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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ya'll jits are crazy.

I saw Blade Runner for the first time in 2009 and the movie holds up- it's great. It's absolutely amazing the film came out in 1982. If you were to give the movie to someone blind and they didn't know any of the actors, I highly doubt they'd guess the movie dropped as early as '82.
 
My favourite movie (hence username). Didn't think much of it first time but as I watched it again and again I fell in love and picked up on alot I missed first time round.

Also film is beautiful, could've literally been made this year it looks that good still.
 
It's noir. It's really more of a mood piece than anything. It's not something that keeps you on the edge of your seat the first time you watch it, it just settles into you over time.
 
I'm always surprised when someone says they didn't like Blade Runner, everyone's entitled to their opinions and all but it's such a damn amazing and beautiful film it always surprises me.
 
An actual ghost can be a bit boring and barely there but it's still more frightening than a roller coaster when you think back on the experience.
 
Window said:
It may have gained cult status but I don't think it had the universal acclaim it has today.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "universal acclaim". It was always been critically acclaimed. I agree, that even today it's a cult classic and not a mainstream one, but praise for the film isn't new. If we're using band metaphors I don't think Queen is the appropriate parallel, but I think possibly the Velvet Underground or Kraftwerk is.
 
genjiZERO said:
That's not true. People have been raving about the film for as long as I can remember and I saw it in the 80s too.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Whenever someone says "oh it was not liked at the time, it was only appreciated much later", it doesn't mean it was missing in adoration completely. People liked 2001 back in the 60s. It's just those people passed on the adoration to others with time. If it stands out from from other works of the time and of now, it will still be appreciated.

Expectations of Harrison Ford having been in action movies and Blade Runner coming after Alien for Ridley Scott went away. People weren't expecting a dreamy noir right after, must have thrown them off but as time went on they might have rewatched and had newfound appreciation.

I didn't fully appreciate 2001 until I understood the importance of cinematography and themes and grown to appreciate slow cinema. Back when I first watched it, I must have been more interested in plot and not interested in trying to figure things out for myself.
 
I thoroughly enjoy Blade Runner. Though admittedly the first few times through it was mostly the soundtrack keeping my interest, the film itself didn't click until a couple of views.

That flyover scene with the Tyrell building....beautiful stuff. Sci-fi done right.
 
Blade_Runner_unicorn.png


It has a subtle brilliance to it.
 
Art direction, cinematography, and atmosphere. Basically, a cool and iconic vision of the future. One of the most if not the most influential science fiction film ever made. It single-handedly established what cyberpunk should look like.

The movie's really not that great outside of that (except for Vangelis' classic score), but what it does well is done so fucking well it elevates the entire thing.
 
genjiZERO said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "universal acclaim". It was always been critically acclaimed. I agree, that even today it's a cult classic and not a mainstream one, but praise for the film isn't new. If we're using band metaphors I don't think Queen is the appropriate parallel, but I think possibly the Velvet Underground or Kraftwerk is.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a cult classic today at all. It often polls high in greatest films of all time surveys from audiences and critics alike. It's about as mainstream as 2001 is. I may be wrong but from what I understand, the film did not have a critical consensus of being a good film let alone great that it does today, few praises about its visuals not-withstanding but I may be wrong about its reception at the time. I'm only going off from what I have read.

Messofanego said:
Yeah. Whenever someone says "oh it was not liked at the time, it was only appreciated much later", it doesn't mean it was missing in adoration completely. People liked 2001 back in the 60s. It's just those people passed on the adoration to others with time. If it stands out from from other works of the time and of now, it will still be appreciated.
Click to expand...

I certainly wasn't saying nobody liked it or appreciated parts of it but that the consensus was not clear cut and I imagine that's what people mean when they refer to lack of appreciation for other films at their initial release as well.
 
I only learned to appreciate Blade Runner once someone explained to me the themes and meanings of the film. After that it was like something switched on.
 
Messofanego said:
Do you love Stalker, Ghost In The Shell, 2001, The Fountain, Altered States, Primer, Solaris, Videodrome, Moon, Ex Machina, Gattaca, Brazil, A Scanner Darkly, Animatrix? Slower paced, slightly arthouse fare?

Cause there's different kinds of styles strived for in sci-fi.
Click to expand...
The better question is what do you think of film noir and films influenced by it? The Maltese Falcon, the Big Sleep, Chinatown, Taxi Driver?
 
Gnome Scat said:
Blade_Runner_unicorn.png


It has a subtle brilliance to it.
Click to expand...

Except the unicorn is only relevant for 2 of the 5 versions. And as an aside, it's not that big of a twist anyway.

I've watched Blade Runner a lot, including all the versions, and I think it's a slick dystopian look at the future, but I felt Alien was more experimental, more stylized, and the better Ridley Scott film. Blade Runner has its moments, but it's also a snooze fest. The script is too minimalistic (to its doom) and
the music isn't as awesome as some people will lead us to believe...

Sign me up as part of the camp that thinks it's overrated.
 
I think a lot of it comes from it being many people's first (and for some, only) exposure to a cyberpunk film.

For me personally, it's definitely a landmark, but not in my top 5 of best cyberpunk movies. Part of problem might be b/c so many stories in other medium have specifically copied Blade Runner's take on cyberpunk, to the point of over-saturation. And a lot of them don't quite nail it right, though you have obvious great homages like Snatcher.

Messofanego said:
Do you love Stalker, Ghost In The Shell, 2001, The Fountain, Altered States, Primer, Solaris, Videodrome, Moon, Ex Machina, Gattaca, Brazil, A Scanner Darkly, Animatrix? Slower paced, slightly arthouse fare?

Cause there's different kinds of styles strived for in sci-fi.
Click to expand...

I also wouldn't consider a lot of those films in the same hard style as Blade Runner. Yes they touch on a common thread of how technology can be subversive regards its effects on the human body and consciousness, but someone who only likes Blade Runner for the cyberpunk atmosphere and music isn't going to get a kick out of most of those films, especially considering some of them (like Stalker, GiTS and Altered States) are even more philosophical and dense than Blade Runner.

GiTS is probably the closest to Blade Runner on that list.
 
UltimaPooh said:
First of all...

Which cut did you watch?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter. Everyone who loves the movie fell in love with it long before the director's/final cut. Not to say those aren't amazing versions of the movie, but honestly, if you didn't like the original cut, you're not going to like the other versions.

I don't mind the voice over and I think that's the best version to watch for your first time to keep up with the story

Subsequent viewings are all about chewing over context, anyway. The content of the dialogue almost doesn't even matter.
 
How old are you? It's like Star Wars, it's virtually impossible to go into these movies now because so much that came after was influenced by them. In a sense, you've been watching different takes on Blade Runner for decades, and the material feels less because of it.

Maybe that's actually the best way to judge something, wait until the sheen wears off and see if the fundamentals still look good once you're sick of everything else about it. I don't really know. There's little doubt what was new about the film was better than its fundamentals, but it was a character piece and I still think a good one, so I'm able to excuse certain elements.
 
genjiZERO said:
That's not true. People have been raving about the film for as long as I can remember and I saw it in the 80s too.
Click to expand...
Some people did, but it did pretty poorly at the box office, didn't get great reviews and didn't win any major awards.
At most it was a cult hit.

The film is held at much higher regard these days than when it was released.
Ignatz Mouse said:
Actually, I think that did happen. Not from an effects perception, but from a production design perspective. I was raved about from day one for being one of the most immersive SF movies.
Click to expand...
I meant in terms of special effects, like when Avatar or Jurassic Park came out people were like "holy shit, I didn't know you can do it". Regardless of how you feel about those films, that sense of wonder and awe is mostly lost on contemporary viewers, I don't think that's the case with Blade Runner.

And yeah, even people who didn't like the film always raved about the art design. And without a doubt it ended up being very influential on a whole lot of work across many mediums.
 
Don't worry Shinobi, I felt the same way. Great cinematic/art/visual direction Holds up in a lot of ways (aside from some of the unavoidable tech stuff like monitors and what not), but yeah the story didn't do anything for me. Left that same feeling of "that was it?"

I saw what I believe was either the final or directors cut, not sure (it was a couple of years ago), I remember spending a good hour or two online figuring out which version to see based off recommendations (completely avoided story spoilers).
 
This Film and 2001 blew my mind as an 8 year old. The scenes, as well as cinematography were brilliant. I cannot wait to introduce this film to my daughter.
 
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...

Yeah, I heard that too. I'm not against VOs, especially in Noir, I just find this instance canned laughter levels of off-putting.

BobbyRoberts said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh man, it really does for me. It's so hammy it doesn't fit the atmosphere. I saw it after I'd seen the DC, so that probably has a lot to do with.
 
Dissonance said:
It's almost like the film isn't an action movie.
Click to expand...
Well, I know it's not an action movie, but my point was if you're going to implement action in any form in your movie, at least make it worthwhile. It was a bit boring to me.

genjiZERO said:
The film is smart OP. It creates ambiguity on what it means to be a person. It also does this as a film noir cyber punk. What's most interesting about it is that the robots are biological - something you almost never see in film. Honestly, I can't think of a more modern film that does this better. Ex Machina did it well, but I think Blade Runner is still better because it's ambition.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean here, and I can see that. I think coming out in the 80's and being one of the first to explore that territory might have something to do with it.

God Dayumm said:
I appreciated the movie more for the setting than for the plot. It had good world building, I think
Click to expand...
I agree, as I said in the OP, the setting is definitely incredible. I love cyberpunk in general and this thick as hell with atmosphere. It's just...that's not enough for me to praise a movie that highly. Needs more than that.
onepiecefan said:
I'm always surprised when someone says they didn't like Blade Runner, everyone's entitled to their opinions and all but it's such a damn amazing and beautiful film it always surprises me.
Click to expand...
Heh, I didn't say I didn't like it, in fact I did like it, just seemingly not as much as many others. I wanted to understand different perspectives.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Great art direction.

Mediocre to outright bad story. Not because it's boring, but because it's so thin.

The former is enough for people to excuse or outright deny the latrer.
Click to expand...


What do mean people mean with art direction ?

The costumes ? The world created ? The way scenes were arranged (usage of specific places + layout of objects)

All of these ?

I watched it when It was on TV, but the world created was so immersive. It felt like a video game .
 
Messofanego said:
Yeah. Whenever someone says "oh it was not liked at the time, it was only appreciated much later", it doesn't mean it was missing in adoration completely. People liked 2001 back in the 60s. It's just those people passed on the adoration to others with time. If it stands out from from other works of the time and of now, it will still be appreciated.

Expectations of Harrison Ford having been in action movies and Blade Runner coming after Alien for Ridley Scott went away. People weren't expecting a dreamy noir right after, must have thrown them off but as time went on they might have rewatched and had newfound appreciation.

I didn't fully appreciate 2001 until I understood the importance of cinematography and themes and grown to appreciate slow cinema. Back when I first watched it, I must have been more interested in plot and not interested in trying to figure things out for myself.
Click to expand...

I agree, but what it sounds like he's saying is that people thought Blade Runner was either trash or mediocre at best and that's it's some recent phenomenon to view it as a cinematic masterpiece. This just isn't true though. Maybe more people appreciate it now, but it was always seen as a well-made artistic film.
 
shinobi602 said:
Well, I know it's not an action movie, but my point was if you're going to implement action in any form in your movie, at least make it worthwhile. It was a bit boring to me.

I understand what you mean here, and I can see that. I think coming out in the 80's and being one of the first to explore that territory might have something to do with it.

I agree, as I said in the OP, the setting is definitely incredible. I love cyberpunk in general and this thick as hell with atmosphere. It's just...that's not enough for me to praise a movie that highly. Needs more than that.
Heh, I didn't say I didn't like it, in fact I did like it, just seemingly not as much as many others. I wanted to understand different perspectives.
Click to expand...
The film isn't an action film in any way my man. There is no attempt (nor should there be) to make it exciting or interesting. The film has scenes of violent conflict that are about character and behaviour and nothing else.

Really though thinking again from my original reply as with any film like this I think half the problem is when you choose to watch it and why.

I saw it at release. You can't replicate (sorry!) that context today unless you're genuinely interested in film and have essentially trained yourself to watch an older film and be able to filter out current context and see it both as it was on release and in terms of its influence.

I find most people who come to highly regarded films or books or novels have this issue and always seem a little puzzled it didn't work for them. Obviously a work has to hold up on its own merits (and the film still does IMHO) but when a piece of media has been hugely influential (and Blade Runner has been enormously influential) this becomes challenging as you've essentially seen so many elements already and to and extent the work has been somewhat "spoiled" for you unless you can filter that pre-knowledge out to some extent.
 
EGM1966 said:
I find most people who come to highly regarded films or books or novels have this issue and always seem a little puzzled it didn't work for them. Obviously a work has to hold up on its own merits (and the film still does IMHO) but when a piece of media has been hugely influential (and Blade Runner has been enormously influential) this becomes challenging as you've essentially seen so many elements already and to and extent the work has been somewhat "spoiled" for you unless you can filter that pre-knowledge out to some extent.
Click to expand...

Totally. Always the case with influential things.
 
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...

I agree with literally everything you wrote.
 
Cormano said:
Which cut is the best one?
Click to expand...
All of them have their merit I think. Really any of them other than the theatrical cut with Harrison's Ford narration will do you just fine.

Seems like I may be in the minority, but I say the final cut is the best one. It cleans up some effects, fixes a few dialogue inconsistencies, erases visible wires on the flying cars, etc. Final cut is overall one of the best looking sci-fi films around imo, even in 2015.
 
I had the exact same reaction as OP when I watched the Final Cut a few years back. I'd say that I tend to agree with the general consensus of what movies are great, but Blade Runner is one of the only ones I can say disappointed me. And I don't even know why that is.

Visually the film is awe-inspiring and the soundtrack is legendary. The movie is made up of brilliant parts that somehow form a lacklustre whole. I mean I can quote Rutger Hauer's death monologue as well as the next fan, but I still find the actual movie boring. And it's not that I dislike slow movies. I watched 2001 for the first time shortly after and loved it. It's just that Blade Runner has so much plodding around for so much of the movie. I could not tell you the chain of events that makes up the plot of the movie. Rutger Hauer wanders around finding his creator, Ford wanders around killing them all, Daryl Hannah hangs out in that dude's apartment. Then all of a sudden Ford's banging the replicant chick out of nowhere. And the twist at the end is in my opinion atrocious. The idea of the replicant hunter being a replicant is clever, but the execution is awful. The only setup is that in one scene Ford dreams of a unicorn. That's it.

I dunno, I want to watch it again at some point because I'm sure I'm missing something. It just didn't work for me, and the huge amount of hype definitely made it worse. I find that this is a common theme with me and Ridley Scott. The only film of his I was actually impressed by was Alien.
 
Can't say I really disagree with the OP. But I was LTTP with this film as well so I fully understand and defer to the "you had to have been there" arguments.

It's a beautiful movie though. I mean, all of Ridley Scott's movies have impeccable cinematography. But this movie presents audiences with challenging ideas on humanity and identity and instead of really doing those ideas justice it instead chooses to hide behind a detective story. Which is fine, but I expected more considering the following this film has.

Edward James Olmos was great in this.
 
genjiZERO said:
I agree, but what it sounds like he's saying is that people thought Blade Runner was either trash or mediocre at best and that's it's some recent phenomenon to view it as a cinematic masterpiece. This just isn't true though. Maybe more people appreciate it now, but it was always seen as a well-made artistic film.
Click to expand...

Mainstream audiences just weren't ready for that kind of film at the time, that's all. Lots of good movies, games, you name it - even today - can get released and be underground cult sensations at best for a long while due to mainstream audiences at the time of their release not quite embracing of what those works have to offer.

Over time later generations, who may make up a larger segment of the mainstream, dive back and see that these works that were written off before were actually pretty good, and give them new presence.

You're seeing that right now with System Shock's re-release. I gotta get that today now that I think about it.
 
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