RECENT
Batman the Detective
Review: Dawn of Justice
Deadpool Movie Review
Review: Star Wars Force Awakens
Avengers 2 Movie Review
Guardians of the Galaxy Movie Review
Review: X-Men DOFP
Godzilla Review

OTHER
Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Captain America: Winter Soldier
Thor: The Dark World (Movie Review)
The Wolverine Review
Man of Steel Review
Iron Man 3 Review
The Dark Knight Fails to Rise
Review: The Dark Knight Rises
Review: Amazing Spider-Man
Review: Spider-Man
Review: Spider-Man 2
Review: Spider-Man 3
Review: The Avengers
Review: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Review: Thor
Review: Captain America
Green Lantern Movie Reviews
Review: The Doctor's Wife
arrowBlade Runner: A Review Of Sorts
Sucker Punch Analysis
Sucker Punch Review


Blade Runner: A Review Of Sorts
MegaBeth (05/30/2011)
 Page:  1  2  3   

Goto Comments

Blade Runner Review by MegaBethBlade Runner is a great movie. Nothing about the film feels dated; for the most part the special effects still look incredible. In terms of thematic elements, Blade Runner still eerily depicts a world where society has let technology take precedent over morality and humanity itself. We see this not only in the pollution choked cityscape of a future L.A., but also in the degraded humanity of Rick Deckard.  Yet for all its great aspects there are major flaws that keep Blade Runner from being the movie it could have been.

Firstly, it is a very slow moving film. There are several scenes that just seem to go on and on with very little of substance/importance happening. All of the symbolic references (ex: the eyes) had me trying to comprehend/gather meaning from every single little detail (relevant or not); which was distracting at times. The dialog could feel a bit dull, and I had a hard time identifying an emotional connection with any of the characters. We obliviously are not supposed to connect to Deckard at the beginning, but even at the end, when he regains his humanity I had a hard time developing a real connection. I understand that Deckard is supposed to be a bit wooden at first so the audience sees his transformation, but his monotone narration needed a little voice inflection in order for me to connect with him on some level.

In terms of the Replicants I had a really hard time developing an emotional connection with any of them, since, from the beginning of the movie we are told (a) they have killed a lot of innocent people and (b) they are going to die very soon. There are attempts to get the audience to empathize with their struggle to prolong life, and understand their motives; however, tricking/using innocent humans and then killing their creator did not make me emphatic/sympathetic.

If I was able to grow an attachment to any of the Replicants it would be their leader Roy Batty. At the end of the movie Roy shows he has some humanity by showing grief and rage over the death of his lover and then by saving Deckard. These things endeared me to him more than the others, but not enough to really care that he died (especially since he was already at death's doorstep).


 Page:  1  2  3   

Back to Top

Your Comments:
If you don't feel empathy for the Replicants, then you must be a Replicant yourself! ;-) Empathy for the Replicants comes from the fact that humans bred them to be killing machines. They are the future's Frankenstein Monster. Humans have not learned that you cannot create something and then control it for their purposes only. History is replete with examples: Marconi trying to control the use of wireless communications, IBM trying to control the use of computers, Humans trying to control nuclear fission, and so on. What is the difference between breeding a killer such as The Replicants, or training a special forces killer in our Army? Did we not feel sympathy for John Rambo (to use another movie example)? I can sympathize with The Replicants but be abhorred by their methods! We can feel sympathy if we put ourselves in their shoes and have the realization that we are going to die in 4 years. It is even sadder that they never had a true childhood and that their memories were all planted.

Posted by: First Lensman on 7/12/2011 7:58:31 AM
Philip K Dicks work has been adapted many times, and this is still easily the strongest adaption yet. The story pacing is uneven, I agree. But, have you seriously seen many sci fi movies that actually hit on as many sociological themes that has quick pacing? Never. The closest would be Minority Report, which btw was based on a short story by Dick as well, but it had a larger budget and Steven 'I can do what I want' Spielberg behind the camera. Sci fi was a joke when Blade Runner was released, and it broke a mold that had been used for a LONG time!!!

Posted by: Vile_Sineater on 6/6/2011 9:01:15 AM
Have to chime in: I believe the narration was inserted over Scott's objections, too. Go with the director's cut! I always regard Blade Runner's slow pacing as a strength, not a weakness. Case in point: When Deckard is climbing the stairs on the way to his confrontation with Pris, we have long shots of the rainy stairwell and the creepy floating 'billboard'. How many movies would take that time to breath these days? They go right to the explosions (yuck).

Posted by: spudeus on 6/1/2011 6:46:39 AM
Hey, I loved the Phantom Menace! I'm an offended Star Wars fan! (LOL!)
The only character I HATED was Jar Jar Binks...What a dork...They did not need him at ALL. Darth Maul was awesome, though; you gotta admit!

Posted by: Owlman166 on 6/1/2011 6:28:49 AM
The Phantom Menace is an OK film, it's just a terrible Star Wars film.

Just because a minority of people think a movie is bad, doesn't mean it's not-great. Blade Runner is an exceptional movie. Not perfect, but exceptional.

And while I respect your opinion on Blade Runner and the fact that it differs from mine, you're still wrong. ;)

Posted by: Dairoka on 5/31/2011 8:06:41 AM
@Dairoka: if that is true, then it's the Harrison's fault for doing it that way and the director's fault for allowing it in that way.

I've also found a lot of people who think Star Wars the Phantom Menace is pretty good too, but that doesn't make the movie good.

Posted by: The Le on 5/31/2011 7:19:26 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Harrison Ford was obligated to do the voiceover work after filming. He didn't want to, so he did the most monitone deadpan possible.
And the Library of Congress has deemed the film as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" back in '93, so other people think it's pretty good, too.

Posted by: Dairoka on 5/31/2011 6:08:21 AM
The movie was directed by Ridley Scott (alien), so if you are a fan of his work, then this movie is very good. I myself liked it very much and happy that Pogs were made from that movie. And yes.. there are some good and some bad parts. The original story was written by Philip K. Dick (famous sci-fi writer). And reading his book should be done if you have the time.

Posted by: Philip on 5/30/2011 6:36:17 PM
read the origal story!

Posted by: prekrap on 5/30/2011 2:10:38 PM
Read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Blade Runner is based on it. The movie doesn't come close to the book. The book is one of the best things I've ever read.

Posted by: Diesel on 5/30/2011 2:07:25 PM