew on me slowly. TBH, I rate it with Alien these days. In terms of content, neither film is particularly similar, but Scott's attention to atmospherics and detail, in every minutia he could control, is what these days allows me to watch these films in awe.

Just about every SF film that's released is expected to be a thriller, and that's an unfair expectation to have of SF, which is one of the most versatile and thoughtful of literary genres around.

It's not Star Wars, or even Terminator. It's not about action, or technofetishism.

It's not about following the plot waiting for the next revelation. TBH, the plot unfolds rather slowly, and in a rather straightforward way - it's a simple story when it comes down to it. The beauty of the film is that it requires of you that you slow down your consumption of it alongside it, and this allows you to simply enjoy the aesthetic experience, the atmospherics, and the philosophical implications of the subject matter.

One of the strengths of Dick's fiction is that it often uses SF subject matter to tear open a critical rift on the human condition. Blade Runner is an excellent adaptation of Dick's talent in this regard - it's a slow, muted, sad story which eventually comes to raise questions of human existence.

Deckard's life of drudgery is juxtaposed with the exuberant pricelessness of the experiences of Batty, in his last scenes. Dick's own fiction was slowly influenced by a messianic delusional psychosis that came on towards his death, during which, increasingly, his fiction takes on a fundamental anxiety that all of this - the sad, muted drudgery of human existence - is nothing more than a thwarted fever dream - a transmission from elsewhere. His work is touched by a precious sympathy for all of us, and yet an ambivalent, resentful dread that things are not what they seem.

I think Blade Runner has this delicate balance just right. The aesthetic experience of the film contributes to this in terms of prevalent mood, and the sort of hyper-real world that such a paranoia finds its home.

Alien, in its own way, is quite similar - it's uncompromising in its premises - and actually relentlessly plotless after the initial premises are played out. Once the Alien is "bigger", there is a goodly part of the movie left, and yet little development is necessary. Everyone just dies. For me, the best part of the film is that evocation of the deep dark recesses of space, and the utter loneliness, and helplessness of it all. And the awe of the Space-Jockey's ship. I certainly don't watch it just to see aliens killing people, etc.

The Thing is actually similar in every respect to this, except the setting is a different kind of remote - Antarctica. etc.

MagicMarker

I think it's a case of time catching up with a movie... I think those that describe it as a masterpiece probably saw it many moons ago when it first came out or not long after. If you've only seen it recently (last few years for instance) then you probably wouldn't see anything special in it. I personally only saw it for the first time a few years ago and i thought it was kind of meh. Didn't really do anything for me.

It's like if a teenager watched a Star Wars movie for the first time now, would they think it was a masterpiece? Unlikely.

Shryke

Great post Fionn, I thought it deserved a little thanks. I haven't read any of Dicks shorts, only novels. I still wouldn't rate Blade Runner very highly but I might give the final cut a go. I've only seen the original version.

DirkVoodoo

Some people like vanilla ice cream, others like hugely artistic, boundless sci fi chocolate chip ice cream. Who cares? Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it. There must be some reason it has stood the test of time as a cinematic masterpiece though?

FionnMatthew

Sandor wrote: »

Great post Fionn, I thought it deserved a little thanks. I haven't read any of Dicks shorts, only novels. I still wouldn't rate Blade Runner very highly but I might give the final cut a go. I've only seen the original version.

Cheers Sandor.

I didn't mean to be correcting you on the short stories point - only actually to agree with you in your main point on how Dick's novels are sublime. It's amazing, actually, how he slowly built up his abilities as a writer. The short stories are worth a read, if only to see him suddenly emerging as a unique novelist.

Yeah, I think the Final Cut is the best. It enhances the themes that were in the Director's Cut, and which were sort of hard to get at in the Theatrical Cut.

For me, it's a movie that you've to watch a good few times, and then sort of remember the feel of - like a favorite album. The same way you leave on an album for certain kinds of mood, etc... Blade Runner is that type of film, I think. It's also something that I feel I couldn't appreciate until I could hold the whole thing in my head at once, and appreciate parts of it as parts of the whole, if you know what I mean...

I really liked A Scanner Darkly, too. It is, granted, heavy watching. But the same holistic sort of appreciation applies.

I'm not saying, mind, that BR is a perfect adaptation of Do Androids Dream... But I think it's actually broadly more faithful to Dick's work as a whole. Perhaps a little more muted and relaxed - I think that's Scott - but it's better for it.

It's one of the reasons I didn't really like Spielberg's Minority Report - I felt it gave more in terms of traditional plotting, and sort of circumscribed that more novelistic meditation on mood and aesthetic. I mean... it had style, but I felt the style was mostly for show. It was a good film, but I didn't feel the Dicksian vibe.

Has anyone seen the original Solaris? I've yet to watch that, but I liked Soderbergh's version, and I'm eager to see the original. I think that's probably good company for Blade Runner, if the remake is anything to go by. Sublime pacing, etc.

johnny_ultimate

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Has anyone seen the original Solaris? I've yet to watch that, but I liked Soderbergh's version, and I'm eager to see the original. I think that's probably good company for Blade Runner, if the remake is anything to go by. Sublime pacing, etc.

Yeah, but Solaris isn't as good as other Tarkovsky stuff. It seems a bit dragged out, whereas Stalker and The Sacrafice are far more engaging over their extended running time. Thats not to say its not a good film: still very intelligent and thought provoking, but going by the director's high standards it isn't his best.

Another example of the 'intelligent' sci-fi genre though, along with Blade Runner, 2001 and all them. One thing that can be said about the lot is that they have amazing visuals. Whatever my issues with Blade Runner's content, the neon drenched cityscapes are absolutely amazing, and the dated but still effective score adds to it. When I watched it, it felt like the effects hadn't aged to badly at all, whereas CGI cities tend to be out of date before the films even out. Thats one thing you have to give Scott, Kubrick and Tarkovsky credit for: in purely visual terms, little sci-fi (with the rare exception such as the Fountain) has topped them yet despite vastly more complex technology. Makes you wish they still used minituares with such care and detail.

The Denouncer

I think perhaps this thread evolved from my comments in the Dark Knight Seen thread where I described Blade Runner as a masterpiece. I first saw it on video actually in the late 80's when I was deep in my 2000AD years..and it blew me away. I have since seen the Theatrical version on the big screen, and the Directors Cut in the cinema also, and the impact is magnified tenfold. Its one of those movies that MUST be seen on the big screen. I had a projecttor years ago and the piss-poor DVD version still got watched more than any other DVD. I have The Final Cut on Blu-Ray and it doesn't have the same impact even on a 42" plasma. Its an incredibly cinematic vision that is wasted on the 'small' screen in my opinion. If you haven't seen it on the big screen you haven't seen it properly.

IanCurtis

OP I recently watched it again, having had the same experiences as you've had.

I watched it in total darkness with no phone or door to interrupt.

It made perfect sense then and I really enjoyed it, so I'd suggest this might be the way to go.

It is a great film but the plot is not really where's its strengths lie.

Woden

Yeah I also don't rate it. Issue for me was going straight to the film after reading the book which I really enjoyed and have been meaning to read again.

_Kaiser_

I have to agree with those that didn't rate it, but I do like sci-fi.

It's been on a few times on Sky lately so I have seen (most) of it again and my opinion hasn't changed. Different strokes I guess...

Canis Lupus

I heard for years how amazing BR was and how it was possibly the greatest scifi nay movie ever.

I got the directors cut last year and watched it with a slightly amazed look on my face for the entire length of the movie. Amazed cos it was such a pile of ****. I went into work the next day and asked my mate who recommended it so highly why he robbed me of a couple of hours of my life and he explained that perhaps it was a movie of its time.

I accept that if I could go back in time BR would have been a pretty impressive movie with a story covered up by what would have then been impressive effects etc but today.... It's just weak and boring. So....so.....boring.

Pride Fighter

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

This dvd has been sitting in my house for about 8 years now and I have never had the urge to watch it.
After being told how good it is and seeing that its always mentioned as being a masterpiece I thought id it would be worth a watch. (original directors cut)

Admittedly I fell asleep on two attempts and barely made it to the end on the third I can safely say its not my cup of tea, probably because im not a massive fan of sci-fi films …don’t really see why it is rated so high??

I agree, it bored me to tears. I am a big sci-fi fan and I found the film mind numbingly boring when I tried to watch it those 3 times I tried. However I was 12 when I tried to watch it and the sci-fi I mainly loved back then was star trek with lots of shooting and excitement.
I'll give at another chance now that I am in my 20's. My taste in film has matured since. I'll get back when I give it a watch.

MooseJam

you guy's should check out Independence Day, you will like that I'm sure

Canis Lupus

MooseJam wrote: »

you guy's should check out Independence Day, you will like that I'm sure

Classic sci fi :P

Jack Sheehan

If you're looking for classic SF look no farther than John Carpenters The Thing. Pure class all the way through.