CharminUltra
Member
Also, obligatory:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
LTTP: Blade Runner (Did not like it)
- Thread starter cantona222
- Start date
- Status
Tertullian
Member
It's the design, man. It's a masterpiece. If you only enjoy movies for the plot, then it probably wasn't worth bothering.
GameAddict411
Member
The thing about Blade Runner is that if you were expecting a Star Wars or similar action thriller, you're not going to get it. Blade Runner's narrative is weak and characterization limited, but its worldview, visual design, and engagement with theme are all top notch. You can best appreciate Blade Runner if you ask yourself questions about humanity, existence, and class while you watch it.
So it would be more accurate to say that you didn't "get it" than that you didn't "like it". That's fine. If it's not your kind of movie, it's not your kind of movie, but it is widely viewed as a very strong success in terms of what it sets out to accomplish and dissenting with "well there weren't splosions" isn't going to do much to contest that perception
when a movie sucks it sucks, not everyone is going to over analysis a movie just to enjoy it. the OP just has a different taste, its not about "getting it".
ViewtifulJC
Banned
The first time I watched Blade Runner I was all concerned about the "plot" and "characterization", so of course I hated it. The plot is so nebulous as to be almost non-existent (evidenced by the various cuts that change the order of certain scenes and not effecting the story in the slightest), and the characters outside the antagonistic reploids are..."restrained" is a good way to put it.
But who the fuck cares because of its an incredible sensory experience, one of the finest creations of a sci-fi world, working toward the total commitment of its age-old sci-fi theme, "what does it mean to be human". Hauer's performance is really the heart of the picture. his sympathetic inhumanity and undisciplined emoting allow something unique and piercing to enter this exercise in style. That this is all the exact point can be seen, I think, in how Ford's performance changes in the last moments: he plays the final scene of the movie with a peerless kind of ambiguity that is seen nowhere else in his character and reflects, I think, what he has "learned" from Batty about being a person. This exercise in style and terrific genre filmmaking ends on its most sublime and humane note. And that's why it sticks with me, beyond its complete transportational cinematic power.
But who the fuck cares because of its an incredible sensory experience, one of the finest creations of a sci-fi world, working toward the total commitment of its age-old sci-fi theme, "what does it mean to be human". Hauer's performance is really the heart of the picture. his sympathetic inhumanity and undisciplined emoting allow something unique and piercing to enter this exercise in style. That this is all the exact point can be seen, I think, in how Ford's performance changes in the last moments: he plays the final scene of the movie with a peerless kind of ambiguity that is seen nowhere else in his character and reflects, I think, what he has "learned" from Batty about being a person. This exercise in style and terrific genre filmmaking ends on its most sublime and humane note. And that's why it sticks with me, beyond its complete transportational cinematic power.
linko9
Member
So it would be more accurate to say that you didn't "get it" than that you didn't "like it". That's fine. If it's not your kind of movie, it's not your kind of movie, but it is widely viewed as a very strong success in terms of what it sets out to accomplish and dissenting with "well there weren't splosions" isn't going to do much to contest that perception
I'm sure it's just as accurate to say he didn't like it; the man says he didn't like it I'll take his word for it. Maybe that's because he didn't get it, but I doubt he's lying to us about his impression of the film.
I saw it first when I was too young; 10 or so. I remember thinking it was somewhat incomprehensible, and didn't much like it, though I appreciated the aesthetics. Watched it again a few years ago and liked it much more, though I don't hold it as one of my favorite movies or anything.
that's not how learning works
Consensus is that it's a great movie. I disagree with the consensus. Was a 6/10 for me. Very boring. You could cut out one half of the film and make a somewhat cool short movie out of it.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Sony GAF
OverBlood 3
Banned
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
It's a fine film, but Deckard's a bit crap at his (one) job though, isn't he? The only reason he isn't killed by Leon is because Rachael decides to intervene, and the only reason he doesn't fall to his death is because of Roy. Sebastian and Tyrell wind up dead anyway and Rachael probably wouldn't have left her cushy job if he hadn't informed her about those memory implants.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Mod who did the title change is a jerk imho.
It's not overanalyzing a movie to understand its basic premise. The OP compares the film to Star Wars and Terminator, both of which are pretty straight action movies. I too was disappointed that Life is Beautiful didn't have any cool gunfights.
It's not overanalyzing a movie to understand its basic premise. The OP compares the film to Star Wars and Terminator, both of which are pretty straight action movies. I too was disappointed that Life is Beautiful didn't have any cool gunfights.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
Timeless film.
samus i am
Member
Look at my avatar and guess how I feel.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
They need to take the Voight-Kampff Test before I believe that. If only they'd seen what I'd seen with that little oriental guy's eyes, then they'd love the movie as much as I do.
Delta Assault
Member
Yeah, it's boring.
Most reviews upon release were unkind to it as well.
Most reviews upon release were unkind to it as well.
Porcile
Member
" I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die."
Something like that?
Not sure why you require affirmation of questionable taste, the movie is rightfully known as one of the best of the last century. It's ok to disagree but you will not find that all fans of film agree with you.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Porcile
Member
The thing I think the amount of good work in this film which amounts to Ridley's overall direction is very small. It's a film made by individuals; Syd Mead, Vangelis, Rutger Hauer and Jordan Cronenweth. Ridley Scott turned made the film into a complete mess and spent the next 25 years trying to salvage something from the wreckage he made.
symphonask
Member
My perfect movie / greatest movie of all time. I'm afraid to rewatch because I may not like it as much.
Porcile
Member
That's messed up!
AHA-Lambda
Member
Nah, I agree with OP, one of the most overrated movies ever imo.
Blade Runner is a movie with a lot of highs and lows. It has one of the greatest audiovisual designs in film history. Its vision of the future was extremely influential on the cyberpunk genre. It has a measured, contemplative pace, rich in metaphor that is rare in science fiction. The cinematography in some scenes is just fantastic. I can watch the intro sequence with the cityscape fly-over and Holden's interrogation of Leon over and over again. A lot of Roy Batty's dialogue is wonderfully poetic.
However, there are several issues with the second half of the movie that put me off. The shift into horror movie aesthetic when Deckard goes after Priss (involving her bizarre gymnastics-based assault on him) clashes with the rest of the film and is just poorly realized. Deckard's relationship with Rachel has some dark undertones in it that the film does not satisfactorily acknowledge, including a scene where he is practically assaulting her. And although I generally don't want to fault the movie for differing from the book, I think it was a mistake to have the androids be so threatening. One of the stronger elements in the book was Deckard's inner conflict over the morality of his actions and the helplessness of the androids against him. The movie starts to hit this note when he chases down Luna and shoots her in the back, but after that his actions are given a veneer of self defense.
However, there are several issues with the second half of the movie that put me off. The shift into horror movie aesthetic when Deckard goes after Priss (involving her bizarre gymnastics-based assault on him) clashes with the rest of the film and is just poorly realized. Deckard's relationship with Rachel has some dark undertones in it that the film does not satisfactorily acknowledge, including a scene where he is practically assaulting her. And although I generally don't want to fault the movie for differing from the book, I think it was a mistake to have the androids be so threatening. One of the stronger elements in the book was Deckard's inner conflict over the morality of his actions and the helplessness of the androids against him. The movie starts to hit this note when he chases down Luna and shoots her in the back, but after that his actions are given a veneer of self defense.
I just read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep in one sitting last week, loved it so much that I went and borrowed my friend's copy of Blade Runner The Final Cut this past weekend and...yeah, didn't really dig it that much. It all looks and sounds absolutely incredible, and I like the themes and the villain was cool. But everything with characters and plot just felt super thin, and Harrison Ford was bad to the point that it took me out of the atmosphere.
It's still an ok movie, but you should definitely be seeing it for the mood it creates and not the story or characters. Book's def still worth reading though, I absolutely loved it.
It's still an ok movie, but you should definitely be seeing it for the mood it creates and not the story or characters. Book's def still worth reading though, I absolutely loved it.
TheWarrior
Banned
This movie slipped past me somehow in my life, and I'm of an age where I should have seen it. I'm glad I haven't because I just bought the book and plan to read that first.
Vampirolol
Member
Boring movie and boring characters, I still don't get what the story is about and what Deckard did during the entire plot. The worst detective ever?
BUT when we talk about photography, directing and score it's fucking amazing.
BUT when we talk about photography, directing and score it's fucking amazing.
Porcile
Member
The book is good, but it's crazy disjointed and schizophrenic like most of Phillip Dick's work. I'd imagine there are plenty of people out there are who love the film but hate the book and vice versa. Personally, I don't think they're comparable beyond character names and both should be viewed and read as two completely separate things.
I was about to post something very similar, but you said it better than I can. I too read the book recently in a couple of days and was eager to see Blade Runner, but I just could not get into it.
samus i am
Member
Nailed it
I loved the movie, but couldn't stand Harrison Ford. Everyone put in great performances, but he seemed to be in Han Solo mode. It seemed to me like he spends his time in half of the scenes mugging. Also, I loved how he was punch-drunk before Leon even hits him. Grade-A acting there, Mr. Ford.
Beat me to it.
Sectorseven
Member
Which version did you see? The theatrical cut is a lot more didactic, which may offer a better experience for you.
Something that bothers me, Deckard is a replicant, built and designed to hunt other replicants, yet he fumbles about and barely scrapes by throughout the entire movie. Would a flawed replicant be considered more advanced than a replicant that succeeds in most scenarios?
As a hunter, Deckard fucking blew.
As a hunter, Deckard fucking blew.
Askherserenity
Member
OP when I first saw the movie I felt the same as you, I just didn't get it, But, that had more to do with my expectations after hearing the movie hyped so much I was expecting more of an action movie. However, once I started reading some analysis' of the movie and rewatching it again I fell in love with. Blade Runner is a masterpiece and you really need to pay attention to every shot in the movie as the movie is carefully crafted scene by scene to get its theme across, for example the consistent eye motif.
I suggest reading some of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Blade_Runner
I suggest reading some of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Blade_Runner
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
I haven't seen Blade Runner...which version should I watch?
symphonask
Member
Final Cut.
People aren't ragging on the rest of the replicants though.
- Status