Blade Runner's high praise...where does it come from?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shinobi602

Member
So I've watched bits and pieces of Blade Runner over the last decade, never sitting down to actually watch it in full until last night, finally. And honestly...I thought it was "fine". I don't think I can understand the sentiment I've seen from quite a number of people claiming it as "the best sci-fi film of all time" or something similar.

I really like Harrison Ford as an actor generally but, nothing really stood out to me in the film itself. Props for an incredible setting though. I love cyberpunk and it just oozed of atmosphere. But overall, what exactly are people looking at when they praise it so much?

There weren't really any standout scenes (that I saw anyway), what 'action' there was felt low key and strangely shot, Harrison Ford and Rachel developed a deep relationship seemingly out of nowhere, and just felt like nothing of consequence really happened in the movie. I'm not sure how else to describe it. In the end I just had a "that was it?" feeling. Guide me GAF.
 
shinobi602 said:
In the end I just had a "that was it?" feeling. Guide me GAF.
Click to expand...

Watch it again.

Then watch it a third time.

Hopefully somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd viewing, what it's actually doing will start to work on you, as opposed to what you think it's supposed to be doing.

edit: And it doesn't really matter what cut he watched. The voiceover doesn't make enough of a difference to cause the overall quality of the movie to suffer. The theatrical version is the one that caused the thing to become a critically acclaimed cult success post-release, anyway. The idea there's a "wrong" version doesn't make any sense to me. The "wrong" version is the one that built the fanbase and garnered a decade of brilliant word of mouth. The "right" version is the one where the director proved he didn't quite understand what his fucking movie was doing, either.

(workprint cut is best cut)
 
You're coming into it now after its influenced film for decades. You don't have the context of what is was like when it first premiered-the look of the film was revolutionary.
 
We need to first establish whether you watched the original cut or the Director's cut.

If it's the former, kill it with fire.

If it's the latter, I feel sad that it doesn't evoke in you what it evokes in me.

It's a stunning piece of film on visual, sonic, emotional and philosophical levels.

Futurology meets detective noir... nothing like it before or since.
 
Watch the ultimate edition. Brilliant film. Absolutely BRILLIANT. You probably watched the wrong version, best correct that mistake if you want to make a topic about the film.
 
FanFicFan said:
Watch the ultimate edition. Brilliant film. Absolutely BRILLIANT. You probably watched the wrong version, best correct that mistake if you want to make a topic about the film.
Click to expand...

Oh God yes-that's right.

"My name's Deckard. I'm a Blade Runner!"

*___*
 
shinobi602 said:
I believe it was the Director's Cut, 1997 version.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

That's one of the good ones.

I remember not being into Blade Runner when I saw the theatrical cut... but I saw the Final Cut in the theatre last year... and holy shit did a 180 on Blade Runner. Good stuff.
 
I love it for its visuals and music.

If I ever think of beautiful movies, Blade Runner is the first one that comes to mind.
 
shinobi602 said:
I believe it was the Director's Cut, 1997 version.
Click to expand...

You're fine.

There are tons of essays about why the film works thematically, as well as essays/reviews that highlight how influential the look of the film was. You seem to realize that the film is super-influential and highly regarded already. That didn't happen because of mass delusion, I don't think.

UltimaPooh said:
I remember not being into Blade Runner when I saw the theatrical cut... but I saw the Final Cut in the theatre last year... and holy shit did a 180 on Blade Runner. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet you would have done a 180 if you'd watched any of the cuts again, even the theatrical. As Bork pointed out - a lot of people don't start to come around on its particular charms until that second viewing. I know that was the case with me, too.
 
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of noir. You talk like you thought that sci-fi meant bombastic spectacle. Blade Runner is brilliantly pure atmospheric, meditative, brooding science fiction. It's my top pick among science fiction film.

tumblr_m065m5BW3S1qghl49o1_r1_500.gif

Blade%2BRunner%2B(1982).gif

Rachael-blade-runner-30869994-500-206.gif
 
DOWN said:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of noir. You talk like you thought that sci-fi meant bombastic spectacle. Blade Runner is brilliantly pure atmospheric, meditative, brooding science fiction. It's my top pick among science fiction film.
Click to expand...

Mine too. It uses science fiction ideas - in this case, replicants - to meditate on what it means to be human. It does this within a fantastically shot and beautifully atmospheric film.
 
I loved it when I first watched it as a teenager, I thought it was deep and meaningful.
Rewatched it a few years ago when they re-released it in 70mm, and while it still looked gorgeous (more then even in that version) I thought the plot wasn't all that great and while it certainly sounded self important at times, for me it didn't have anything particularly interesting to say.

I also don't think there's a huge difference in quality between the theatrical and director's cut, I think the narration was mostly fine and worked well with the film noir film (the one obvious exception is the tears in the tears in the rain scene which the narration kinda fucks with, but I don't think it's as good of a scene as people make it out to be).
And I don't think either ending is all that great to be honest.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
You're fine.
I'm willing to bet you would have done a 180 if you'd watched any of the cuts again, even the theatrical. As Bork pointed out - a lot of people don't start to come around on its particular charms until that second viewing. I know that was the case with me, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see that. That happens to me with a lot of movies... even ones I love right off.

There was a significant gap inbetween the viewings and the second one was in an actual theatre...

I don't remember much about the theatrical soundtrack but the Final Cut is the shiz.... it also seemed better paced. I would say that should be the version that everyone sees the first time now that it exists.
 
DOWN said:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of noir. You talk like you thought that sci-fi meant bombastic spectacle. Blade Runner is brilliantly pure atmospheric, meditative, brooding science fiction. It's my top pick among science fiction film.
Click to expand...
Not at all, I think it can be whatever it wants to be. I understand that a person can like the movie, but I don't understand the extent of the praise that some place on it, like you said for example, it's your top pick. Is atmosphere/setting all it takes to grab that top spot for you?

Chichikov said:
Rewatched it a few years ago when they re-released it in 70mm, and while it still looked gorgeous (more then even in that version) I thought the plot wasn't all that great and while it certainly sounded self important at times, for me it didn't have anything particularly interesting to say.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much exactly how I felt at the end of it.
 
shinobi602 said:
So I've watched bits and pieces of Blade Runner over the last decade, never sitting down to actually watch it in full until last night, finally. And honestly...I thought it was "fine". I don't think I can understand the sentiment I've seen from quite a number of people claiming it as "the best sci-fi film of all time" or something similar.

I really like Harrison Ford as an actor generally but, nothing really stood out to me in the film itself. Props for an incredible setting though. I love cyberpunk and it just oozed of atmosphere. But overall, what exactly are people looking at when they praise it so much?

There weren't really any standout scenes (that I saw anyway), what 'action' there was felt low key and strangely shot, Harrison Ford and Rachel developed a deep relationship seemingly out of nowhere, and just felt like nothing of consequence really happened in the movie. I'm not sure how else to describe it. In the end I just had a "that was it?" feeling. Guide me GAF.
Click to expand...
That's because you have to put it in context of time. Back when it was released it was mindblow, in every possible way. It has influenced so many movies and video games since, that at this stage there was nothing new for you to see there.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
Watch it again.

Then watch it a third time.

Hopefully somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd viewing, what it's actually doing will start to work on you, as opposed to what you think it's supposed to be doing.

edit: And it doesn't really matter what cut he watched. The voiceover doesn't make enough of a difference to cause the overall quality of the movie to suffer. The theatrical version is the one that caused the thing to become a critically acclaimed cult success post-release, anyway.
Click to expand...

The voiceover isn't necessarily a big issue (many people prefer that cut). Colour timing, reshot scene and alternate edits make the Final Cut a more modern feeling and lesser film. It just brings it closer in line with the kind of work Ridley is currently doing, and that's not a good thing.
 
shinobi602 said:
Not at all, I think it can be whatever it wants to be. I understand that a person can like the movie, but I don't understand the extent of the praise that some place on it, like you said for example, it's your top pick. Is atmosphere/setting all it takes to grab that top spot for you?
Click to expand...

I think beyond being top notch style and atmosphere, Blade Runner carries a haunting theme throughout the film regarding the meaning and value of life and what exactly is being human.
 
d9b said:
That's because you have to put it in context of time. Back when it was released it was mindblow, in every possible way. It has influenced so many movies and video games since, that at this stage there was nothing new for you to see there.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this argument, name 3 sci fi movies post Blade Runner that went beyond what Scott accomplished.

Blade Runner, the final cut Blade Runner, is one of the sharpest modern films around. It's gorgeous, it's engaging, it's so unique and unlike anything I've ever experienced and the fact that it is considered a mainstream movie is a true blessing to the artform.
 
shinobi602 said:
Props for an incredible setting though. I love cyberpunk and it just oozed of atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this right here. It's a gorgeous movie, and people hadn't really seen anything like it before 1982. It's got roots in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" in that the main character of the movie isn't Deckard or Rachael or Roy Batty, but rather the city itself. The characters and their situations are entirely determined by the world, and it's a theme that is pointed to several times over the course of the story, that the Replicants, despite being literal slaves, experience more freedom and beauty off-world than humans do in their self-constructed prison on Earth. And of course it ends with Deckard and Rachael escaping the city to somewhere they may finally have the ability to live their own lives.
 
PSA: Always watch theatrical or director's cut before watching Final Cut. Final Cut messes with the message and isn't quite on point with the actual film as it is famous for. Harrison Ford and one of the screenwriters disagree with the changes to the message in the Final Cut.
 
shinobi602 said:
I don't understand the extent of the praise that some place on it, like you said for example, it's your top pick. Is atmosphere/setting all it takes to grab that top spot for you?
Click to expand...

Now, wait: Are you asking for people to attempt to talk you into holding an opinion you don't have yet, or are you asking people to explain to you why they have the opinion you don't understand holding?

I mean, if you really don't know why people might like it, I suggest reading some essays as to why the film works, and then rewatching the film (any of the cuts, honestly) and seeing if you can see the things they mentioned in the film. You might still disagree with the opinions they arrived at, but at least then you know what people were looking at, and why they were looking there.

But I really think this is a movie you gotta give a week at least (probably a little longer) and then give it another run.
 
Plot is a bit thin, but there is enough complexity in the characters to keep it interesting and memorable. I feel like the movie could have easily made Deckard out to be a hero, taking down the evil replicants. But it doesn't really go for that in the end. I didn't feel happy or relieved when Deckard gunned down the one female replicant, or when Roy has his final moments. I think it's a pretty great feat to make me actually feel sympathy for the main 'villain' by the end of it.
The movie obviously shines the most in terms of visuals and atmosphere. For the time it was made it's pretty astounding, and it still holds up well today. They really just nailed the look.
Rutger Hauer also delivered an incredible performance.
 
FanFicFan said:
I don't buy this argument, name 3 sci fi movies post Blade Runner that went beyond what Scott accomplished.
Click to expand...

1. The Matrix Trilogy
2. Sunshine
3. Cloud Atlas

Not that I hate Blade Runner but world building and stories about the human condition in sci-fi didn't stop there.
 
Blade Runner's main contribution to cultural importance is in how it defined cyberpunk art direction. The specific look it gave the future to fit the noir tone of the story is extremely iconic. As a film, it's pretty good as far as scifi noir goes, given that there isn't a ton of serious competition in that sub-genre, but it's probably not truly groundbreaking. I think the casting is great, it was well directed, and Rutger Hauer was fantastic in it, even better than Ford. Overall it's not so much a "best movie of all time" thing rather than an enjoyable well made film with art direction which changed how people thought about cyberpunk visually, especially in film.
 
d9b said:
That's because you have to put it in context of time. Back when it was released it was mindblow, in every possible way. It has influenced so many movies and video games since, that at this stage there was nothing new for you to see there.
Click to expand...

MGrant said:
Pretty much this right here. It's a gorgeous movie, and people hadn't really seen anything like it before 1982. It's got roots in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" in that the main character of the movie isn't Deckard or Rachael or Roy Batty, but rather the city itself. The characters and their situations are entirely determined by the world, and it's a theme that is pointed to several times over the course of the story, that the Replicants, despite being literal slaves, experience more freedom and beauty off-world than humans do in their self-constructed prison on Earth. And of course it ends with Deckard and Rachael escaping the city to somewhere they may finally have the ability to live their own lives.
Click to expand...

Do recall that the movie became a hit moreso after years on the market, particularly as a later VHS and early DVD. It had more mixed response during its theatrical run, but many changed tune over time. Many have pondered if WATCHMEN would have similar fate upon its release.
 
Chichikov said:
for me it didn't have anything particularly interesting to say.
Click to expand...

I think the poster who described the film as "meditative" was spot on. The film doesn't necessary try to "say" anything, it "evokes".

And that's a massive part of its charm. It doesn't spoon feed.
 
DOWN said:
Many have pondered if WATCHMEN would have similar fate upon its release.
Click to expand...

I've seen people warm up to that movie more as time's gone on (especially since superhero films have become the juggernaut they are now), but I don't think Watchmen is ever going to end up making a similar-sized leap in critical reception over time.

Zack Snyder being generally seen as an inarticulate meathead doesn't help, either.
 
Screaming Meat said:
I find the VO detracts from the atmosphere. I think it's both poorly written and poorly delivered.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's all that good. Just that it's not bad enough to seriously detract from the film's quality. At worst, it's mildly annoying. It goes away in the Director's Cut and Final Cut - but is replaced with other annoying things.
 
It's the atmosphere. The visuals and audio just suck me in to that world like nothing else. A true masterpiece that is more than the sum of its parts.

Edit: and like others I enjoyed it much more the second time round, and more again every time I see it. It's the rare type of movie that gets better each time you see it, and you notice details you didn't notice the previous time.
 
plasmawave said:
I don't care much for the story TBH but those visuals...
I like the Space Odyssey for the same reason.
Click to expand...
To me what separates 2001: A Space Odyssey from Blade Runner (Final Cut) is the story (90%) and the visuals (10%). The story of 2001 is one I appreciate on multiple levels: I liked it (overall) when I watched it, I liked it more when I read about it, I liked it even more when rewatching it. Visually, I think it has a slight edge over Blade Runner. Think of the stark blacks of the monolith, the various times all the celestial bodies line up. The silence of space as
everything goes wrong on a spaceship - a body spins forever into nothingness
. The saturated reds in
the shutdown of HAL
. The fucking terrifying
close-ups of Dave's face as he is abducted in the final act
.

With Blade Runner, even when I read about it and read fan-theories, I'm left appreciating it from a distance. There's a lot of sci-fi about the meaning of humanity, and this one in particular has a fairly weak story. To me, having the draw of the story be
that the main character is fairly emotionless
is less of a grand statement than it is a convenient trick. I adore the monolog
"tears in the rain"
but outside of that I don't think there's enough going on to sustain an entire movie. The first Terminator is much more entertaining.

Visually, I don't love Blade Runner or its copycats like others do. It's cool, but floaty, wet cities can only do so much. I admit that I may be tainted by how many copycats of Blade Runner there are, but really, me disliking the copycats too should mean something.
 
I think for many people, you just had to be there at the right time, before later films in the genre took bits from Blade Runner's design piecemeal and reprocessed the images, the ambiance, the cyberpunk -- perhaps diluting the impact of them, but presented those trappings with more engaging stories or characters. And when people say that the plot is thin and the characters moreso, I can't disagree. But yet, I don't care.

The images, the music, and the ambiance are just dripping out of this film. And I want to bathe in them.

But you have to be ready to only love it on that level alone.
 
FanFicFan said:
That's one opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah... The world is against the sequels.

I think their main problem is they were expecting one thing based on the original... when instead they got something different and more thought provoking than the original.

The whole thing opens up in the sequels that goes beyond... what if the world you're living in is a computer.

But that's neither here nor there in this thread.
 
Screaming Meat said:
I find the VO detracts from the atmosphere. I think it's both poorly written and poorly delivered.
Click to expand...


The poor delivery was intentional. Ford and Scott hated the studio imposed decision to put narration in for the simpletons, and deliberately under-did it hoping it would be cut.
 
d9b said:
That's because you have to put it in context of time. Back when it was released it was mindblow, in every possible way. It has influenced so many movies and video games since, that at this stage there was nothing new for you to see there.
Click to expand...

In context of the time it was widely panned. Blade Runner was considered a failure for the most part until it became a cult hit in the early '90s thanks to screenings of the workprint. The Director's Cut, which is a rush job and far inferior to the Final Cut, was put out as a reaction to that and it became a top rental movie, which resulted in it being one of WB's first DVD releases. It was hugely influential in terms of look and effects, but it performed very poorly at the box office, in part due to stiff competition from E.T. Of the major critics of the time, really only Pauline Kael saw it for what it was and predicted it would stand the test of time.

UltimaPooh said:
Yeah, yeah... The world is against the sequels.

I think their main problem is they were expecting one thing based on the original... when instead they got something different and more thought provoking than the original.

The whole thing opens up in the sequels that goes beyond... what if the world you're living in is a computer.

But that's neither here nor there in this thread.
Click to expand...

It doesn't "open up," it loses the thread and becomes a scattered mess. The Wachowskis clearly didn't understand why the first film worked, as removing the sequels from a believable "real world" Matrix was a horrendous mistake. I can't imagine how anyone finds the sequels "thought provoking." They're empty, brainless films, in tremendous contrast to the still excellent first movie.

And Sunshine? To beat Blade Runner you have to be more than 2/3 of a good movie. I can think of few movies that fumble the ball in the third act harder than Sunshine.

Cloud Atlas I'll kind of give you in terms of being a meditation on something in a similar manner, but I didn't think Cloud Atlas had nearly as much to say about human nature and the human condition as Blade Runner did, especially when you take the two films in context of their times of release. I really like Cloud Atlas, but putting it in the same category as Blade Runner is faintly ridiculous to me. Cloud Atlas is an interesting novelty, while Blade Runner is a milestone in film.
 
Grug said:
The poor delivery was intentional. Ford and Scott hated the studio imposed decision to put narration in for the simpletons, and deliberately under-did it hoping it would be cut.
Click to expand...

This isn't actually true. He's said he wasn't sandbagging it when he went in there.
 
MattKeil said:
In context of the time it was widely panned. Blade Runner was considered a failure for the most part until it became a cult hit in the early '90s thanks to screenings of the workprint. The Director's Cut, which is a rush job and far inferior to the Final Cut, was put out as a reaction to that and it became a top rental movie, which resulted in it being one of WB's first DVD releases. It was hugely influential in terms of look and effects, but it performed very poorly at the box office, in part due to stiff competition from E.T. Of the major critics of the time, really only Pauline Kael saw it for what it was and predicted it would stand the test of time.
Click to expand...

It's sad how confusing this movie is in terms of iterations, but you really need to see the final cut to judge this film's merits. It's far and away superior to dir cut and OG edition.
 
d9b said:
That's because you have to put it in context of time. Back when it was released it was mindblow, in every possible way. It has influenced so many movies and video games since, that at this stage there was nothing new for you to see there.
Click to expand...
It was influential no doubt, but it really didn't blew everyone's mind when it was released.
The initial reception wasn't that great, neither with the audience nor film critics. That is not to say that there weren't people that loved the shit out of that movie when it came out, but thinking of it as an all time great and a timeless classic (which seem to be the popular opinion these days) came later, in a slow burn type of way.

Also, the special effects where nice for time, no doubt about it, but this is not a Jurassic Park type of case where it something people never seen or thought possible, I mean this came after The Empire Strikes Back, people have seen better special effects by that time.
Grug said:
I think the poster who described the film as "meditative" was spot on. The film doesn't necessary try to "say" anything, it "evokes".

And that's a massive part of its charm. It doesn't spoon feed.
Click to expand...
I feel it tried to say something about what it means to be a human, but I think it fails to do it for me, and it failed the same way most science fiction movies that try to do it fail -
They take a human actor playing a robot/Android/AI reading lines written by a human and then ask in super important voice "am I really a human? would a non human do/feel this?" and I'm like, duh, yeah you are. I'm sorry, maybe I'm too cynical for my own good, but I do think that the question of what is artificial intelligence and what might separate such thing from humans is super interesting, but this type of approach doesn't go anywhere. The writer decide if those things are "human", "alive" or "have soul" and then he write them like that, which is fine I guess, if that's not like the point of the movie, but Blade Runner act like it's this super amazing contemplation to what it mean to be a human and I don't get it. This has as much to say on this issue as Short Circuit.
Then again, I also can't understand why I would not be helping the tortoise, so maybe I'm replicant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Where does your nickname come from?
Community  2 3
105
2K
John Bilbo replied
Where did it Go Wrong with KFC?
Opinion  2 3
115
4K
Woggleman replied
  • Locked
Be careful where you get your news from
News 
47
2K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Epstein Files Released! oh wait... where are they?
18
1K
StreetsofBeige replied
Where to shop for used kit cars?
7
552
Crayon replied
Top Bottom