tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16605980.post7988499314482503681..comments2024-03-16T18:31:16.417+00:00Comments on BLACK HOLE REVIEWS: BLADE RUNNER - THE FINAL CUT (1982/2007)Mark Hodgsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08744056312268440003noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16605980.post-50091483846251723862010-07-23T16:42:50.588+01:002010-07-23T16:42:50.588+01:00Ha. Not many comments here, but I am amused to se...Ha. Not many comments here, but I am amused to see that all contributors share my opinion. I've always felt like a bit of an outcast with regard to my feelings toward this film, and my feelings toward Ridley Scott in general. <br />I just bought the 5-Disc Blu-Ray and have yet to watch the Final Cut... I have been debating whether to watch that or re-visit the Theatrical Cut, which is the only version that I know for certain that I like, warts and all. <br />I've always liked the VO. I thought it added texture in many places ('he was the kind of guy that used to call black men "niggers"') but it needed to be pruned back in other places (such as Roy's death, where Frank Darabont rightfully bemoans its presence). <br />I suspect that there is no cut of the film that will make me totally happy, which is the weird thing about Blade Runner - it comes so close to being great, but each attempt to fix it has introduced a different flaw. <br />I never really felt like the ADR bits, or the stunt double detracted much from the film. Choosing to fix those things is kind of cool, but mostly just a nice perk, a polish for an "anniversary restoration."<br />As far as quibbles go, one of the things that always bugged me is the expository dialogue in the scene where Bryant and Deckard review the files on Batty and crew, and later when Deckard gives the VK test to Rachel. If Deckard has already been a Blade Runner, shouldn't he know already about 4 year life-spans and implanted memories? Aren't these the very things that make it difficult to spot replicants in the first place, making the VK test necessary? Or were Nexus 5 models retired without a VK test and granted longer life spans?<br />This type of detail never bothered me enough to take away from the film.<br />But I did laugh aloud at Ridley Scott's comments in the documentary - his certainty that Deckard IS a replicant (!) and his pride with this new edition which apparently proves it, definitively. I agree wholeheartedly with Reg Langford. It seems that with each new movie Scott makes (or each new comment issued forth from his mouth about his existing good films), he only tarnishes his legacy further. There seem to be too many filmmakers who are venerated as auteurs simply because they have an impeccable eye for camerawork or production design (which I cannot take away from Scott). Blade Runner, like THe Wizard of Oz and Casablanca, seems to work as great proof against the auteur theory.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05659013071039360217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16605980.post-76965013885378928842010-07-23T16:42:12.354+01:002010-07-23T16:42:12.354+01:00Ha. Not many comments here, but I am amused to se...Ha. Not many comments here, but I am amused to see that all contributors share my opinion. I've always felt like a bit of an outcast with regard to my feelings toward this film, and my feelings toward Ridley Scott in general. <br />I just bought the 5-Disc Blu-Ray and have yet to watch the Final Cut... I have been debating whether to watch that or re-visit the Theatrical Cut, which is the only version that I know for certain that I like, warts and all. <br />I've always liked the VO. I thought it added texture in many places ('he was the kind of guy that used to call black men "niggers"') but it needed to be pruned back in other places (such as Roy's death, where Frank Darabont rightfully bemoans its presence). <br />I suspect that there is no cut of the film that will make me totally happy, which is the weird thing about Blade Runner - it comes so close to being great, but each attempt to fix it has introduced a different flaw. <br />I never really felt like the ADR bits, or the stunt double detracted much from the film. Choosing to fix those things is kind of cool, but mostly just a nice perk, a polish for an "anniversary restoration."<br />As far as quibbles go, one of the things that always bugged me is the expository dialogue in the scene where Bryant and Deckard review the files on Batty and crew, and later when Deckard gives the VK test to Rachel. If Deckard has already been a Blade Runner, shouldn't he know already about 4 year life-spans and implanted memories? Aren't these the very things that make it difficult to spot replicants in the first place, making the VK test necessary? Or were Nexus 5 models retired without a VK test and granted longer life spans?<br />This type of detail never bothered me enough to take away from the film.<br />But I did laugh aloud at Ridley Scott's comments in the documentary - his certainty that Deckard IS a replicant (!) and his pride with this new edition which apparently proves it, definitively. I agree wholeheartedly with Reg Langford. It seems that with each new movie Scott makes (or each new comment issued forth from his mouth about his existing good films), he only tarnishes his legacy further. There seem to be too many filmmakers who are venerated as auteurs simply because they have an impeccable eye for camerawork or production design (which I cannot take away from Scott). Blade Runner, like THe Wizard of Oz and Casablanca, seems to work as great proof against the auteur theory.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05659013071039360217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16605980.post-46344812222342824472010-04-18T04:58:49.447+01:002010-04-18T04:58:49.447+01:00It becomes more and more obvious that Ridley Scott...It becomes more and more obvious that Ridley Scott doesn't really know what he's doing. He made 2 superb films in a row (Alien and Bladerunner), and that really was it. Nothing else he's done even comes close (the only Oscar Gladiator deserved was the one for visual effects, which were stunning).<br /><br />I've noticed that many directors are like this - They produce a brilliant movie or two, and then gain more control than they deserve and go on to create rubbish. The shame of it is that this rubbish is all too often commercially successful, which means they keep producing more and more crap!<br /><br />Having seen the recent recut of Alien, I was extremely reluctant to watch yet another cut of Bladerunner, but I guess I'll have to check it out sooner or later.<br /><br />Regarding the voiceover and the "happy ending" in the original theatrical release, these were both forced by the producer, and were not in the original script. While I can take or leave the voiceover (I really enjoyed it, but it wasn't necessary), the tacked-on ending was very much out of sync. This was my major criticism of Minority Report, also. The abrupt ending of the Director's Cut was much more like a typical Phillip K Dick story, and thus made much more sense within the bleak context of the rest of the film.<br /><br />If you really want an accurate adaptation of the feel of a Phillip K Dick story, everyone out there should check out Screamers. This is wonderfully bleak, and epitomises the atmosphere of his works.<br /><br />Oh, and the unicorn? Stupid, irrelevant, and indicative of Scott's obsession with the creatures. The inclusion of this scene is completely out of place, regardless of the later reference. I think it was only included to give some credence to the idea that Deckard is a replicant. As you point out, if he is, he's certainly poorly constructed!<br /><br />I stopped watching Ridley Scott movies after Hannibal - I am not averse to gore (quite the opposite!), but I believe this film crossed the line into "gore-pornography", especially the "meal" (trying not to spoil here, for those silly enough to want to watch this crap). Just because you can do something in film, that doesn't mean you should.Reg Langfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08963138287172311425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16605980.post-12748151166130273062009-09-18T09:12:21.206+01:002009-09-18T09:12:21.206+01:00I'm glad someone agrees! So many people are ha...I'm glad someone agrees! So many people are hanging on Ridley's every word, which I would normally do too. But I was hoping the new boxsets would have included the Channel Four documentary. It's also required viewing, with a brilliant closing montage of many of the cast and crew answering the question, "Is Deckard a Replicant?". I'll have to dig it out and add the answers a postscript...Mark Hodgsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08744056312268440003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16605980.post-51048862995611284942009-09-17T17:20:34.812+01:002009-09-17T17:20:34.812+01:00As brilliant a film as Bladerunner is, I've re...As brilliant a film as <i>Bladerunner</i> is, I've realised over the years that this is because of Syd Mead and the lighting director and the costumes and the actors and the music... pretty much everything except the director. The documentaries on this feature-packed edition pretty well prove my case. Ridley Scott really doesn't have a clue about the subtleties in the screenplay or the original book. By re-inventing Deckard as a replicant, he misses the entire point of the script, as you so carefully point out. <br /><br />And Scott certainly did not have this in mind originally. He said nothing about this aspect until many years after fans started throwing the idea around. As I am not a fan of the voice-over, I think the Final Cut may be the perfect version... if you delete the unicorn dream.robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.com