Skip to main content

Blade Runner

One down, eleven to go. I sort of cheated here; I didn't have the copy of the original film, but I watched the 2007 digitally remastered one. In the future, the world has replicants, robotic creatures that could not be distinguished from human beings. Because of their act of rebellion, they were banned from earth, and had assassins called Blade Runners to terminate the rebels. The film starts with four rebels landing to earth in order to find a way to prolong their lives, with retired Blade Runner Deckard on their tale.

The story brought more questions than answers, primarily because the film immediately throws us in the middle of the dilemma, without any explanation as to why the rebellion happened, or if the previous replicant models have started to evolve within their system (although they probably did). There wasn't much background to the Nexus program, and why Deckard was melancholic all the time. However, despite all those plot questions I have, I thought that Blade Runner was quite advanced for its age. The visual work was absolutely stunning, and it contributed much to the tone of the film. It wasn't a  background that just blended in like wallpaper, rather it complimented the film's tone and mood. Even the set and the technology used were great as well. I actually wanted the hair dryer device, very nifty.

The film clocks in a rather lengthy time, but it was worth it. Thinking about it, there really wasn't much happening, as everything moves in a slower pace, but it allows the viewers to immerse itself in the dystopian world Ridley Scott created. The way the camera pans out to the world, or how it shifts from one person to the next without breaking the momentum. Usually when a movie is long, there are some unnecessary scenes added, but I couldn't think of any for this one. The last act was quite surprising in itself. For one, the picture of Deckard varied from other hero-type protagonists. We just know that he's good at his job, but with the scene between him and Roy, even Deckard has managed to portray a realistic hero. Then there's the anti-villainy deed, which surprised me. 


What makes Blade Runner stand out from other robotic-dystopian movies is that the replicants in question aren't about destroying the human race. In fact, they want to live alongside them, and they desire to live much longer, and partake in human activities, something that emotionless drones couldn't do. They have a need to become humans themselves, and as implicated by the relations of the replicants, they convey those needs that humans desire themselves.

The actors were great, but I have to give special mention to Daryll Hannah. She lived up to her replicant kind - she's a pleasure replicant. Her final scene was hauntingly eery. While there are still parts of the film that I do not understand (I honestly feel the need to watch it over again just to see if I missed something), Blade Runner is a good film and a recommended watch, at that.



Final Word: Blade Runner might have left me with a lot of questions, but it didn't fail to wow in terms of cinematography and design.

Cast: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young
Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 1982

Comments

  1. Glad you liked it! It's one of sci-fi masterpiece films, I really love this film. It's indeed very thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was very surprised with it (in a good way). Really did leave a lot of questions, but all in all it was a very interesting film.

      Delete
  2. I absolutely love this movie. 1982 is one of those years where sci-fi ruled the day, and between this and E.T. my nostalgia cherry is certainly popped in a good way. Hauer and Young are astonishingly good in this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hauer does have the sinister look down pat, and his character sort of surprised me in the end. Young was also good in conveying her emotion, and how she easily switched from being collected to confused and lost.

      Delete
  3. One of my all-time favorites. Now because you didn't bring it up, let me ask you this:

    Where do you fall in the argument that Deckard himself is a replicant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I first saw the movie, I thought that he was human. Despite being sullen, he does have emotions and his strength doesn't match physically to the replicants he encountered. They were clearly stronger and more agile and he did come off as a human fighting machine.

      Having done a bit of research, it was said that he was a replicant, and the director confirmed it for himself. Since he made the film, I supposed his final word would answer the question. It does make sense that he is a replicant, especially with the unicorn reference. Deckard was anti-social for most of the film, and he wouldn't be opening himself up to anybody, Gaff included. Plus with these smart models (who outsmarted a human blade runner), it would make sense that a replicant would be sent to retire them. This can be supported with the fact that Rachel is a replicant and she has memories and doesn't seem to be as physically agile as the other replicants in question. Which then leads to theorize that Deckard might be the same make as Rachel, and fed memories similar to her (fragments from a human being).

      But then again, if Deckard is in fact a replicant and Gaff might have revealed it to him, doesn't the final act of the film signify some sort of rebellion from Deckard's part? By that alone, and their presence on earth, shouldn't they be retired as well? Instead, Gaff just let them go. It could be because he's read his file (being a cop and all) - but it doesn't make sense that he let them go. But then why send a replicant if replicants aren't allowed to be on earth? If Deckard is a replicant posing as a human, then his mere existence on earth would be technically against the law, which then brings to further analysis.

      Correct me if I'm wrong about anything I just mentioned. Based on my first viewing, I thought of him as human, but the film does leave things with a lot of questions.

      Delete
    2. That all seems correct to me!

      I guess my next question then is one of hindsight. Scott's comments aside, Deckard's humanity isn't entirely clear...though there is one blink-and-you'll-miss-it tip off (it involves the pupils of his eyes).

      So now that you've heard about that entire angle of the story, one that isn't abundantly clear on first watch, do you feel like you want to revisit the film with it in mind and watch it all over again?

      I only ask because you've chosen a doozy of a selection to begin with: one that has these various interpretations behind it (despite being rather pulpy and straightforward), and one that rewards rewatches!

      Delete
    3. Knowing what I know now, I would revisit the film. I'd be more observant the next time around, especially since there is some clarity to some of my questions raised. I have a feeling it would still raise up a few questions though.

      Delete
  4. I re-watched this film a few years ago, and what struck me about it was the atmosphere, which is unlike anything else I've seen in a movie. Some have tried to recreate it, but it doesn't feel the same. I don't care much for the plot and Scott doesn't really either, yet it works because the world is so convincing. It's cool that you were able to check it out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The atmosphere was certainly different from similarly-themed films, and there was something that was settling about it.

      Delete
  5. Learning from the comments about this replicant angle with Deckard I need to re-see this movie!

    The first time I saw it I thought the story was good but the aging look of the film and the slow pacing didn't wow me. To be honest as I've aged myself my appreciation for both has improved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would recommend seeing it again. The pacing is slow, but there is a lot to dissect from this film. I thought that the look of the film was advanced for its age - there are still some sci-fi movies that attempt to capture the look, but it doesn't get better than the original.

      Delete
  6. I watched this film for the first time last year and was left kind of the same way as you - it's one to re-watch for sure. Loved Harrison Ford in this film by the way. My favorite scene was the famous 'tears in rain' one though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This definitely merits a re-watch, as there's more to be observant about. Ford was also great in this one.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Movie Alphabet Volume 2

In celebration of the 7th birthday of her blog, Mettel Ray has hosted the second round of her movie alphabet blogathon! Head over to her site and join in the fun! I participated in her first blogathon, and had a blast writing this so I was definitely in the second time around. When I first made this list, I was just thinking off the top of my head and placed a few things in there for the sake of crossing off some letters. I did end up thinking a lot for this list, and I went with things that are currently relevant to me. I also tweaked the rules a little bit, only because I don't want to let go of some of my picks. I think this list is a much clearer reflection on where I am in terms of my preferences compared to my previous years.

Thursday Movie Picks: The Renaissance (14th to 17th Century)

Thursday Movie Picks is hosted by Wandering Through the Shelves. This week’s theme is renaissance movies. I rarely watch period pieces so I had researched if I was getting the time lines right. Here are my picks for the week.

No, You're Crying! Blogathon

Debbie over at Moon in Gemini is hosting the No, YOU'RE Crying! Blogathon. The rules are simple - talk about our favorite tearjerker films! Head over to her site for a list of participants and their subsequent entries. I had a bunch of movies that made it to my short list, but ultimately decided on the movie that I keep coming back to. That is Disney's The Fox and the Hound - and it does not fail to make me cry. Note: spoilers for the movie below.