my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Blade Runner (1982)

Author Topic: Blade Runner (1982) Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 10-02-2017 04:19 PM                        Since Blade Runner 2049 opens this week, I decided to watch to original Blade Runner last night. I first saw it about 15 years ago and wasn't very impressed. I thought maybe I was missing something. Turns out I wasn't. The movie is dark, depressing, and confusing. The tone is very uneven, and there isn't really anything to make the characters likable, including Harrison Ford's character. I know Blade Runner is often regarded as a classic, and one of those movies cinephiles just expect everyone to like. I just didn't see anything particularly interesting in the movie. Plus the choices for music make the movie feel extremely dated.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-02-2017 07:47 PM                     I'm one of those guys who really likes it... but I do realize there are plenty of people who don't really like it. Yes, it is dark and I guess it's supposed to be confusing. I think, given similar productions from around the same time, the movie holds up amazingly well. There isn't really any special effect in the movie, for example, that feels distinctively fake. It's interesting how you classify the soundtrack as dated, as I've always considered it to be a pretty timeless piece, while not entirely hiding the time in which it was made.  |  IP: Logged Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-02-2017 08:55 PM                     Two different but equally respectable opinions. Still, the picture is certainly one of the most influential movies ever made by virtue of its art direction and production design alone. I find the performances pretty stiff (and Sean Young is horrible), but I love watching the thing just to look at it, it is so beautifully visualized. Love the score as well, I thought it fit the picture perfectly.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 10-02-2017 09:13 PM                        It's a flawed masterpiece for me. I prefer the version with Deckard's narration.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-02-2017 11:35 PM                     I'm with you there, David.  |  IP: Logged Peter Castle Expert Film Handler Posts: 220 From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia Registered: Oct 2003 posted 10-03-2017 11:03 PM                     And me. The narration gave it a more noir feel. I watched it again on BluRay and preferred the narration still. Saw it in 70mm in Salt Lake City back in 1982.  |  IP: Logged Alexandre Pereira Expert Film Handler Posts: 126 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2016 posted 10-03-2017 11:38 PM                        The narration is certainly what makes the film - it pulls back the audience and makes them connect with the main character...cynical as they maybe. The nature of noir is that cynicism - taken from the point of view of the hero/antihero who reflects on the world and involves the audience through that narration - really an inner glimpse of the id. Narration is a noir trope that makes the audience an accomplice tof the insanity of what is on the screen. The original 1982 edit of Blade Runner is by FAR the best and the most revealing.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-06-2017 05:08 PM                     Took three times to see the original BR to really like this film..and do agree with Ford's narration: it made the movie. Wish Ridley Scott would have kept that in for the home video releases. Soundtrack by Vangelis helped also -Monte  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-08-2017 02:47 PM                     quote: Peter Castle Saw it in 70mm in Salt Lake City back in 1982. At which cinema?  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-08-2017 04:38 PM                     I'm pretty torn between the version with and without narration. The narration adds some perspective, insight and depth to the story, but it also removes some of the mystery. And unfortunately, the narration itself is pretty bad. I think the ultimate version for me, would be a version without narration, which I think is in many cases, for a movie, a pretty sloppy device to tell a story. But they should've told what you missed either via dialog or worked it into the movie otherwise, while avoiding too much exposition (which often also is a sloppy cinematic device).  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 10-11-2017 11:10 AM                     I actually like the narrated version better. Not only does it fill in non obvious detail, but it adds to the film noir feel. My big problem with removing the narration is that they did not re-edit the film, so you had people standing around doing nothing for extended periods of time where the narration used to be. My other two problems with all the non-narrated version is that by pushing the idea the Deckard was a replicant, and removing the "happy" ending, it changes the point of the film. Inserting the "unicorn" dream broke up a beautiful piece of piano music, spoiling the mood of the scene. Removing the ending removed the philosophical question of what it means to be human. The last line of narration needed to be in the film, whether spoken or narrated. "I don't know how long she has, but then who does?". And of course, they never fixed the escaped Replicant count. And finally, up until the "final cut", they never finished the opticals for the surrounding buildings when the dove flies up into the sky. - Sometimes directors should not second guess themselves after the fact. This is one of those times.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.