Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:52:00 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Blade Runner is shit. There, I said it.

Started by The Region Legion, April 06, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
I just watched Blade Runner for the first time. This movie is regarded as a classic of the genre, but the reality is that it is a ridiculously pretentious style-over-substance wankfest.

The movie starts with a man being interviewed by someone else, some kind of psychiatric evalution "designed to generate an emotional response". The man being questioned fobs the interviewer off for a bit before pulling a gun and killing him. Where he got the gun is my first question, but lets just assume he managed to conceal it somehow. 2nd question would be how he got out of that room. It's clearly part of this Tyrell Corporation's premises, so we can assume there would be guards - guards more heavily armed than this dude with a pistol. So already, we're having to take a lot for granted.

Then we meet Harrison Ford as Decker, who turns out to be a Blade Runner - someone who kills "replicants" because they're illegal on Earth (for reasons left entirely unexplained). The blokey we met at the start is apparently one of them, but Decker is retired and doesn't want anything to do with it. While weird ass, evil looking cop wearing a fedora who leaves little origami things everywhere looks on, the chief of police - who, even though this is set in 2019, is in a completely cliche "Chief Of Police" office stuck in the middle of an enormous hall that looks like the bank out of The Dark Knight - informs him that he has no choice (either you're a cop or you're one of the little people, he says, which isn't much of an attempt to persuade him nor much of a threat to suggest what exactly happens to Decker if he just tells him to fuck off).

Cue 3 or 4 SCREEN SIZED advertisements for Coca-Cola in very quick sucession. Why no one rips this movie apart for it's unbelievably blatant product placement is utterly bizarre.

For whatever reason, Decker heads to the corporation that makes these illegal creatures known as replicants, who for whatever reason is still allowed to make them. He checks the obvious replicant Rachel with the same test we saw at the start, and we learn she apparently doesn't know she's not human. OK, well thanks for that little diversion. Decker seems to have some kind of moral objection but doesn't spend long on it.

So Decker is on the case and goes to the apartment where the replicant from the intro was living. With no lights on, he finds a little thing in the bath and sticks it in a baggy. This is the only thing he finds in the apartment, although he only looks for about a nanosecond, and checks none of the other rooms. It's like he's read the script and knows where to go.

Around here or possibly just after the next bit, he goes back to his apartment and Rachel is waiting in the lift. She has some pictures to show him of her with her mother. Decker then reveals some private memories Rachel has, which prove to her she is a replicant after all. How Decker knew these memories is unexplained. She drops the pictures and runs out when Decker offers a drink.

So Decker has a look through the pictures and we get the classic "enhance" scene. He scans in one of the pictures that he has a vision of a unicorn over for no reason, and he sees a woman in a mirror with a snake tattoo. Alright.

Anyway, he takes this thing he found in the bath to some chinese woman with an electron microscope and asks her what it is. She tells him it's snake skin, and she also finds a serial number at the molecular level - a serial number that happens to match with a snake seller round the corner! Bloody convenient.

So Decker heads over to the snake seller and asks "WHO YOU SELL THIS TO". What, this single snake scale that I - as a snake salesman - would not be able to identify precisely without being told what the serial number is or checking my records, presuming I even keep such records? Oh yeah, I know exactly who that is and they're at this address.

So off Decker goes, and meets the owner. He's reluctant to help at first but then Decker threatens his license for the club and he changes his tune, offering Decker a drink on the house. Then suddenly Decker is hanging out backstage with all the dancing ladies, and he spots one with a snake. So he acts like he's from some kind of artists union and talks to her about exploitation. While we get a good look at her in the shower being exploited by Ridley Scott, Decker looks around. When she gets back out topless for some reason, he asks if it's a real snake. She says no, and apparently clocks who Decker is (a Blade Runner here to kill her for being a replicant, apparently one of the ones he's after). She beats him up, practically knocking him out and makes a dash for it.

Decker's been set up from the start as some kind of bad ass Blade Runner though, so this must be where the film gets going (we're about an hour in at this point). Well he hunts down an unarmed woman and then shoots her 3 times. The police - with no idea who this person who just shot a woman dead on the street is - just sort of hang back and let him walk around waving his pistol.

OK, well that's one down. But then the Chief of Police appears and tells him there's only 1 left. Decker protests and says they're 3. This is never followed up on.

Decker walks around for a bit and Rachel is on the street watching, conveniently. He goes after her to try and find her but he bumps into the replicant we saw at the start! Uh-oh! Oh well, Decker is a bad ass Blade Runner so this shouldn't take lo... oh, he hit the gun out of his hand. And now Decker's getting the shit kicked out of him. Oh look, Rachel luckily found the gun and shot the replicant in the head. Lucky save for Decker who - despite being a bad-ass Blade Runner - has failed to kill 2 out of 2 replicants on the first try, and almost died 1 out of 2 times.

So they go back to his place or something and have sex, although it comes across more like Decker raping her than anything romantic. Apparently they're in love now for no reason.

Oh, what's this? New characters? Some old dude and a blonde. The blonde has nowhere to go and old dude lets her into his apartment which is full of fucked up "toys" which seem like they're alive. Turns out the blonde is one of the replicants. Great.

Oh, now Rutger Hauer is here (he'd been in a few scenes already but they were all so immaterial it doesn't matter in the slightest, he could have been introduced here and been just as important). Him and the blonde manipulate the old guy (who is actually 25 with a degenerative disease) to take them to the Tyrell guy we met at the start with Rachel.

So they go, and Hauer kills him, and then is suddenly in space for about 3 seconds and then not. Alright...

Somehow Decker has found out where they are! So he goes up to kill off the blonde girl. He finds her even though she's disguised herself as one of the freaky toys and hits the gun out of his hand... again. But it's ok because Decker is a bad-ass Blade Runner and.... oh wait, she's done a cartwheel and got his head between her legs. And now she's turning his head round like she's going to break it... shit, it's gone 180 degrees!!! Oh wait, it seems his whole body has turned with it. She puts her fingers in his nose and then drops him and walks off, preparing to do another cartwheel for no reason when she could have killed him in a second. Predictably, Decker finds his gun and shoots her as she cartwheels. She convulses around loudly for no reason, so he shoots her a few more times. So far that's 3 out of 3 that Decker has managed to fail to kill first time round and 2 out of 3 that almost killed him instead. So much for best Blade Runner ever.

So Rutger Hauer come back - no sign of the 25 year old guy with the disease, I guess he's served his purpose now - and finds the blonde girl. He seems pretty sad about it. Decker misses his first shot and then legs it. Rutger Hauer follows and, despite at least 3 opportunites to finish him off, doesn't. He even saves his life when he's hanging off the edge of a building, and then just dies in front of him for no reason.

Origami cop comes along and says "it's a shame she won't live, but then who does". Decker just stares.

So now we're back in Decker's apartment, and Rachel is still there, and alive. They prepare to leave together (presumably on the run together?). They get out to the hallway and there's one of Origiami cops little statues. Decker nods, and gets in the elevator. The End.

This meandering mess is Ridley Scott's FINAL CUT of the film, after what I hear has been several alterations over the years. How is this POSSIBLE. The film makes NO SENSE.


TL;DR? Blade Runner is maybe the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen S. Darko AND Batman & Robin.

madhair60

I've been saying this for years, to the general disdain of all.  I'm not convinced anyone who says it's any good has even watched it.

falafel


Zero Gravitas


Serge

Never seen it. Seriously. And now there are so many different versions I wouldn't know where to start even if I could raise the interest in a film which has Harrison Fucking Ford and Sean Bloody Young in.

MojoJojo

(I prefer the original version over the directors cut)

I don't think any film stands up to close examination, in much the same way a joke doesn't. I think all the people who go on a bout the directors cut being much better saw the non-directors cut first, so they already knew what happened and the new cut added subtlety and depth so it becomes the better film. But if you haven't seen the the original first it's just incomprehensible.

It is overrated though. It has some interesting shots, but it's suffers from the David Lynch problem; having to watch something several times to understand what is going on may be a sign of depth, but it's also a sign that no one enjoyed watching it the first time.

Spoiler alert
b
[close]
Spoiler alert
a
[close]
Spoiler alert
i
[close]
Spoiler alert
t
[close]

An tSaoi

Quote from: The Region Legion on April 06, 2010, 08:13:32 PM
it is a ridiculously pretentious style-over-substance wankfest.

I like the film, although I'll agree that Ridley Scott had more of an eye on the visuals than the story. That's not to say he didn't put any thought into the story; there's quite a lot of allegory and meaning that you sometimes don't notice because the visuals are so captivating - it's not a completely empty vessel. I'm not saying it's prefect by any means, there are some deep flaws running through it, but it's certainly not the worst film ever.

A few small points:

Quote2nd question would be how he got out of that room. It's clearly part of this Tyrell Corporation's premises, so we can assume there would be guards - guards more heavily armed than this dude with a pistol. So already, we're having to take a lot for granted.

It's a place where they manufacture replicants, not a high security prison. It'd probably have the same amount of guards as a Toyota factory, or Google. I can very easily accept that the policeman they call in would be one of the few (if not the only) armed person on the premises. Besides, Leon is posing as a worker there (well in my memory at least) and no-one has seen him kill Holden, he could probably just walk out. And of course there's no reason why Tyrell would have one of his own creations destroyed.

QuoteThen we meet Harrison Ford as Decker

He's called Deckard.</pedant>

Quotesomeone who kills "replicants" because they're illegal on Earth (for reasons left entirely unexplained).

1) It's clearly explained in the fucking prologue text!

QuoteThe NEXUS 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them.

Replicants were used Off-world as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets.

After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-world colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth - under penalty of death.

and 2) Would you want artificial people who are both smarter and stronger than humans (and who have a tendency to develop emotion fuck-ups) walking around the streets? Would you buggery.

Quotethe chief of police - who, even though this is set in 2019, is in a completely cliche "Chief Of Police" office

Well, the film pays homage to old films noir, so the archetypal office is most likely a conscious decision. There's no point in him sitting in ultra high-tech surroundings; having a recognisable design allows the audience to get to know who the character is meant to be quickly. Lots of the design in the film is based on present-day, familiar concepts to give the place a sense of believability.

QuoteCue 3 or 4 SCREEN SIZED advertisements for Coca-Cola in very quick sucession. Why no one rips this movie apart for it's unbelievably blatant product placement is utterly bizarre.

Yeah, that bit annoys me too. However, it would probably be more distracting if they had loads of phoney products all over the place (and real ones help pay for the special effects, although whether that's sufficient justification is debatable). In the future there'd certainly be big flashy ads. Look at Times Square in the present day.

QuoteDecker then reveals some private memories Rachel has, which prove to her she is a replicant after all. How Decker knew these memories is unexplained.

He heard it from Tyrell after giving Rachel the Voight-Kampf test. He mentions to her that her memories are from Tyrell's nieces, so there's only one person who could have told him.

Quotehe has a vision of a unicorn over for no reason.

It has a reason, albeit one that doesn't become clear until the end of the film.

QuoteAnyway, he takes this thing he found in the bath to some chinese woman with an electron microscope and asks her what it is. She tells him it's snake skin, and she also finds a serial number at the molecular level - a serial number that happens to match with a snake seller round the corner! Bloody convenient.

That's a pretty picky criticism. If someone in the locality is going to own an artificial snake, it'd make more sense for them to get it from a local vendor than one miles away. Would you really prefer a scene where Deckard has to trek to the other side of the city? Besides, he's gone to the bit of the market where you get animals, it's not exactly a coincidence that the snake seller would be in the area. Although the bit about immediately recognising the snake scale is a good point - that never occurred to me before.

QuoteDecker's been set up from the start as some kind of bad ass Blade Runner though, so this must be where the film gets going (we're about an hour in at this point).

He's also a detective, which is what he's been doing up to that point. A major component of his work is investigating and tracking down replicants. Interestingly he wasn't always intended as a bad-ass character - Dustin Hoffman was considered for the role. I'm not even sure he's intended to be bad-ass in the finished film either.

QuoteThe police - with no idea who this person who just shot a woman dead on the street is - just sort of hang back and let him walk around waving his pistol.

Didn't he mention to them that he was a Blade Runner? I could have sworn he either showed his badge or gave them his number but can't quite recall.

QuoteDecker walks around for a bit and Rachel is on the street watching, conveniently.

Again, not too extreme a coincidence. In the previous scene he told her what bar he was at, she's probably on the way over there, having changed her mind about going.

QuoteOh well, Decker is a bad ass Blade Runner so this shouldn't take lo... oh, he hit the gun out of his hand. And now Decker's getting the shit kicked out of him.

Leon is designed to be super-humanly strong. It's perfectly reasonable that he would be able to overpower Deckard.

QuoteSo they go, and Hauer kills him, and then is suddenly in space for about 3 seconds and then not.

Eh?

QuoteShe convulses around loudly for no reason

Well, she's pretty much an android and getting shot would presumably cause her to malfunction. Probably a short circuit or something.

QuoteSo Rutger Hauer come back - no sign of the 25 year old guy with the disease, I guess he's served his purpose now

It's clearly implied that Rutger Hauer killed him last time we saw him. After killing Tyrell, he menacingly walks towards Sebastian (the 25 year old guy), who tries to scamper off before the scene changes. Doesn't take a genius to work out what happened to him in the interim.

Quotedespite at least 3 opportunites to finish him off, doesn't. He even saves his life when he's hanging off the edge of a building, and then just dies in front of him for no reason.

Well that's the whole point of the film - Replicants have a three-year lifespan which Roy (Rutger Hauer) sought to extend. Having confronted Tyrell, he finds out that there is no way to avoid this cessation, and must face mortality like a human. During that fight he approaches the end of his three year limit - as evidenced by his hand seizing up, and makes peace with the fact, which is why he saves Deckard's life. It's all about how the 'android' shows more humanity than the supposed real human.

QuoteThey get out to the hallway and there's one of Origiami cops little statues.

It's a unicorn, as per the unicorn dream from earlier. It's an admission on the part of the 'Origami cop' that he's privy to Deckards dreams and memories, an indication that Deckard is himself a replicant, again, the whole point of the film.

Edit: I should stress that I'm not a fanboy and have no problem with people not liking the film.


biggytitbo

Whether you get the plot or not, the chief attraction of Blade Runner is the thickly atmospheric and moody mise en scene, it creates one of the most incredibly detailed future worlds ever seen on screen.

SavageHedgehog

I've seen it so many times for one reason or another (well OK, only about six or so but that's quite a lot for me) and listened to the soundtrack so often that I honestly have no idea if I've grown to like it or simply become "numb" to it, and just accept it like a warm blanket or a cherised but dirty teddy.

Neville Chamberlain

I've not seen it but I can imagine it's yet another of those films where I haven't got the faintest idea what's going on.

I've always had a weak spot for "ridiculously pretentious style-over-substance wankfests", especially ones made in the 1980s.

ThickAndCreamy

Blade Runner left me utterly empty the last time I watched it, it just feels so melodramatic and... manipulative in a lazy way. I adore the sci-fi and dystopian genre in film, but Blade Runner feels cold, a film too dominated by atmosphere and setting than character and plot.

However, I hope to re-watch again sometime in the future and I may be proven wrong. My enjoyment of the soundtrack may help influence my enjoyment of the film when I do watch it again.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Neville Chamberlain on April 06, 2010, 09:22:08 PM
I've not seen it but I can imagine it's yet another of those films where I haven't got the faintest idea what's going on.
You had that problem with Mutiny on the Buses aswell didn't you?

QuoteIt's a place where they manufacture replicants, not a high security prison. It'd probably have the same amount of guards as a Toyota factory, or Google. I can very easily accept that the policeman they call in would be one of the few (if not the only) armed person on the premises. Besides, Leon is posing as a worker there (well in my memory at least) and no-one has seen him kill Holden, he could probably just walk out. And of course there's no reason why Tyrell would have one of his own creations destroyed.

But you said replicants are inherantly dangerous. Surely if you're questioning one possibly masqurading in your company you take the precaution of extra security when you bring him in?

Quote
1) It's clearly explained in the fucking prologue text!

Its explained that a single group of them staged a mutiny, yes. It's like outlawing Muslims because of 9/11. Ahhhhhhh but that's the allegory ahhhhhhhh? No, because the allegory is never explored in any kind of meaningful way.

Quote
2) Would you want artificial people who are both smarter and stronger than humans (and who have a tendency to develop emotion fuck-ups) walking around the streets? Would you buggery.

I think I'd be more concerned that the company that makes them is still allowed to do so despite their illegality.

QuoteYeah, that bit annoys me too. However, it would probably be more distracting if they had loads of phoney products all over the place (and real ones help pay for the special effects, although whether that's sufficient justification is debatable). In the future there'd certainly be big flashy ads. Look at Times Square in the present day.

One shot I could forgive, but there's easily 4 of the same thing, plus a Pan-Am one or two in the same shot. Why do other films get pulled up on this but not Blade Runner?

QuoteHe heard it from Tyrell after giving Rachel the Voight-Kampf test. He mentions to her that her memories are from Tyrell's nieces, so there's only one person who could have told him.

But how does he know the specific memories? Tyrell didn't describe them.

QuoteHe's also a detective, which is what he's been doing up to that point. A major component of his work is investigating and tracking down replicants. Interestingly he wasn't always intended as a bad-ass character - Dustin Hoffman was considered for the role. I'm not even sure he's intended to be bad-ass in the finished film either.

The opening blurb clearly states that the job of a Blade Runner is to "retire" replicants ie. kill them. DeckarD is described by the Chief as one of the best, at least it's heavily hinted at. This means he's killed several of these superior humanoids, when he doesn't kill any of them with any ability at all, just luck.

QuoteDidn't he mention to them that he was a Blade Runner? I could have sworn he either showed his badge or gave them his number but can't quite recall.

Yes he did.... once he'd already chased her through the street with a gun, shot her from a distance and then walked up to her corpse. You even see a guy with a police hat silhouetted in the background when she finally goes down holding people back and looking a bit scared!

QuoteAgain, not too extreme a coincidence. In the previous scene he told her what bar he was at, she's probably on the way over there, having changed her mind about going.

Perhaps, but by this point I was tired of any and all cliche.

QuoteEh?

Seriously, he's walking up to Sebastian and suddenly it cuts to a window with a view of a starfield like it's going to warp, and you see Hauer standing there looking menacing and that's it. Watch it again (maybe just the 2007 cut?).

QuoteWell, she's pretty much an android and getting shot would presumably cause her to malfunction. Probably a short circuit or something.

Except that's not how either of the other two died.

QuoteWell that's the whole point of the film - Replicants have a three-year lifespan which Roy (Rutger Hauer) sought to extend. Having confronted Tyrell, he finds out that there is no way to avoid this cessation, and must face mortality like a human. During that fight he approaches the end of his three year limit - as evidenced by his hand seizing up, and makes peace with the fact, which is why he saves Deckard's life. It's all about how the 'android' shows more humanity than the supposed real human.

So why the chase? Why attack him at all? What is Deckard so FRIGHTENED of? He's just a naked guy running about, just shoot him for FUCKS sake.

QuoteIt's a unicorn, as per the unicorn dream from earlier. It's an admission on the part of the 'Origami cop' that he's privy to Deckards dreams and memories, an indication that Deckard is himself a replicant, again, the whole point of the film.

Privy how? Because a unicorn is someone else's memory? A memory of a mythical creature? And why did that unicorn vision make him look at that particular picture.

Also, the woman he found in that picture - isn't it the same replicant he kills from the club?

DJ Solid Snail

QuoteBut how does he know the specific memories? Tyrell didn't describe them.

Common sense would dictate that Tyrell told Deckard when they were having that chat about Rachael, but there'd be no point putting it in the film because the viewer would have to hear it twice, once when Tyrell is telling Deckard and again when Deckard is telling Rachael. Is it so wrong having the audience use their imagination to fill in the gaps themselves?

Some of your points are valid, but it's an excellent film in spite of these things.

Quote from: DJ Solid Snail on April 06, 2010, 09:35:19 PM
Is it so wrong having the audience use their imagination to fill in the gaps themselves?

Because why should I? Why does the movie assume it's so breathtakingly genius that I should have to fill the gaps in when a simple "Tyrell told me about it when you left the room" would have done the job? There's leaving things out for the sake of storytelling, and there's being deliberately obtuse because just being straightforward wouldn't be arty enough.

An tSaoi

#17
Quote from: The Region Legion on April 06, 2010, 09:29:09 PM
But you said replicants are inherantly dangerous. Surely if you're questioning one possibly masqurading in your company you take the precaution of extra security when you bring him in?

WELL I DON'T KNOW I DIDN'T WRITE THE FUCKING THING. Actually that's a good point. Maybe someone who really knows what they're talking about could come up with a better explanation than me.

QuoteIts explained that a single group of them staged a mutiny, yes. It's like outlawing Muslims because of 9/11. Ahhhhhhh but that's the allegory ahhhhhhhh? No, because the allegory is never explored in any kind of meaningful way.

The prejudice is explored (briefly) in the film; Deckard's boss refers to the Replicants by the derogatory name of 'skinjobs', hinting at a prejudice against the whole group. I can't imagine humans would differentiate between individual replicants either, they're all be the same as far as they're concerned (they're all Nexus 6 models). It's more like banning a particular type of computer because some of that exact model killed some people.

QuoteI think I'd be more concerned that the company that makes them is still allowed to do so despite their illegality.

They're still allowed to manufacture them, they're not illegal on the off-world colonies, serving as they do an important military and construction purpose off-world.

QuoteOne shot I could forgive, but there's easily 4 of the same thing, plus a Pan-Am one or two in the same shot. Why do other films get pulled up on this but not Blade Runner?

It's a valid concern alright, and some people do comment on it. I think that the reason it's not hauled over the coals for it is because while blatant, the ads fit the setting, which allows lots of people to overlook t.

QuoteBut how does he know the specific memories? Tyrell didn't describe them.

Actually, scratch that. Deckard found them out himself during the interrogation. Remember how he had to ask her loads of questions? The film sort of fades over the long line of questions, she must have brought up those memories then. And even if she didn't there's always the Tyrell explanation. No point having the audience see Tyrell tell Harrison Ford something that he then repeats in the next scene.

QuoteThe opening blurb clearly states that the job of a Blade Runner is to "retire" replicants ie. kill them. DeckarD is described by the Chief as one of the best, at least it's heavily hinted at. This means he's killed several of these superior humanoids, when he doesn't kill any of them with any ability at all, just luck.

One of the best doesn't actually mean he's particularly good up against a very well organised cell of Replicants (they are after all the latest models, all ranked highly in either the intelligence or strength stakes).

QuoteYes he did.... once he'd already chased her through the street with a gun, shot her from a distance and then walked up to her corpse. You even see a guy with a police hat silhouetted in the background when she finally goes down holding people back and looking a bit scared!

Oh right, sorry I just misinterpreted what you said. I have no explanation for why the police didn't intervene before he shot her.

QuotePerhaps, but by this point I was tired of any and all cliche.

Fair enough, mileage may vary and all that.

QuoteSeriously, he's walking up to Sebastian and suddenly it cuts to a window with a view of a starfield like it's going to warp, and you see Hauer standing there looking menacing and that's it. Watch it again (maybe just the 2007 cut?).

As far as I can recall that's just the exterior elevator that goes up the side of the Tyrell building. Showing Roy descending on his own makes Sebastian's death clear.

QuoteExcept that's not how either of the other two died.

Well they were shot in different places, Leon in the back of the head and the other three times in the back. Who knows what specific points of a replicant react to a gunshot?

QuoteSo why the chase? Why attack him at all? What is Deckard so FRIGHTENED of? He's just a naked guy running about, just shoot him for FUCKS sake.

He changes his might halfway through I think. And Deckard lost his gun at some earlier point (can't recall when).

QuotePrivy how? Because a unicorn is someone else's memory? A memory of a mythical creature? And why did that unicorn vision make him look at that particular picture.

There's no way that Gaff (the Origami Cop) could have known Deckard's memories had he been human; it's a subtle and wordless way of revealing to the audience that Deckard is a Replicant. It's like the Statue of Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. I don't remember which photo he looked at after the dream so can't answer that one.

falafel

QuoteThere's leaving things out for the sake of storytelling, and there's being deliberately obtuse because just being straightforward wouldn't be arty enough.

I dunno, it's pretty far from obtuse as far as I'm concerned. Certainly made narrative sense on the first watch. Maybe you're just a FUCKING RETARD PANSY SAUSAGE MUNCHING CUNT.

Well, looksee, you can tear apart a film pretty easily and make it look fucking shit, but you'll never convince me that Blade Runner is a load of wank, no more than I could persuade my mate John that the original Star Wars trilogy are nearly as bad as the recent ones. I could tear Episodes 4-6 a glorious set of new arseholes if I felt like it. Stories are just glorified lies. Shall we just get to the end of this debate now FUCKSAKES THIS IS A LOAD OF SHITE NONE OF IT NEVER EVEN FUCKING HAPPENED DID IT N THE COSTUMES WERE SHITE TOO

wasp_f15ting

Quote from: ThickAndCreamy on April 06, 2010, 09:24:06 PM
Blade Runner left me utterly empty the last time I watched it, it just feels so melodramatic and... manipulative in a lazy way. I adore the sci-fi and dystopian genre in film, but Blade Runner feels cold, a film too dominated by atmosphere and setting than character and plot.

However, I hope to re-watch again sometime in the future and I may be proven wrong. My enjoyment of the soundtrack may help influence my enjoyment of the film when I do watch it again.

Can you list some of your favourite dystopian films?

I love Blade Runner. Those opening shots of flames licking the sky are etched in my brain for ever. Ridley Scott is bloody good at making it look like Akira.

Hobes

Reagrding the snake, I thought it was unique, a one off. Which is why it was recognised so easily by the vendor.

I haven't seen it in a long time so I may be wrong.

rudi

I think it's a great film. I'm afraid, TRL, that your points just illustrate that you just didn't get it (or weren't paying attention); everything makes sense if you're of the mind to understand. Fair enough, your loss...

DJ Solid Snail

Quote from: The Region Legion on April 06, 2010, 09:44:10 PM
Because why should I? Why does the movie assume it's so breathtakingly genius that I should have to fill the gaps in when a simple "Tyrell told me about it when you left the room" would have done the job? There's leaving things out for the sake of storytelling, and there's being deliberately obtuse because just being straightforward wouldn't be arty enough.

Oh, you're doing a schtick, aren't you? Ahhh.

Jake Thingray

I can't bear to watch ANY sci-fi, to be honest.

Lord Mandrake

In context as a kid in the 80's Bladerunner was a disturbingly real vision from the future and those visuals hold up against most of the CGI you get these days. You either get immersed in that world or you don't, I just adore it and you can't deny it's influence on cinema and music of the 90's and beyond.   

the midnight watch baboon

Why was it called Mutiny on the Buses???

JPA

I think An tSaoi has done a decent job in explaining some of your criticisms, many of which just made it look like you weren't actually paying attention to what was happening on screen.

Though I'm with you on the slightly 'rapey' sequence with Rachael.

Serge

Quote from: biggytitbo on April 06, 2010, 09:27:45 PMYou had that problem with Mutiny on the Buses aswell didn't you?

Is that the original version or the directors cut of 'Mutiny On The Buses'? The scene in the latter of Butler sitting on a mountain top chanting over a grain of rice for two hours whilst Blakey stood on the next mountain along eating a Toblerone is one of the more hotly debated subjects on the 'Stan Butler Allegory' boards.

rudi

Quote from: Serge on April 07, 2010, 12:16:11 AM
Is that the original version or the directors cut of 'Mutiny On The Buses'? The scene in the latter of Butler sitting on a mountain top chanting over a grain of rice for two hours whilst Blakey stood on the next mountain along eating a Toblerone is one of the more hotly debated subjects on the 'Stan Butler Allegory' boards.

Again, you just weren't paying attention. It's asking isn't it the case that it's us that have "got on that bus" and that's why we all 'ate Blakey. Keep up man.

j_u_d_a_s

You know what else is shit?

Watching highly regarded films you've not seen before with a view to declaring them shit like a 5 year old boy discovering his own cock.