Explain to me the fuss about Blade Runner

[Kris]

I am a really big movie buff. I love movies, and wish to even go to college for film making. I've always heard fantastic reviews for Blade Runner, but when watching it I felt it fell a little flat.

Typically I am not a fan of science fiction movies. Notable exceptions are Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Terminator and Starship Troopers, so that might have a bit to do with it.

The movie ran slow, which normally I am okay with, but it felt pointlessly slow, I am not really sure how to describe it. I thought the special effects, scenery and setting were all amazingly done, but I just don't see the big deal.

I also don't understand where people get the "is he a Replicant?" idea. There was only one thing where the girl asked him if he ever took the test, but to me that seemed more about questioning his morality then asking him if he was human. If someone could help me out here it'd be much appreciated.

[toddpolt]

Honestly?

For one, Blade Runner at the time (and still is) the definitive cinema about the future. That is regarding civilization regarding to people's environment within this "city." Every movie subsequently, even with bigger budgets and better FX have paled and just can't escape being cited as a "Blade Runner wannabe."

Lets put it this way. I asked a friend who saw it back in 1982 and LOVED it. Yeah before the director's cut and Blade Runner becoming an accepted genre masterpiece. I asked him why. His answer? "This was the first sci-fi movie set in a future I remember distinctly looking down, not up like to Outer Space."[/i]

Second, Blade Runner has and always been more of a visceral experience unlike many sci-fi films. I think its interesting you dig 2001 but not Blade Runner. Though to be fair, Ridley Scott aint Stanley Kubrick. Oh no. The visualization and aesthetics tell Blade Runner, not really the script or story or anything like that.

Vangelis' unorthodix electronica/mechanical soundtrack, the FX, the art direction, Scott's infamous background smoke, the classical film noir plot transported to another time another place, good actors where basically the "robots" act more human (compassion and brutality) emotionally than Man. The story isn't necessarily there, but man I'm always surprised to hear folks not moved by Hauer's final moments.

I guess in the end, Blade Runner is like 2001. You might have roughly the same number of people who love and admire the crap out of it, while the rest just shrug, mutter about some whacky folks talking out of their butt, and leave. Yet the fans (vocally at least) won out in the mainstream war. Hell Blade Runner even made the recent AFI's Top 100 movies list. Along with 2001.

Its not everyone's cup of tea, but for those who like it, they really like it. Does that help at all?

[Alucard]

Jan 1, 2010 2:42:31 GMT -5 toddpolt said:

Honestly?

For one, Blade Runner at the time (and still is) the definitive cinema about the future. That is regarding civilization regarding to people's environment within this "city." Every movie subsequently, even with bigger budgets and better FX have paled and just can't escape being cited as a "Blade Runner wannabe."

Lets put it this way. I asked a friend who saw it back in 1982 and LOVED it. Yeah before the director's cut and Blade Runner becoming an accepted genre masterpiece. I asked him why. His answer? "This was the first sci-fi movie set in a future I remember distinctly looking down, not up like to Outer Space."

[/i]

Second, Blade Runner has and always been more of a visceral experience unlike many sci-fi films. I think its interesting you dig 2001 but not Blade Runner. Though to be fair, Ridley Scott aint Stanley Kubrick. Oh no. The visualization and aesthetics tell Blade Runner, not really the script or story or anything like that.

Vangelis' unorthodix electronica/mechanical soundtrack, the FX, the art direction, Scott's infamous background smoke, the classical film noir plot transported to another time another place, good actors where basically the "robots" act more human (compassion and brutality) emotionally than Man. The story isn't necessarily there, but man I'm always surprised to hear folks not moved by Hauer's final moments.

I guess in the end, Blade Runner is like 2001. You might have roughly the same number of people who love and admire the crap out of it, while the rest just shrug, mutter about some whacky folks talking out of their butt, and leave. Yet the fans (vocally at least) won out in the mainstream war. Hell Blade Runner even made the recent AFI's Top 100 movies list. Along with 2001.

Its not everyone's cup of tea, but for those who like it, they really like it. Does that help at all?[/quote]
Wow, you pretty much hit the nail on the head WAY more eloquently than I ever could've put it.

[Kris]

Jan 1, 2010 2:42:31 GMT -5 toddpolt said:

Honestly?

For one, Blade Runner at the time (and still is) the definitive cinema about the future. That is regarding civilization regarding to people's environment within this "city." Every movie subsequently, even with bigger budgets and better FX have paled and just can't escape being cited as a "Blade Runner wannabe."

Lets put it this way. I asked a friend who saw it back in 1982 and LOVED it. Yeah before the director's cut and Blade Runner becoming an accepted genre masterpiece. I asked him why. His answer? "This was the first sci-fi movie set in a future I remember distinctly looking down, not up like to Outer Space."

[/i]

Second, Blade Runner has and always been more of a visceral experience unlike many sci-fi films. I think its interesting you dig 2001 but not Blade Runner. Though to be fair, Ridley Scott aint Stanley Kubrick. Oh no. The visualization and aesthetics tell Blade Runner, not really the script or story or anything like that.

Vangelis' unorthodix electronica/mechanical soundtrack, the FX, the art direction, Scott's infamous background smoke, the classical film noir plot transported to another time another place, good actors where basically the "robots" act more human (compassion and brutality) emotionally than Man. The story isn't necessarily there, but man I'm always surprised to hear folks not moved by Hauer's final moments.

I guess in the end, Blade Runner is like 2001. You might have roughly the same number of people who love and admire the crap out of it, while the rest just shrug, mutter about some whacky folks talking out of their butt, and leave. Yet the fans (vocally at least) won out in the mainstream war. Hell Blade Runner even made the recent AFI's Top 100 movies list. Along with 2001.

Its not everyone's cup of tea, but for those who like it, they really like it. Does that help at all?[/quote]

From what you say it seems like a lot of the fanfare is based on the special effects, setting, etc. I think they are all fabulous, amazingly done FX. The idea is good too, I just don't feel it was carried out in a way to keep me interested.

The first time I watched 2001 I hated it, but then I realized I needed to look at it in a different way, admiring the beauty and incredibly done FX (especially for its time). I also found all of the allegorical and metaphorical bits interesting. I thought the acting and last bit of Roy's death scene to be done very well too. The "tears in rain" quote was fantastic.

The same goes for Blade Runner. I admire the beauty, I find the bits about how the robots are striving to be more human while the actual humans kind of take it for granted to be well done. I don't know, I think it is just the lack of a definitive paced plot.

It is strange because Film Noir is probably my favorite film type, and I definitely saw it in BR. Maybe it was the fact that it seemed like Harrison Ford wasn't in it enough.

Also, I appreciate your reply in trying to help me get this.

[toddpolt]

Jan 1, 2010 3:05:04 GMT -5 Kris said:

From what you say it seems like a lot of the fanfare is based on the special effects, setting, etc. I think they are all fabulous, amazingly done FX. The idea is good too, I just don't feel it was carried out in a way to keep me interested.

What is "interesting" is a subjective thing.

Can you give me this regarding how fascinating the stuff with the villain Rutger Hauer is?

I mean in every other movie, the bad guy wants to destroy/conquer the world, kill people for sport, make money, etc. With Blade Runner, Hauer's robot character certainly does alot of bad things. Kills many folks out of anger and ruthlessness. Certainly that human nerd he hooks up with didn't deserve to die at all. And yet, Hauer just wants to live. That's it, why he does what he does. Survive, not conquer and rule, just life. You can't blame him, even if you don't excuse him.

And yet, look at when Harrison Ford is on the ledge. He's slipping, he's going to fall and die. The "hero" loses, the bad guy will triumph, even if he's soon to croak. Instead Hauer saves Ford as his dying gesture.

Why save the guy who pursued, persecuted, and murdered him and his comrades? Perhaps in spite of his actions, maybe he is the better man after all.

See I loved all that. Powerfully emotional. Simple, not in your face or spoonfeeding you like you're a child or a moron.

Of course that was my reaction. Like tears in the rain.

Jan 1, 2010 3:05:04 GMT -5 Kris said:

The first time I watched 2001 I hated it, but then I realized I needed to look at it in a different way, admiring the beauty and incredibly done FX (especially for its time). I also found all of the allegorical and metaphorical bits interesting.

I think I had the same initial reaction. Its different pacing and tools deployed to tell a story...and well, that again its a visceral experience where the plot is only a prop. Saw is as kid, thought it was pretty boring.

Yet everyone who has seen 2001 (and to an extent, Blade Runner) may or may not like it, but nobody ever forgets it. 2001 stayed on my mind, like that corn in your teeth that your tongue can't dislodge. Finally I got around to rewatching it in high school....and my fragile little mind got shattered like a boombox thrown off the roof.

Jan 1, 2010 3:05:04 GMT -5 Kris said:

The same goes for Blade Runner. I admire the beauty, I find the bits about how the robots are striving to be more human while the actual humans kind of take it for granted to be well done. I don't know, I think it is just the lack of a definitive paced plot.

Yeah the pacing in BR isn't exactly whim wham bang, and I don't nearly watch it as frequently.

Then again, does every movie have to be constantly rewatchable? Not a question at you, just in general to everyone.

Now to be fair mate, you're not alone. I believe it was the Production Manager who worked on BR the "classic," who said as much that he likes it and is proud. But thought the story was too "sterile" and hampers it from greatness.

Jan 1, 2010 3:05:04 GMT -5 Kris said:

It is strange because Film Noir is probably my favorite film type, and I definitely saw it in BR. Maybe it was the fact that it seemed like Harrison Ford wasn't in it enough.

Maybe because in this "film noir" movie, the film noir and characters are a lesser priority to the aesthetics. I think maybe Ridley Scott saw Star Wars and thought that formula where a timeless adventure tale (good guys respect damsel in distress, have an adventure, save the day, hooray!) is transported to FX and imaginative sets of future/space could apply to film noir and work the same.

That's my guess.

Jan 1, 2010 3:05:04 GMT -5 Kris said:

Also, I appreciate your reply in trying to help me get this.

Unlike AICN-type nerds and New York Times-type elitist critics, its silly to enforce rules on which movies one is supposed to love and herald, and not. So yeah I'm glad you liked Blade Runner or found it tolerable at least. Maybe not the "great" its label claims for you, but thats not a bad thing.

Either a picture works for you, or it just doesn't. Maybe even if it does, maybe not as much as said reputation. I mean yeah I consider Citizen Kane to be one of the top American movies ever produced. Top 10, maybe Top 5. But the greatest?* Oh heck no.

Yet at the least, one should try to see that and other such "classics". One must try to respect, or in minimum understand, the origins and evolution of American cinema.

*=That would be The Godfather.

[Deleted]

I really regret watching the move really tired. I thought it was suppose to be an action movie lol. I know for sure I would really love the movie if I was more awake.

[silentrage]

Jan 1, 2010 2:25:35 GMT -5 Kris said:

2001: A Space Odyssey

www.confusedmatthew.com/2001%3A-A-Space-Odyssey.php

[Deleted]

I prefer the book much more, personally.

[Mozenrath]

I prefer the theatrical one. Yes, I actually don't mind the cheesy noir narration. I also think

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}the ending is better with him NOT being a replicant.

[erisi236]

Roy's revelation at the end is one of my favourite things ever put to film.

[Cyno]

I thought it was a fantastic movie. But then, I really dig cyperpunk and Blade Runner is one of THE premiere cyberpunk works.

It also inspired a number of great games like Snatcher, Shadowrun (both PnP and SNES/Genesis video game), Final Fantasy VII, and many others.