Blade Runner APPRECIATION
TheMack
3,414 Posts
watched this on TV today. and i gotts say, visually this is the GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME. this movie is so FUCKIN AWESOME. Sin City kinda gave me the same feeling of being in a totally different world. one of my favorites man 
TAGGED:
Comments
Still kicks the ass of many other sci fi movies.
This movie stems from the same tradition as Sin City - film noir (tech noir in this case). Dark, raining, chiascuro lighting, world in a piss tank, femme fatale...etc. Honestly, I've watched this movie over 200 hundred times and I can't argue with you.
You should read up on this stuff - there's tonnes of info out there.
Which version did you watch? Voice over?
I did my degree in Math/Economics, but my film class homework was done first!
K.
The attention to detal in every sceen is also amazing. Some thing like Star Trek etc are just to sparce. They may have some cool episodes, but you never loose sight of the fact that it's just a show on a set.
The begining of BR when the camera does that pull over shot into the office and there is trash on top of the office and everything.........just crazy!!!!!!! You really believe this is a real "lived in" place.
its also just an outstanding movie. when Harrison ford tells sean young shes a replicant and her mom isnt real, thats an awesome scene
Darryl Hannah's death (replicants as see through/plastic - her diving/dying through glass) is brilliant.
Amongst MANY other things, K.
K.
I disagree (somewhat). Perhaps because it's the version I grew up with, the narration remains endearing.
I liked the gumshoe/noir feel of it and Ford has the perfect voice for it.
Also wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the "narative is for people who can't figure stuff out on their own". The scene at the end with Deckard musing over Rutger Hauer's final moments are among the best written stuff for the screen I've ever seen/heard.
It also pisses me off that WB won't release this version on DVD.
Until then, what we have is only half the film.
I will agree with you that less is more when it came to the ending in the director's cut.
I LOVE how the film ends as soon as the elavator door closes. Beautiful. And the one real improvement IMO.
It doesn't give you that false sense of hope that the OG version had where Deckard and Rachel drive/fly off into the sunset to a better life.
The only time in the entire film where you actually see sunlight btw.
Maybe after another hundred or so views, you'll catch up.
K.
The book is definitely recommended, too, a very interesting read:
don't forget the Vangelis soundtrack.
K.
K.
Don't forget 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Very important for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact it's one of the only sci-fi film to accurately represent the true nature of space...
There is NO SOUND in space, it's a vacuum.
Films like Star Wars really annoy me with that, especially the second one with the 'sonic charges'. Like duuuuuuuuuh....
I guess I should have been a little nicer. I do really like both versions. And like you said the narrative is the version from childhood so I do still watch both versions and totally enjoy them. I feel like it really makes them different. Like you said (and I didn't explain very well) the narrative creates this cool futureistic gumshoe style and I do like that. The directors cut really just pulls you into a headspace where it's mostly about what you see and forces you to think about it instead of haveing it explained...... along with the mood the soundtrack sets.
I guess I just remeber hearing that the directors cut came out cuz Scott was forced to add the narative by the studio who thought that people wouldn't able to follow the story on their own. But what do I know I get my info off the net and Ebert and Roeper!
Plus, dude if you turn the sound off and start Pink Floyd Dark Side of the moon right with the credits it syncs up perfectly with the acid man
Is that just one of those movie myths or was it actually an intentional part of the story? I've heard that before, but I havn't quite figured it all out. Care to elaborate?
Oh, I think that's up there for certain, I just think that if you tally the films(sci-fi or otherwise) that have utilized the whole future-noir idea, Blade Runner may be more specifically influential.
I definitely picked up on that...it's been a couple of years since I've watched that movie but there are specific parts where solid hints are dropped
Since we are getting off on a Sci Fi tangent. I do like the way the new Battlestar Galactica is haveing the fighters use lots of little boster jets to manuver. Most movies/shows act like there is friction in space and you can just have one big jet in the back and stear. That works on Earth cuz your manuvering through a substance....... AIR!
Also I'm waiting for a movie that actually deals with the fact that you can't have explosions in space cuz their isn't any air. I guess you could say that the things that explode have air in them (ships with air for the people), but that would be disappated (SP?) in space so fast you would really see any huge amounts of fire. Even the new Battlestar is skipping that fact.
Those sonic charges were cool, but sound and an explosion??????? At least if one of them had killed Jar Jar.
Good topic for Sci Fi fans. Things in sci fi movies that can't really happen in space????????
In a fairly recent interview, Ridley Scott confirmed it.
The one added scene in the director's cut - the controversial, so-called "dream" sequence with the unicorn - was inserted to raise that very question.
And yeah, Blade Runner's a dope movie. 4 stars in my book. And Phillip K. Dick rules.
Is it the voice of Mr Oragami, near the end: Deckard finds the paper unicorn on the ground, so he knows that Olmos had been to his apartment, but hadn't killed Rachel - Deckard hears Olmos' voice starts to muse about the nature of love, "...but then what is[real]?"
It's more specific in the book - in fact, the book is quite different on a number of levels, but in "Do Androids...", the main character actually takes the test, and the story openly asks the question about who/what is real, incept dates etc.
Very cool read, adds another perspective to the film.