Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums (
-   General Movie Talk (
-   -   Blade Runner-Director's Cut (8.5/10) (

DaN 02-13-2001 05:38 PM

Blade Runner-Director's Cut (8.5/10)
BLADE RUNNER-DIRECTOR'S CUT (1983) Director's cut released in 1993
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Harrison Ford, and some more good actors

Star Rating: **** (maybe just a ***1/2)

I might give the movie a 9/10. I'd have to watch it again though.

This movie required three viewings from me. The first time I was like, shit! I couldn't really grasp what the hell I saw. The second time I saw the masterful cinematography and set design. Seriously, the cinematography of BLADE RUNNER is among the top 5 best shot movies of all time. And the sets were unbelievable.
The plot was a man who has to "retire" these replicants that had illegally escaped to Earth.
I wont lie that This movie is arguable the darkest, most atmosphereic film I have ever seen. And I love it for that. I couldn't get over the fact at how dark and moody and beautiful it was made.
The plot was a great thought, but ended up a bit thin in the end. That was probably the only problem with this movie. The plot could have used some work. Sometimes the plot seemed to lose me at some points. But that somehow didn't affect me all that much.
The main reason to see this movie is the damn look of it. I haven't seen a darker movie. The special effects are as good as Star Wars's in its time. Sure, they aren't used as much, but this movie is more of a drama/sci-fi. Ridley Scot really made a fantastic looking film.
The characterization wasn't all that great. Harrison Ford's character isn't deeply brought up. Neither is the woman (who by the way looks really cool with the smoke and stuff). This problem was minor, because the actors and actresses still perform very very well. The performances of Blade Runner were very mysterious and well brought out. Unfortunately the plot and script have a few problems involving them.

Overall this movie was a terrific, depressing experience. I was brought in by the plot and characters. But the thing that makes this movie a so terrific is the special effects and atmosphere it gives off. A thouroughly enjoyable film, that is if you don't mind a slower movie. I personally tend to like slower movies because they allow for more "taking in" of the whole thing.

The Director's Cut, I've heard, is the only way to see this movie. It get's rid of such things as the voice over of the main character. What happened was, the studio felt it needed the narration so that the audience wouldn't get lost in the movie. Well, Harrison Ford did this voice over thing poorly so that they would maybe forget it. But they didn't. Luckily, about a decade later, Ridley Scott fixed it up. And this is the outcome. He added a few things to it that made this movie better then the original version. Well, I can't say that because I haven't seen the original version, But from what I heard, The Director's Cut is the only way to see this movie.

Brock Landers 02-13-2001 05:46 PM

Good Review DaN...I like how you brought up the femme fatales and their smoking...this really is a noir-ish's some thoughts I had recently about "Blade Runner"...

"Blade Runner" - A Ridley Scott ("The Duellists") Film

Based on a novel by Phillip Dick, "Blade Runner" is a futuristic detective film
that uses new technology (new for the time) and old stereotypes to make a
film that is ambitious to say the least. 1940's and 1950's culture give much to
the design of the film from the dialogue to some of the coolest smoking I have
ever seen. The most important thing to remember about this film if you have
never seen it before, is that you HAVE to pay attention constantly, I mean I
still don't completely get every nuance after many, many viewings...

The setting is Los Angeles in the year 2014 yet everything appears to have a
retro twist to it. The team behind the art and structure designs went all out to
portray a festering, rotting city just below a new, glittering shell. The old
buildings sit in the shadows of the new ones. They didn't destroy the broken
down structures, just built around them and on top of them. Doug Trumball
("2001") does the special effects and they are truly special, ahead of their
time when the film was made. The use of neon against the steamy shadowy
night is eye-catching and the sewer effect impressive. The streets are still the
streets though and the talk of the streets seems to be a cross of japanese
and spanish (although I may have gotten that idea from Edward James Olmos
and the "Chinatown" feel).

Harrison Ford plays Rick Deckard an ex-cop/bladerunner who appears to be a
modern day Humphrey Bogart/Sam Spade. He is brought back into the fold to
go after four replicants. Most people know the story so I won't go into too
much detail but the plot revolves around his search for them, his encounters
with Elden Tyrell, a genius inventor and the head of the Tyrell
Corporation...Tyrell's asst. Rachel (Sean Young)...Darryl Hannah and Joanna
Cassidy as replicants...and Rutger Hauer as their leader, Roy. Roy appears to
be an upgrade from the perfect human...speaking in a strange monotone and
appearing human when it comes to his own survival. It is a great performance
full of lack of ambiguity and remorse. There are all kinds of theories
surrounding whether or not Harrison Ford is a replicant and the human
aspects of the mysterious Roy and Tyrell, but I have chosen to avoid this for
now, instead focusing on the abstract beauty and landmark relevence of this
great film. It is not too fast paced, and appears to be more grand in sweep. It
makes me feel like I am watching an epic film, although I am not.

I believe the film cost close to $30 million to make which was a lot at the time,
and didn't do very well at the box office because of its challenging material but
it was so ahead of its time that I don't believe it could have done much better.
Most people don't like to be challenged at the movies. I loved the film myself

[This message has been edited by Brock Landers (edited 02-13-2001).]

DaN 02-14-2001 05:30 PM

This film is VERY nior-ish. It's cool. I've always loved those type of movies. Examples are Dark City (****) and M (****).

You say that you HAVE to pay attention the entire movie or you'll miss something. That is totally true. That's part of the reason I had to watch it multiple times. It's so interesting to watch for some reason.

Correction for Brock: It's in 2019 (wow, who cares, really? [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img])

Brock Landers 02-15-2001 09:36 AM

Thanks for the info DaN...good points too...

I agree on "Dark City" and Fritz Lang's "M"...Peter Lorre is just so interesting to watch as the cinema's first serial killer in "M"...and "Dark City" introduced me to the talented actor Rufus well as a gorgeous femme fatale in Jennifer Connoly...

the night watchman 02-16-2001 10:36 PM

"Blade Runner" is one of my all-time faves. I'll admit that what initially drew me in the first time, and then back again for a second time was the art direction and the cinematography. But the more familiar the events became, the more the characters, their strengths and weakness, stood out. Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) transformed from a villain to a tragic anti-hero. The "I've seen things ..." monologue before he dies always gets me.

I'd recommend the theatrical release to first-time viewers, then the Director's Cut to those who are more familiar with the storyline and characters.

And I'd like to brag that I saw a workprint of "Blade Runner" at the NuArt Theater in Hollywood, which boasts an alternate score (robbed from "Alien"), and alternate dialogue in several places including an alternate reaction from Deckard in voiceover after Roy dies, which goes something like, "I watched him die all night. He fought every second of it."

Brilliant movie. 9.5/10.

I would also recommend reading Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" for a deeper understanding of the themes. It's very different from "Blade Runner" in many, many ways, and yet strangely similar in even more ways.

Brock Landers 02-17-2001 08:15 PM

In July 2000, director Ridley Scott said that Deckard is, in fact, a replicant. Harrison Ford takes issue with Ridley Scott's revelation that Deckard is a replicant. "We had agreed that he definitely was not a replicant," Ford said. Also, the ending that features Deckard and Rachael driving in the countryside contains unused footage from Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.

the night watchman 02-17-2001 08:39 PM

I prefer Deckard's status as either a Replicant or a human to remain ambiguous. To me, the film asks the question, "What does it mean to be human?" or "What makes a human a human?" (The company motto is "More human than human" after all.) By creating the Replicants as a "slave race," mankind has lost a piece of its humanity.

This, of course, flies completely in the face of Dick's "Do Androids ...?", wherein the androids without a doubt embodied the absolute worst of humanity.

I could talk for days ... god I love this movie!

DaN 02-18-2001 10:37 PM

I had a slight thought that Deckard could have been a replicant. I mean, he stands out well.

But The Night Watchman has a great point. That point is a big part of hte movie if you think about it. you have to look beyond the spellbinding sets/look of the movie

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.