Blade Runner

Retirement - Replicants - Resplendent. Blade Runner is one of those glorious films that has gained in popularity the older it has gotten. Ridley Scott's follow up to the critical and commercial darling that was Alien, was by and large considered a flop and damned for not being a science fiction action blockbuster. There was of course some fans who recognised its many many strengths during the initial weeks of its 1982 release, but many who now claim to have loved it back then are surely looking sheepishly in the mirror these days, for the hard-core minority of 82 fans remember it very differently. Remember the spider that lived outside your window? Orange body, green legs. Watched her build a web all summer, then one day there's a big egg in it. The egg hatched... Anyway, that's by the by, the point being that a film can sometimes be ahead of its time, misunderstood or miss-marketed, Scott's masterpiece is one such case. Story, adapted in fashion from Philip K. Dick's story, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Is pretty simple. It's a dystopian Los Angeles, 2019, and there are four genetically engineered Replicants - human in appearance - in the city, which is illegal. They were designed to work on off-world colonies, any Replicant who defies the rules will be retired by special police assassins known as Blade Runners, and Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is on this case. A case that will prove to have many layers... A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure! Ridley Scott gets to have all his cakes to eat here, managing to blend intriguing science fiction with film noir. That the visuals are outstanding is a given, even the film's most hardest critics grudgingly acknowledge this to be an eye popping piece of visual class - the mention of eyes is on purpose since it's forms a key narrative thread. That it is awash with eye orgasms has led to critics calling a charge of beauty over substance, but the deep themes at work here tickle the brain and gnaw away at the senses. Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave. Mood is set at perpetually bleak, a classic film noir trait, and paced accordingly. Scott isn't here to perk anyone up, he's here to ask questions whilst filtering his main characters through a prism of techno decay, of humanity questioned to the max, for a film so stunning in visuals, it's surprisingly nightmarish at its core. The emotional spine is ever present, troubled when violence shows its hand, but it's there posing an intriguing question as the Replicants kill because they want to live. And this as our antagonist, Deckard (Ford a brilliantly miserable Marlowe clone), starts to fall for Rachael (a sensually effective femme fatale portrayal), one of his retirement targets. Tears in the Rain. As Rutger Hauer (never better) saunters more prominently into the story as head Replicant Roy Batty, the pic evolves still more. Haunting lyricism starts pulsing away in conjunction with Vangelis' rib shaking techno score, while Jordan Cronenweth's cinematography brings Scott's masterful visions to life, key characters one and all. Visuals, aural splendour and dark thematics - so just what does it mean to be human? - Indeed, curl as one in a magnificent cinematic achievement. A number of cuts of the film are out there, and all of them have fans, but Scott's Final Cut is the one where he had total artistic control, and the scrub up job across the board is quite literally breath taking. 10/10

The movie's story didn't do much for me, however I did find parts of it confusing. After watching it I found out that I watched the "Final Cut" which has a completely different ending and different implications from the theatrical release. I didn't understand those implications...I needed to look up the ending online. Whether that's because the movie is confusing or I'm dumb, I can't say. But my friend I watched it with didn't understand it either. After looking up the end's meaning, I did find it a bit more satisfying. But the main reason this movie is worth watching is the visuals. Not sure I'd watch it again any time soon though.

Some people will say this classic sci-fi "has nothing to offer other than overrated cult-status". To that, I would respond, "it has Rutger Hauer on a rooftop, and that's enough for me". _Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._ (3.5 for the Theatrical Cut, 4.0 for the Final Cut)

I have only viewed the Final Cut, and judging by reviews elsewhere this is possibly the most complete and satisfying version of them all. I cannot truthfully say I am in awe with this film as I found it quite plodding at times. But having said that the visionary aspects, the bleak surrounds, and the air of hopelessness that permeates throughout most of the film is exceptionally well done. I would hazard a guess it wasn't a big success at the box office back in 82/83 chiefly because of the likes of ET, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi and quite a few other adventure/SF films of the time pushing this film into a dark corner. Another reason could be because it was too slow for those brought up on Star Wars; or just too unengaging for those looking at it from a murder-mystery perspective (I recall reading that the original version had Ford do a Marlowesque voice over). An impressive film for all that, with some delightful special effects, and a decent performance from Ford. But of course for me the true delight was Roy's "Time to Die" speech at the end. If there was an Oscar for best speech in a film, he would have won it with ease!