It's funny watching old sci-fi movies in the Year Of Our Lord 2016 to see how far off we predicted the future. "Back to the Future II" brought flying cars and hover boards to 2015. "Fahrenheit 451" banned books, and the jury is still out on whether a nuclear apocalypse will be here in 2029 as predicted by "Terminator." "Blade Runner" zooms in on dystopian Los Angeles of 2019, which looks like an overpopulated, gothic Tokyo/Hong Kong hybrid where cars zoom through the sky. The phones may still belong in the '90s, but this fictitious future for America depicts a moody, dark ambiance that has given this cult classic its well-deserved recognition as a pilot for sci fi movies.
In this universe, the Tyrell Corporation manufactures genetically engineered "replicants" that are visually indistinguishable from humans. Their use on Earth has been banned so they work, instead, on outer colonies as slaves. Certain cops known as "Blade Runners" dispose of rogue replicants loose on earth. Harrison Ford plays ex-Blade Runner Rick Deckard come out of retirement to hunt down four replicants on the loose.
The source material, "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" poses some fascinating questions about what it really means to be human. The film noir elements and examination on morality and science make the film go beyond skin deep. It's an action film interwoven with symbolism and ambiguity and while you might not "get it" on first viewing (or fifth) it is applause worthy.
These human questions on our existence - our rights, our abilities - are the driving force that make "Blade Runner" a revelation when the rest of the movie falls short. Unfortunately, the flaws outweigh the beauty. It seems that behind all of this ambiguity and thoughtfulness, the "why" is missing. These replicants have returned to Earth to seek their maker and extend their meager 4-year life span and yet it seems of the utmost importance that they be terminated. They kill some, yes. But there is no looming apocalypse, no maniacal killing sprees, no imminent threat to human existence besides those within the Tyrell Corporation. So, why kill the replicants? Now, there are arguments that the real villain is actually Deckard, not the replicants, and I subscribe to this theory. I find it the most fascinating conclusion, but I also find the lack of clarity frustrating. It is possible to create complex, ambiguous metaphors in film with more careful crafting of the narrative.
Harrison Ford plays no Han Solo in his interpretation of Deckard. I'd go so far as to say he was miscast in this role. It's no secret that there were issues with the casting as well as disagreements between Ford and director Ridley Scott. However it's unfortunate how bored Ford seems in the role (and don't get me started on that awful voice-over in the theatrical cut). Ford is at his best when he can be charming, likable, and funny. Perhaps I'm biased by selecting someone like Bruce Willis or a young Tom Cruise because I have seen the future of their sci-fi movies like "12 Monkeys" or "Minority Report." Deckard's character is intriguing, especially if you consider that he could also be a replicant. This is the most compelling facet of the plot, however vaguely it may be alluded to. It's unfortunate this character wasn't better interpreted.
As it goes with so many of these stories, our protagonist falls in love with a replicant (played by Sean Young). She doesn't know she is a replicant until Deckard tells her. While she wrestles with this reality of her existence, Deckard forces himself upon her. Now, there are arguments for Deckard helping her "come to terms" with her existence, but I cannot see anything in this scene other than rape. It is the most awkward kiss I've ever witnessed on a screen, Deckard is incredibly disagreeable as a character, and how can we just look past the fact that he raped her?? Did everyone else watch the same movie as me? If there weren't enough other things to dislike, this scene alone is a total buzzkill.
As it goes with so many of these stories, our protagonist falls in love with a replicant (played by Sean Young). She doesn't know she is a replicant until Deckard tells her. While she wrestles with this reality of her existence, Deckard forces himself upon her. Now, there are arguments for Deckard helping her "come to terms" with her existence, but I cannot see anything in this scene other than rape. It is the most awkward kiss I've ever witnessed on a screen, Deckard is incredibly disagreeable as a character, and how can we just look past the fact that he raped her?? Did everyone else watch the same movie as me? If there weren't enough other things to dislike, this scene alone is a total buzzkill.
The character that does stand out is the replicant leader Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer). His character shows the emotional complexity that I would hope from a layered movie like this. The final scene between him and Deckard is the best scene in the movie. I cared far more about the outcome of his character than I did of Deckard. Darryl Hannah as Pris was also good.
The other star of the movie is, of course, director Ridley Scott. Now famous for "Gladiator," "Black Hawk Down," and others, he was then known just for his work on "Alien." He had a magnificent vision for this neo-noir resulting in SEVEN different versions of his work. S-e-v-e-n. He worked tirelessly to perfect the film without studio restrictions and preferences. I admire his tenacity and his vision for this work of art.
I watched the theatrical cut, the director's cut, and the final cut. My first impressions of "Blade Runner" (all pretty negative) stemmed from the theatrical cut which has a lot of flaws, including the hokey ending and that terrible, terrible voice-over. The Final Cut certainly is a vast improvement and I felt like I ~understood "Blade Runner" better from watching it. This version also hints more at Deckard being a replicant himself with the weird unicorn sequence. Scott himself has said that Deckard is a replicant though it isn't overtly stated in the film, and this is the most fascinating arc of all, in my eyes. Perhaps this year's "Blade Runner 2049" will shed more light on this subject once and for all.
While I enjoyed the Final Cut better, "Blade Runner" still doesn't do it for me. It belongs in a museum with its important place in history, but a mere glance will do. It's really slow and the dialogue and narrative don't live up to its potential.
There are a few key things viewers should know about this film before watching. First of all, it's really slow, and the dialogue does not live up to its potential. As far as its place on the Top 100, I believe "Aliens" and "Terminator 2" are far superior sci-fi films. 4/10
Other Notes:
Directed by Ridley Scott
Nominated for 2 Academy Awards for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects
Ranked #97 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films in 2008
0 Comments