Overall Rating
  Awesome: 66.8%
Worth A Look: 11.07%
Average: 10.28%
Pretty Bad: 6.72%
Total Crap: 5.14%
8 reviews, 205 user ratings
|
|
| Blade Runner |
by Peter Sobczynski
"Livin In The Future"
|
When I first saw Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” for the first time during that glorious cinematic summer of 1982–a period of time that gave us a bumper crop of films such as “E.T.,” “The Thing,” “Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan,” “Tron,” “Poltergeist,” “The Road Warrior,” “Conan the Barbarian” and “Megaforce”–I never could have imagined that critics would still be writing about more than a quarter-century later as a new and viable work of contemporary cinema instead of as a dusty museum piece. Part of that is because the film remains one of the most fascinating and forward-thinking science-fiction movies ever made–like such genre landmarks as “Metropolis” and “2001: A Space Odyssey,” it combines classical dramatic concerns with a visionary (and often scarily accurate) depiction of what might be in store in our future in a manner that is essentially timeless. Of course, another part of it is because Scott has fiddled with it so incessantly over the years that it is always being reissued in a new and improved version–as he has with the newly re-edited “Blade Runner–The Ultimate Cut” (which is getting a brief theatrical run in order to hype the 5-disc DVD megaset dedicated to the film that will be coming next month) that allows us to check in with it every few years to remind ourselves of its brilliance and the way that it helped revolutionize the world of science-fiction cinema.Although it seems impossible today to imagine someone who doesn’t know the plot of “Blade Runner” by heart, I will nevertheless offer a brief recap for those who are arriving a quarter-century late to the party. In the not-too-distant future, mankind–specifically the omnipresent Tyrell Corporation–have developed “replicants”–genetically engineered humanoids that are essentially used for slave labor and entertainment purposes on the off-world colonies that have sprung up in the wake of unspecified social, economic and ecological changes that have made Earth, or at least the chunk of Los Angeles where the story is set, into an overdeveloped, overcrowded and smoke-choked urban jungle. The latest line of replicants, the Nexus-6 line, are equipped with superhuman strength, false memories to further create the illusion of their humanness and a genetically-engineered four-year life span to prevent the possibility that they might become self-aware of their peculiar existence. A group of four replicants–Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Pris (Daryl Hannah), Leon (Brion James) and Zhora (Joanna Cassidy)–violently commandeer a ship and make their way to Earth.
Because replicants are illegal on Earth, a special class of detective, known as “blade runners,” are used to ferret them out using a test monitoring emotional responses and “retire” them. When one of them detects Leon and is left on life-support for his troubles, one-time blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is pulled out of retirement by his former boss (M. Emmett Walsh) to track down and eliminate them. As he doggedly pursues his prey through the streets of L.A., he finds himself growing increasingly attached to Rachael (Sean Young), who is yet another Nexus-6, though one who is currently not aware of her not-quite-human status. Meanwhile, the replicants track down Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) to his immense and isolated hideaway and Pris exploits her friendship with one of his most trusted employees, genetic engineer J.F. Sebastian (William Sanderson)–like his creations, he too has been programmed with a genetic malady (natural in his case) that causes his body to age faster than his years–so that Batty can literally meet his maker in an effort to get what everyone wants–more life. Deckard and Batty finally meet in a rain-swept climax filled with violent action, people dangling from impossible heights and both of the characters discovering what it truly means to be human.
Well, so much for only offering a brief recap. However, this does go to disprove one of the main criticisms that has been leveled at “Blade Runner” throughout the years–that it was a film so obsessed with creating a unique vision of the future that it forgot to place a compelling story or characters inside said vision. Although the plot details of the screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples diverge significantly from its literary source, the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?,” it does do a good job of dealing in cinematic terms with the central question that informed the vast majority of Dick’s writing career–“What does it mean to be human?” At the same time, the screenplay also works as both a future twist on the grand traditions of film noir and as a subversive twist on those very same traditions. Not only is our “hero” only able kill two of the four replicants that he is charged with retiring, they happen to be the two females and with one of those, he only manages to pull off the job by shooting his prey in the back as she is running away from him.
When “Blade Runner” was re-released in 1992 in its so-called “director’s cut” (which wasn’t entirely true since Ridley Scott was too busy working on “1492" to contribute much to the project), it was in a form that, on the surface, wasn’t all that different from the 1982 version–the changes included the elimination of nearly all of the voice-over narration from Ford that navigated us through the story, a brief shot of a unicorn that raised numerous questions about Deckard’s own existence and the elimination of the unconvincing “happy ending” that was quickly cobbled together (using outtakes from “The Shining”) when test audiences found the original climax to be a bummer. With this so-called “ultimate cut,” the changes are even more subtle than before–a line of dialogue here, a fix on a flubbed special effect there–and I will leave them for fans to discover on their own. I’ll put it this way–if you loved “Blade Runner” in its previous forms, you will no doubt be intrigued by these new additions but if you never sparked to the film before, there is nothing here that is liable to inspire you to change your mind on the subject.
Although most of the changes are for the better, I still question the logic about the elimination of the voice-over narration. Although it wasn’t executed very well in the original version (the rumor is that Ford, who wasn’t in favor of it and who was allegedly feuding with Scott throughout the production, deliberately gave a bad rendition of the lines in the hopes that it wouldn’t be used), the simple truth of the matter is that the idea of having a voice-over wasn’t that bad of an idea. For starters, it helped link the film to its noir ancestors, most of which effective used narration to tell their stories. More importantly, it helped shed light on what was going on in a narrative that was otherwise fairly murky and impenetrable in places. Fans complain that the voice-over explained too much and that the film works better without it but they forget that when they saw it without the narration, they already had the benefit of having had the story explained to them the first time around. If you are trying to enter the film cold through one of these alternate, narration-free version, you are likely to walk away from it feeling little more than total confusion. (Newbies are advised to wait until the upcoming DVD set is released as it will include five different cuts of the film, including the original theatrical version with the voice-over intact.)For everyone else, however, “Blade Runner–The Ultimate Cut” remains one of the great science-fiction films as well as one of the most overwhelming visual experiences in the entire history of film. Watching it today, it is astonishing to remember that there was once a time when people were willing to invest huge amounts of money into a genre film that didn’t necessarily lend itself to sequels, action figures or Happy Meal giveaway. It is also amazing to realize just how many sci-fi films over the last couple of decades have been influenced by it to some degree–“Brazil,” “The Fifth Element,” “Strange Days” and the upcoming “Southland Tales” are just a couple of titles that immediately spring to mind. At the same time, “Blade Runner” is no mere museum piece–it continues to live and breathe in a manner unlike the vast majority of contemporary films, regardless of genre, and this is why it continues to resonate just as strongly as it did back in 1982. Like the replicants at the center of its story, this is a film that may look like a soulless work on its surface but which turns out to be far more human at its core than you might think.
link directly to this review at https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=924&reviewer=389
originally posted: 11/02/07 16:12:23
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2016 Boston SciFi Film Festival For more in the 2016 Boston Sci-Fi Film Festival series, click here.
|
 |
USA
25-Jun-1982 (R)
DVD: 07-Nov-2000
UK
09-Sep-1982 (15)
Australia
16-Sep-1982 (M)
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
