Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

Blade Runner review

Posted : 1 month ago on 26 March 2024 09:24

Mucho de lo que habla esta película ha sido referenciado, estudiado, criticado, tomado de inspiración y releído una y otra vez en la cultura popular a tal punto que difícilmente escuchás sobre ella sin al menos un parrafito dedicado en donde hasta el reseñador más mainstream va a utilizar palabras que te lo harían ver como un intento de académico totalmente superdotado, y así y todo ni siquiera se estaría abarcando el absoluto de lo que compone a Blade Runner, así como tampoco se estaría hablando del material de origen de la mayoría de sus planteamientos si somos sinceros.


Siendo considerado el padre de las distopías cyberpunk y todo un ejemplo tanto desde lo estético como desde lo temático, con lo que es gracioso pensar en que casi por no decir ninguna de sus sucesoras ha logrado equiparársele. Hay que entender que para los 80’s todavía se mantenía el asombro y la incertidumbre por los avances tecnológicos a pasos agigantados, pero difícilmente se encontraba una óptica más pesimista y que en resumen abogara por un hipotético escenario más siniestro y en donde este juego de llegar a ser ‘’dioses’’ hasta cierto punto pueda irse de las manos. Por eso Blade Runner impactó tanto y generó tanto atractivo tanto en audiencia general como en escritores o filósofos, porque toma todas estas críticas a las sociedades industriales, la paranoia con depender de nuestras propias creaciones y el sentirnos intimidados por dejar de comprender lo que nosotros mismos hacemos o dejamos de hacer y las junta en una sola trama. Se explora mucho esta disociación de la realidad causada por la artificiación y el predominio de una hipotética tecnocracia en un mundo todavía desconocido, no tanto este pánico de los boomers de volvernos cada vez más dependientes de las creaciones del hombre, dándole a lo científico un estatus casi ilusorio sino más bien la genuina pregunta de cuándo es que hay que parar o en dónde están nuestros límites los cuales de ser pasados por alto ya sería subestimar nuestros problemas como especie.


Deckard por ejemplo es en sí mismo una muestra de todo lo anterior, es un agente que ya se siente distanciado de la sociedad en la que se crió ya que el ‘’avance’’ desmedido y el ecocidio desgarrador terminaron forjando una estética casi terrorífica en la que ya casi ni se ve la luz del día, en donde las ganas de vivir son remplazadas por las ganas de buscar una razón para seguir que no sea el trabajo del día a día, ya que las calles sobrepobladas y el aspecto tan tecnológicamente anómalo de los locales y transportes desemboca en un ambiente viciado. A esto viene lo que los años en su trabajo han vuelto al hombre, el cómo dedicarse a perseguir y asesinar personas que superficialmente parecen seres que sienten, lucen y razonan igual que él le ha afectado y hacerlo cuestionarse de su propio trabajo al que ahora debe volver, y en plena crisis suya es donde se desarrolla la historia. De todas formas no es que sea un pozo de devastación, al sujeto se le ve siendo sarcástico en muchas ocasiones y se le nota un cierto sentido del humor, hasta pese a su mencionado desencanto con lo que le ha dejado su labor parece saber llevar las situaciones con la mayor fuerza solidaria posible, incluso si no luce tan animoso o encendido en muchos momentos, pero tras esto ya propondré algo.


Como se mencionó los replicantes sostienen muchas cualidades inconfundibles con las de un ser humano: odiar, soñar, recordar, amar, temer, y es constantemente planteada esta idea de si deben ser puestas sus consideraciones a la par de las nuestras. Esto último claramente se contrarresta en la película, pero no por eso se saca de papel a los replicantes ya que si bien tienen en principio la tacha de amenaza está constantemente la duda de en qué dejan de ser humanos y en qué punto pueden hasta ser mucho más cercanos a nosotros de lo que se cree. Y acá entra Rachel, quien al conocer a Deckard se entera de lo que realmente sucede con las memorias implantadas a los replicantes y se le hace replantearse toda su existencia hasta ese momento, y cómo no fue más que una herramienta y una imitación hasta ese entonces recobrando ese vacío de no tener nada conseguido o por lo que luchar hasta el momento, lo cual con el conocimiento de su corta existencia agrava más la crisis interna de su personaje.


Al final a Deckard le gana la empatía y se la lleva con él, pero no porque Rachel le haya llorado lo suficiente sino por el vacío que él mismo llega a sentir al cuestionarse exactamente lo mismo, la sola idea de ser alguien quien no sos pero haber sido lo suficientemente convencido de sí serlo por esta realidad retorcida que termina desorientándote entre tanto que el funcionamiento de las cosas han cambiado es algo escalofriante, pero es algo en lo que podés terminar una vez llegás al punto de considerar qué hiciste exactamente en tu vida que te hace sentir orgulloso o qué en uno mismo lo hace sentir completo. A eso se va cuando se dice que Deckard en realidad pudo ser uno de los replicantes, no al misterio genuino de si lo era o no, sino a qué tanto renunció una vez se llevó a la chica consigo, si a todo lo que lo hizo valerse de ‘’algo’’ en su vida o a una mentira de la que debió exigir explicaciones en su momento como lo hizo Roy con su creador, cual hombre exigiéndole a Dios un propósito.


Volviendo con Rachel, sí, es con ella que se da el punto clave de que todo tu pasado y por ende lo que te define puede ser una ilusión que no te deja avanzar por vos mismo, pero no únicamente esto se trata con ella; su poca actividad en la trama tal vez sea un punto a criticar, pero prefiero verlo más como una consecuencia de la especie de terapia de shock a la que es sometida en la película, y esto también se abarca, el adentramiento en el saber de la verdad, el despojo de la inocencia y acarrear las consecuencias de entrar en verdadera libertad habiendo sido víctima de quizás un arrebatamiento de felicidad o conformidad, planteándose la cuestión de hasta qué punto tener en mesa todas estas consideraciones es algo positivo para uno si es que este sabrá acarrearlas y saber dejar de ser una herramienta simplemente. En la feminidad de la pobre Rachel es donde se encuentra su estado de delicadeza, y en el que su fragilidad le ha jugado en contra en medio de este baldazo de agua fría, terminando por ser Deckard quien trataría de preservarla aún cuando no hubo una conclusión personal en ella misma con todo lo que se le ha ensimismado.


En el trabajo de los blade runners no está únicamente el desinterés por la vida en la sociedad, ya que se nota en sí mismo una falta de rasgos sensibles identitarios a esta cultura, el mismo plot-point de que los replicantes son difíciles de diferenciar y requieren de un test para ser confirmados como tales no solo viene a cuento de la época en la que se está, sino en la misma sociedad que ante la indiferencia y la monotonía que ha generado el alcance tecnológico y sobreindustrializado se ha vuelto cada vez más irreconocible como humana, acercando cada vez más los hombres a las máquinas y las máquinas a los hombres. Obviamente se sabe en dónde está el límite, no es una película tan críptica a la hora de resolver estas incógnitas, y el dilema de si los replicantes merecen convivir con nosotros se responde solo: el mundo no está hecho para que seres que aún no tienen dirección fija y seres que han llegado a entender de dónde provienen sus inconvenientes coexistan, pero es la desensibilización, la desvirtuación del propósito y la uniformidad lo que nos acerca cada vez más a pertenecer al primer grupo.


Con esto es que se llega a Roy, que lejos de ser un villano convencional es más una víctima de las circunstancias, y que dentro de su pensamiento se le hace incomprensible que su creador no tenga la respuesta a sus plegarias no por un derecho a vivir más como cualquier humano sino por el saber qué razón hubo de ser creado como fue creado, ya que si bien sabemos cómo es que se compensa las capacidades sobrehumanas de los replicantes haciéndolos vivir apenas unos años, no hay una certeza en porqué fueron traídos al mundo, y esta escena del mismo Roy exigiéndole más de lo que ya tiene al hombre que le dio vida sin tener respuesta es un rompimiento de terror en el personaje y el paralelo directo con el hombre frustrándose por tener que encontrar su motivo en la vida por sus propios medios sin que un dios los comande en todo lo que haga a pesar de ser él quien lo trajo, siendo el momento del asesinato una representación de la mente corrompiéndose en el pesimismo de no obtener soluciones concretas, y haber matado a este ser creador en un afán egoísta de no saber cómo afrontar la propia naturaleza con la que uno vino a esta vida. Y si me gusta tanto su cierre es porque finalmente el comprender esto lo hizo llegar a la conclusión de que como lágrimas en la lluvia, la vida se esfuma no en la muerte, sino en el olvido y en el paso del tiempo, cosa que hace que no solo termine valorando a esta como el instante que es sino que terminando por comprender que al final lo que sea que se haga concluirá en morir con el olvido, dejando vivo a Deckard como un acto de piedad por entender esto mismo, sí, pero también como una especie de burla a que incluso cumpliendo este el cometido de acabar con los replicantes (no lo hizo) sus recuerdos y vivencias acabarán enterradas en el tiempo.


A la pregunta de qué diferencia a un humano de una inteligencia artificial quizás no se le da muchas vueltas pero la conclusión es tajante y es que la certeza de nuestra existencia es al final lo que vale, mientras nuestros propósitos y vivencias sean aprovechados y tenidos en cuenta para hacer algo de nosotros mismos nuestras vidas valdrán lo que tengan que valer, pero sin nada de esto nada de lo que experimentemos, sea real o implantado, tendrá algo de provecho y acabaremos siendo las víctimas más patéticas del paso de los años, algo que estas imitaciones vistas en la película no fueron capaces de completar al solo buscar más vida sin un punto como tal hasta el final en donde Roy abandona su desesperación al caer en que murió buscando su propósito, y por eso la esperanza viene con el último acto de Deckard, yendo en contra de lo establecido para él y por su propia voluntad ayudando a Rachel realizando un acto de humanidad que, en este contexto, le da algo de propósito y sentido contrario a la mentalidad estándar, incluso si puede estar equivocado en su solidaridad. De igual manera nada es tan importante como el constante tema de la identidad, y el saber de dónde puede venir esta en un ser cuyo pensar es compuesto por algoritmos o programaciones para servir de herramienta, cosa que va a la par con lo primero que mencioné sobre los propósitos: ¿de dónde sacaríamos uno si tenemos algo como la identidad en duda? ¿De qué manera estos seres van a saberlo si en sí mismo se sienten incómodos con la razón principal de su creación la cual fue servir a los humanos? No nos olvidemos de que la identidad como tal es algo desarrollado y concebido por los mismos humanos, y que por consiguiente los replicantes al solo tener recuerdos ajenos sus identidades son una imitación. Por último también está la idea de si realmente se salieron del algoritmo o nosotros mismos nos buscamos el mal causado por nuestra creación, lo cual es lo más lógico; de esta manera se termina por afirmar la postura de la película sobre el tema, dando a entender que si bien es algo discutible, está claro que bajo ningún término se debe de equiparar la vida artificial con la orgánica, y que un compadecimiento solo puede surgir de una óptica superficial entendible desde el mismo drama humano que nos vuelve solidarios, con seres que precisamente son capaces de engañarnos al aparentar tener nuestra misma sensibilidad.


Ahora bien, sabemos que el escenario está lleno de insinuaciones socio-políticas e independientemente de quiénes fueron los de la idea en la mayoría de cosas hay acierto. Los tiempos de producción capitalista desmedida de absolutamente todo tienen una clara plasmación acá, hay comercios por todos lados y a la vez mucha indigencia, con planos generales en los sitios más acaudalados para denotar la enorme desigualdad entre estos y los más precarios, siendo representados con planos más cerrados, poblados y agobiantes, la forma de ser mayormente apática de muchos ciudadanos solo vuelve más asqueante la experiencia promedio en las calles, los propósitos maquiavélicos detrás de la creación de seres con tanta consciencia con base en el avance estelar de la necesidad de los humanos de perfeccionarnos y alcanzar un estatus para el que quizás no estamos listos son apuntados desde lo bajo, muchas luces viniendo desde arriba como si monitorearan cada movimiento de los cientos de miles y miles de ciudadanos que caminan por las calles, y no hay mucha motivación para ver esto con buenos ojos siempre que lo veas con la vara del pesimismo desde un inicio; pese a lo fuerte e inundado de miseria que parece este mundo la estética tiene algo que llega a atraer para el espectador promedio, siendo una mezcla de la sensación de impotencia ante un escenario así de decadente y la de querer adentrarte más por la cantidad de cosas que de seguro cambiaron ante la curiosidad. Siempre con la pisada inicial de un avance científico pero no social apuntando a una disparidad civilizatoria, terminando por presentarla con todo el detalle distópico de la construcción de mundo.


Scott te hace entrar en el juego natural de cualquier persona de interesarte por un mundo nuevo con efectos visuales que establecen muy claramente lo que se vive, pero no todo lo que hay; el humo y las luces de neón que emergen entre lo sucio y lo mecanizado juegan, acompañados de un soundtrack que debe ser de los más inmersivos que he escuchado en mi vida, dando un aura tétrica pero intrigante y hasta romántica en cierto sentido, con esos toques relajados pero tan raros y alienígenas al oído que de verdad te hace creer que sería algo que se reproduciría en un escenario como este. La escenografía es un logro tan a favor que podrías estar viendo algo del 2020 y no diferenciarlo mucho a la distancia, salida de una época en donde era mayormente ingeniarse con lo que había y hacerlo parecer adherente. Los actores hacen un gran trabajo aportando a esta misma intriga ya mencionada sobre quién es una máquina y quién es un hombre, teniendo líneas icónicas en el medio dicho sea de paso, y luciendo un vestuario que interpone bien la idea de quién pertenece a qué clase dentro de este mundo y quién está en qué posición de trabajo o alcance.


Es cierto que las ideas propuestas son generalmente eso, propuestas, el desarrollo es más para llegar a una conclusión en lo interno mas no en lo que viene a hecho, quizás por eso a la gente a veces le saca un poco de onda que la acción tenga tan poco lugar y que al final todo quede tan abierto, porque no hay mucha explicación de qué fue exactamente lo que fueron a hacer Rachel y Deckard al huir, de si algo cambió luego de lo que pasó y demás, de nuevo: las reflexiones están más para tomarlas como un impacto en los personajes mas no como un incentivante a algo, y entiendo que en el público que busca emociones más fuertes puede ser algo incómodo toparse únicamente con más preguntas al final.


También es verdad que Deckard, pese a su dichoso porte experimentado, zafa de las difíciles más por haber tenido orto en situaciones específicas al querer aniquilar a los criminales y no tanto por ser justamente un oficial ostentoso, pero esto último lo puedo hasta interpretar como una forma algo singular que tiene la historia de dejarte en claro qué tanta posibilidad hay de que toda esta experiencia también pueda ser parte de un implante al tener en cuenta la posibilidad de que él también sea una máquina. Algo inusual como recurso como dije, pero no lo veo tan fuera de lugar y hasta prefiero verlo mejor así.


Cómo drama detectivesco sí que puede flaquear a un nivel cuestionable, tiene muchas conclusiones que caen por datos que en un inicio no llevan a ninguna parte y forzosamente la trama los hace conectar, la forma en la que encuentra a Zhora es un ejemplo de lo que estoy diciendo: el tipo se toma un Johnny mientras de la nada y gracias a la tecnología de punta le cae el chispazo de que quizás algo tenía que ver el tatuaje de la serpiente con las escamas que habían en la escena, y a partir de ahí su búsqueda va en suponer quiénes la conocen y le pueden decir dónde está, con éxito. Es un nivel algo expuesto de misterio, pero no es como que la cinta profundice en los métodos usuales de los policías en ese entonces, podemos tomarlo de muchas maneras y, aunque sea clave para el avance de la trama, no es que interfiera con los puntos próximos a tratar y concluir más allá de darte a entender que localizar a los replicantes nunca fue una tarea difícil para empezar.


Si vamos a lo concreto, Blade Runner es muy amplia con el concepto a tratar de definirse a uno mismo y creo que al final ese es su foco central, saber cosas como que el mismo Deckard al final no queda con un fin claro en su vida más allá de una mujer que en cualquier momento se le va, que si luego de esto tener que vivir con los miedos de no saber hacia dónde ir termina traduciéndose en vivir en esclavitud como decía Roy y con eso entenderle, entre otras cuestiones, no es más que otra forma de volver más irónica en sí misma a la temática: el caso del pasado constituyendo lo que somos en un todo, la humanidad siendo para sí misma su peor enemigo, el paso del tiempo arrasando con el alma de lo que formamos como sociedad y el error en querer experimentar con imitaciones al ni siquiera estar listos para lo que significa construir nuestros propios afanes y solucionar nuestros propios dilemas, que nos perseguirán, a vos, a mí, a todos, hasta el final de nuestras vidas.


Más allá de impactar lo que impactó en la cultura pop, fue toda una innovación, quizás no en conceptos por separado o idea de ambientación, pero sí en la aplicabilidad de todo en conjunto y con una idea sólida. Fue ese el momento en el que no ibas al cine ‘’a divertirte’’, perfectamente podés pasarla mal consumiendo algo así, pero el valor en retrospectiva es lo que vale, y muy seguramente esta sea la número 1 en esta vanguardia. Son demasiados temas para lo que es una trama tan fácil de encontrar en el sci-fi, que sin duda alguna componen lo que seguirá siendo por décadas y quién sabe si siglos uno de los más grandes de todos.



9/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

One of Ridley Scott's best

Posted : 1 year, 8 months ago on 16 August 2022 06:58

Blade Runner is quite simply wonderful, and not only is it one of Ridley Scott's best films, but also one of the best of the genre. For one thing, the visuals are superb. Not just in the special effects which are just mind-blowing but also in the cinematography, colours and sets. Another strong asset is the score, in fact Blade Runner is easily one of Vangelis's best by how mysterious and haunting it all is.

The story is just great. True, it is the sort of film you need to see more than once to understand/appreciate it, but that is not a flaw in any way, quite the contrary. The story is very compelling, and also very deep thematically. Blade Runner is further advantaged by memorable dialogue, superb direction by Scott and good pacing. I can understand why some are underwhelmed by the ending, I was at first, but the more I saw the film the more the ending made sense to me. Finally the performances. Harrison Ford is perfectly cast, and Sean Young supports him admirably, but the real star of the cast is Rutgar Hauer who is outstanding in his role.

In conclusion, a brilliant film and something Scott should be proud of. 10/10 Bethany Cox


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Blade Runner review

Posted : 5 years ago on 30 March 2019 08:36

Puedo entender y respetar lo influyente que fue esta cinta para el género de Ciencia Ficción Futurista, pero es innegable que no ha envejecido muy bien y se hace difícilmente recomendable para el público en general hoy en día. Seguramente alguien que sea más adepto al género obal cine de los 80's le va a gustar, pero realmente no creo que sea disfrutable por otros más.
PD: la fotografía y diseño de arte me gustó bastante y se volvieron referentes de la industria.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Bona fide science fiction classic

Posted : 6 years, 6 months ago on 15 October 2017 07:00

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is for a very specific type of film-watcher, which is to say that it is definitely not for all tastes. Despite the presence of a few thrilling action beats, this adaptation of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is more concerned with audio-visual immersion, esoteric cerebral expression and thematic density. Even though it flopped at the box office upon its theatrical release in 1982, Blade Runner developed into one of the most influential sci-fi movies in history, and has amassed an enormous cult following. Its reputation speaks for itself, really. Scott's vision for this universe is wholly unique, crafting a neo-noir detective story with a lot on its mind. Blade Runner outright rejects mainstream sensibilities, playing out more like an art-house film than a blockbuster, and radically diverging from the likes of Star Wars or Flash Gordon. As a result, this is very much a "love it or hate it" affair - in fact, it took this reviewer multiple viewings over several years to warm up to it, but the determination paid off; now it just keeps getting better and better.




In a dystopic future, the Tyrell Corporation have developed synthetic human beings known as replicants to be used on off-world colonies for slave labour. Replicants can be dangerous, however, and after an attempted revolt, they are declared illegal on Earth. To combat the threat, special police squads known as Blade Runner Units were formed; specialised officers who are expressly assigned to "retire" (i.e. kill) replicants on sight. In the year 2019, four renegade replicants illegally travel to Earth hoping to blend into society and potentially extend their four-year lifespan. A retired LAPD Blade Runner, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is called back to duty by his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmett Walsh), for the sole purpose of killing the four replicants in question: Roy (Rutger Hauer), Pris (Daryl Hannah), Leon (Brion James), and Zhora (Joanna Cassidy). However, the mission is complicated when Deckard meets Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental replicant working alongside Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) with implanted memories who believes she is human. Deckard finds himself falling for Rachael, compelling him to question the mission, especially when Bryant orders him to kill her as well.

With a script credited to Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples, Blade Runner may seem deceptively simple on the surface, but it's imbued with philosophical underpinnings, existential questions about humanity, commentary on overpopulation and environmental degradation, as well as religious and animal motifs. For the most part, too, such material is built into the fabric of the narrative rather than relying on extensive dialogue to get its point across, and as a result it doesn't feel as preachy or as pretentious as it might have been in lesser hands. Even though the movie does threaten to crush under the weight of its own self-importance during the late "tears in the rain" monologue, it's nevertheless a powerful scene. There is violence, and the visuals are stunning to observe of course, but each element exists to serve the narrative, never coming across gratuitous or empty. Blade Runner is also a feature which demands your fullest attention, lest you get hopelessly lost.




Scott exudes undeniable authority over every frame, never letting the movie out of his control, allowing the proceedings to play out at a deliberate pace which may alienate viewers without the patience required to see it through. However, this is not to say that haters are uncultured swine - if you dislike Blade Runner, the movie is simply not for you, and that's a reasonable reaction. To be fair, the pacing can be sluggish and slow-moving, and Scott keeps you at arm's length as the movie comes up short in terms of dramatic resonance. Indeed, the characters are superficial, with Deckard particularly lacking in significant development. Excised scenes and voiceovers do provide more insight into the blade runner's background, but it's evident that Scott ultimately chose to eschew character development whilst finding the movie in post-production, and as a result your mileage will vary. In addition, the storyline is admittedly threadbare; though Deckard's assignment is complicated due to a variety of factors, the trajectory itself is a tad meandering, in need of a bit more drive. I do not doubt that these intrinsic flaws are all part of Scott's vision, as Blade Runner is more about the pure experience than character exploration or dense plotting, but it nevertheless lessens the movie to a certain extent in the eyes of this reviewer.

Los Angeles is depicted here as a dark, dense metropolis filled with advertisements and bathed in perpetual rainfall, painting a scarily believable image of the future. Even though there is paid product placement, the advertisements function as a form of societal satire and reflection - after all, advertisement oversaturation already occurs. From top to bottom, the visual design of Blade Runner is awe-inspiring; Scott and his team of collaborators worked to create their own unique futuristic vision bursting with aesthetic beauty, flawlessly brought to life through old-school model shots, matte paintings and extensive set work. The world is intricately designed, with so much detail in every nook and cranny to absorb, and it feels lived-in to boot. It's not just impressive for its time - it's still impressive today. Indeed, the grand illusion throughout Blade Runner still stands up to contemporary scrutiny, allowing the movie to remain timeless. Admittedly, certain shots look a bit rough around the edges due to the technology of the era, but the use of practical effects arguably stand up better than obvious-looking computer-generated imagery. The meticulous sound design also further serves to bring vivid life to this retro-futuristic world.




Director of photography Jordan Cronenweth (who was actually suffering from ill health during the shoot) bathes Blade Runner in mystique and neon beauty, creating a masterful visual palette bolstered by exquisite lighting, doing justice to the incredible production design and ensuring that the film still looks impressive decades later. The crowning touch is the achingly beautiful, ethereal original synth score by Greek composer Vangelis. The soundtrack is iconic, further separating the movie from many if its sci-fi contemporaries, and giving it a distinct sound that perfectly complements the striking visual design.

Ford is at the top of his game here, bringing his trademark charm to the material, and carving out a distinct role that's noticeably different to his work in Star Wars. Ford was actually quite unhappy during the production, as he had issues with both Scott and his co-star Sean Young, but none of this comes across on screen - the thespian still submits a nuanced, engaging performance, and you can believe it when Deckard starts wrestling with his conscious as he falls for Rachael. Although much fuss has been made over the years about whether or not Deckard is a replicant, this aspect ultimately feels like an afterthought that was added on the fly, and it's doubtful this was even Scott's intention from the very outset. Nevertheless, it is a fascinating talking point, and the ambiguity (intentional or not) recontextualises the narrative at large. Luckily, Ford is surrounded by an able ensemble, with the likes of Edward James Olmos making a strong impression as another blade runner, and Walsh who's note-perfect as Deckard's no-nonsense supervisor. Young is effectively understated, while Hauer oozes menace and comes across as a genuine threat. This isn't exactly an actor's movie, but the ensemble cast all hit their intended marks, and there isn't a weak link among them.




As of 2017, five different cuts of Blade Runner exist. The studio executives did not approve of Scott's original vision in 1982, leading to a compromised theatrical cut with a "happy" ending, humdrum voiceover, and other alterations not condoned by the director. Some fans may prefer the theatrical cut, but the voiceover never works as Ford's delivery is lifeless (a direct result of the actor disagreeing with the narration in the first place) and it takes the audience for fools, over-explaining too much. Other editions of the film include the workprint, an international cut, and a 1992 director's cut which Scott was still not entirely happy with, since he was short on time and a team of editors just worked from his notes. The only version for which Scott held total artistic and editorial control over was the 2007 Final Cut, which stands as the definitive representation of the filmmaker's vision. Scott even chose to tidy up several visual effects shots, and filmed new footage with actress Joanna Cassidy to replace an obvious stunt-woman in a pivotal scene. Indeed, the Final Cut is arguably the best edition available, though fans and connoisseurs are welcome to disagree. Luckily, unlike the original Star Wars trilogy, all five cuts of the movie are freely available to view in high quality, allowing you to pick your preference.

It's not hard to find viewers who either feel lukewarm towards Blade Runner or actively dislike it, especially those who studied it in school, but it's impossible to deny the movie's impact on cinema and on popular culture at large. Visually enthralling and permeated with haunting lyricism, this is so much more than just another simple science fiction or action-adventure flick, and there are more layers to the movie to unravel with each new viewing. Considering the endless issues which legendarily plagued the production, and all the squabbling between Scott and the studio execs, it's a miracle that the movie turned out to be this great - and it's even more miraculous that we were granted Scott's final cut twenty-five years later. Blade Runner is a bona fide genre classic which will still be revered in another few decades. Once you see it, you will never forget it.

8.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

REAL Sci-fi

Posted : 10 years, 2 months ago on 6 February 2014 09:34



"Blade Runner" is how a science fiction film SHOULD be made, as a speculative thinker, not as a silly disposable piece of throwaway camp like "Star Wars" (yes, I dissed George Lucas' Magnum Opus. I can see you fanboys writing that down.) I won't place this on the pillar of perfect science fiction like "Firefly" ('cause I just won't,) but the creativity of the whole enterprise shines through, past the dark sets and blackened hearts of the characters.

Early in the 21st Century (yep, folks, we should be seeing some crazy shit real soon,) Tyrell Industries has refined the android model to the brink of perfection. These beings, called 'replicants,' are man-made entities virtually identical to the human but used for all the dirty work- war, prostitution, dangerous jobs. They were implanted with memories that are not their own and manufactured to feel no empathy or identity as an individual.

But things have changed. Replicants have formed a consciousness of their own and have become too dangerous to keep. That's where Deckard (Harrison Ford) comes in. Deckard, a 'Blade Runner,' is assigned to kill illegal Replicants. In turn, a group of Replicants attempt to force their their creator, Dr. Tyrell (Joe Turkel,) to increase their longevity (the androids have a maximum life span of three or four years.)



It's Deckard against Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer,) the maniacal, intelligent leader of the Replicants, and his three cohorts. And you know what? I kind of wanted Roy Batty to win. He's a great, complex character, even though he goes to violent extremes to get what he wants (I felt for two of the victims, but less for the third.) Deckard is frankly kind of a bore. He's typical stoic Ford, and the way he borderline-rapes beautiful female Replicant and love interest Rachael (Sean Young) is a little sickening.

I liked Batty a lot, but I was equally taken with J.F. Sebastion (William Sanderson,) and eccentric and somewhat childlike inventor suffering from Methuselah Syndrome, which leaves him prematurely aged. He's a little talked about character, but I find him just as interesting as Batty. J.F. picks up waifishly appealing Replicant Priss (Daryl Hannah) and takes her home with him, a decision that turns out to be the worst of his life.



There are a few corny scenes and lines (like "Wake up! Time to die!", uttered by Leon (Brion James,)) but the movie is very original and iconic. I love the unique sci-fi vision originally created by Philip K. Dick (author of the book 'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?' that "Blade Runner" is based on) but brought to life by Ridley Scott. The movie's world is damp, dreary, but strangely compelling. The final confrontation is sad and creepy and maybe even a little darkly humorous, all at once.

Rutger Hauer's performance as the lead android is wonderful. He is creepy yet tragic, all he wants is more time. In a world where humans have really screwed their creations over, the creations want to feel the sunlight a little longer, to live to see the world through aged eyes. Why should their experiences mean any less? The final line by Hauer (..."Like tears in the rain") perfectly summarizes this.

"Blade Runner" is a classic movie that is most definitely worth multiple rewatches. It's important in that it deal with the moral quandaries of science and creation, the way 'Frankenstein' did. It features a stunner of a performance by Rutger Hauer (too bad he plays in so much crap now...) and a chilling orchestral score. Watch it. Watch it more than once, if you haven't already, and think about the implications behind it and films of it's ilk.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Blade Runner review

Posted : 10 years, 9 months ago on 17 July 2013 05:08

The secret of Blade Runner is that Scott's fantastically baroque, future-shock imagery, all dark decay and techno-clutter, effectively becomes the story. As the layers of mood and detail settle in, the very process by which we watch the film - scanning those shimmering, claustrophobic frames for signs of life - turns into a running metaphor for what Blade Runner is about: a world in which humanity has been snuffed by "progress." This is perhaps the only science-fiction film that can be called transcendental.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Blade Runner review

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 17 December 2012 10:10

Blade Runner: The Final Cut.
// Directed by the visionary film-maker Ridley Scott, with its post-modern, polluted, rain-soaked neon LA epicentre, the extraordinary production design of Blade Runner presents a startlingly familiar dystopia of corporate advertising, technology, and the unequivocal, blurry line between human and machine. Along with Alien, Scott's genre-bending sci-fi hallmark, Blade Runner uses - instead of latent horror elements - noir mood and style adversely to stray from the film's endless layers of religious symbolism; commercialism; industrialism; and humanism. All are of which seem obvious in retrospect, but not upon the initial viewing. To fully absorb and find yourself transported into the world of Scott's masterpiece, you have to watch it at least eight times. The Final Cut is much better for its deletions and polished visual/ editorial technical upheaval (with added dream sequence and happy ending) than the 1982 version - such as the removal of Deckard's voice-over - becoming an entirely balanced film because of its changes, nevertheless these combined themes and messages are re-birthed as ambiguity, unable to galvanise into anything definite. With this, Scott finally alluded to the possible fact that Deckard was a replicant, somewhat registering a tragic edge to the film's 'happy ending' of sorts.

From its shimmering, sublime imagery to the poetic language of its tragic characters, Blade Runner is an unrivalled cinematic gem, capturing noirish, astonishingly brutal 'termination' sequences reminiscent of the action genre with remarkable boldness(humanised villains dying in slow motion and/or metaphysically/artistically) and enigmatic beauty (Roy Batty's conclusive monologue scene) atypical of art movies. Blade Runner transcends all of its conventional gestures in the cinematic realm, it is neither science fiction nor action, perhaps not any genre can define this film in its entirety. Once the end credits have rolled, you will not find any words to explain or describe its power, beyond its superficial exterior and lavish production design, there is an incredibly raw exploration of humanity, perhaps even the meaning of life itself.

Many fans have examined the film as religious, and its not hard to see why from Roy Batty's self-inflicted crucifixion, the symbolic dove, and Tyrell's God-like creator of replicants watching from above the city. Whatever the outcome of its content/subtext, there is no questioning the film's power. For me, it is more life-affirming and heartbreaking than most tearjerkers; you have to be made of stone not to gulp back the sobs at the unicorn dream and the gloriously philosophical 'Tears in Rain' scene, largely ascertaining life and death in one speech, even Deckard is moved. You can't call Blade Runner anything else but a masterpiece, its quintessential cinema: multi-layered, expansive and soulful, there's no box it doesn't tick in terms of valuable, influential and quality film-making. For me, its quite simply a perfect film; do not resist its deeper innards beyond the visual spectacle and you will be rewarded with something magical.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Blade Runner review

Posted : 11 years, 5 months ago on 24 November 2012 05:01

If you manage to round up every Ridley Scott fan and present them all of his movies and ask them to single out his best work, they will narrow it down to two: Alien and Blade Runner. Then, even though they won't be told to do this, they will form two groups and will call themselves Team Alien and Team Blade Runner, and only then we will be able to identify Ridley's magnum opus. You will also notice a tall, scrawny guy standing under the Team Blade Runner banner. Yup, that's me. I think this film is his magnum opus, and one of the greatest achievements in movie-making. What hasn't it got? A solid cast, a beautiful score by Vangelis and superb directing.

OK, I'm gonna go graphic and colourful on this: The story weaves around the never-ending rainy city like a snake, which is handled by a deranged poet of sorts. It almost has a Disney Prince quality to it but the darkness and the moody atmosphere keeps it from going down that road. Vangelis's beautiful, striking score feels like as if the film is feeding you some surreal, goodness-knows-what pills and everytime his score, or part of it, comes up, the awesomeness of the film doubles. Since the film has excelled in passing itself off as neo-noir, it can be said as the true heir to the 40's neo-noirs. Blade Runner is technically a book in movie form. Every camera change is akin to turning a page in a book, and the anticipation one feels while reading a book can feel it in this film, a rare feeling I must say. Some of the scenes and the way they are shot are so gorgeous that you can't help but imprint that scene in your mind so you can review it over and over again. Take a look when Deckard hunts down and shoots Zhora; the setting, the mood, the kill, everything is so prophetic, in a sense, and the music plays like muses mourning her death and at the same time mocking the logic behind the moment. Another moment is when Batty hoists Deckard up on the roof and goes into his soliloquy mode; not only it is haunting and mesmerizing but is also a great testament on how powerfully emotional and grabbing screen moments can get. It is only the ending that has baffled many viewers and, frankly speaking, me, too. It has also raised a haunting, and much beloved, question of all time: Is Rick Deckard a Replicant? My two-cents are unfortunately not worth their price, so I won't even try.

The more I see this film the more I'm reminded of the fact that this film reminds me so much of Velvet Underground's debut album and Jim Morrison's poetic lyrics. This is something that can be declared off as silly but that's just me... I guess. Anyone else got that feeling? Or similar to it?

From the performances, all the actors were brilliant and their characters were very well written. The one, however, impressed me the most was Harrison Ford as the protagonist Rick Deckard. By that time he had established himself as a leading icon through his roles as Han Solo and Indiana Jones in two of the biggest movies ever made. Since I'm often reluctant to march to the same beat the whole damn world is stomping to, I will say that I found him more relatable and human in this film than the other two, and his performance amazing. Even though I like Solo and Indy, they came off as irritating adult-pricks running across in a world that can be categorized as irrational or non-sensical. Not this one, though. Rick Deckard was in a world that can be categorized as "Our world within 100 years" or in other words, realistic, through the attitudes and behaviours. Deckard had more character, more depth, more human factor in it, not some one-liner one-second comic relief guy. Harrison Ford's approach to his character may seem lazy at first but he makes it simple for us to enjoy yet complex enough to leave you scratching your head. This is one film he should be remembered for, not the other two, in my opinion. The reason why I'm praising his performance above all his others is because he bought a certain degree of realism to Deckard and perfectly mirrored the image of the world around him into his character. A great achievement I must say, totally great. From the supporting, Joe Turkel was also convincing in his role as Eldon Tyrell. I like actors who are able to express through hand movements or have great flow in them. Turkel displays it here. Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty was equally hypnotizing. I'm not usually a fan of tragic villains / heroes but Hauer bought a depth of understanding to him, making him a favourite for many viewers worldwide. The rest of the cast were good, too, but hardly to the above casts' level.

The one thing that prevents me from calling it perfect is (it is rather silly) because it is cyberpunk, and I'm not too keen on cyberpunk. I'm more of a steampunk fan. Yea, that's one -punk I can relate to. Cyberpunk doesn't really cut the mustard with me, it just skims over. Steampunk is more dignified, more adventure-esque and more thrilling to watch. Had this film been steampunk it would've been time better. Come to think of it, why can't they remake it as one? (If you want to throw tomatoes, please warn me first)

In conclusion, one of the greatest films ever made and a must watch. Blade Runner was one of 80's greatest moments!

9.0/10


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Blade Runner review

Posted : 12 years, 10 months ago on 9 June 2011 09:23

Other than some somewhat stunning visuals, this film is incredibly boring and lusterless. Some may think I overlooked the point of the movie but after a few watches I see nothing significant or amazing. Sure the direction can be great, but you have to have an interesting story with a storyline. Heck, at least have some closure. I don't even care if a film concludes well, but the rest of the types of films are at least watchable and catch your eye.
--As a sci-fi fan, its almost insulting to consider this to be the best sci-fi film...what a joke! People need to see some more note worthy fantasy scifi before this pile of..whatever you feel like calling it! Its sad that even Harrison ford wasn't enough to redeem the movie :/ Oh well, a big let down.

Rating: 2.4/10


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Blade Runner review

Posted : 12 years, 10 months ago on 8 June 2011 11:22

I really don’t understand what all the fuss is about with Blade Runner. It is quite often quoted as the best Sci Fi film of all time as well as Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott’s best, but personally I find it duller than dishwater.
The last two times I tried to watch it, I fell asleep approximately 40 minutes in. Today I managed to make it to the end, but kind of wished I hadn’t bothered.

For me the story is weak and lacklustre. Deckard’s search for the runaway replicants plods without any momentum save for the street chase with Zhora that ends in a spectacular sequence of smashing glass and the final scenes with Roy hunting Deckard through the abandoned house. Aside from these two moments, the narrative crawls along with nothing much happening making the 2 hour running time drag.
The love affair between Deckard and replicant Rachel is stilted and somewhat unbelievable. The notion that Deckard may be replicant and only feels attracted to one of his own is interesting but could have been explored more. As it is the idea of any romance between them is implausible and the acting duplicates this with both of them wooden and no sexual chemistry coming across at all (again this could all be planned, but it is boring nonetheless).

The main aspect of the film that rings ludicrous is Roy’s transition from strong, silent type to crazed, quipping lunatic in the final half hour. Again, you can read more into it should you choose – the death of Pris has awakened primitive emotions within Roy and he is unable to express them fully – but his then sudden turn to saving Deckard from certain death only to simply sit and die is frankly bizarre.

The one redeeming feature to Blade Runner is the stunning visuals. From the intricately detailed buildings and cities, to Pris’ makeup and Sebastian’s automatons, each detail is breathtaking and beautifully shot. It makes me sad for the loss of a film that could’ve been given the elements involved, rather than the bland snoozefest the actual end product is.


0 comments, Reply to this entry


« Prev12 Next »