Rating: 
Summary: Pondering Life
Review: What if, as a person, you came into this world fully-grown, fully aware, experiencing life to its fullest -- but were to die in just a few years? In that time there could be no family, no grandchildren, and no debilitating diseases to signal the pending of one's demise. The curtain would close - at the height of one's existence.What if, as a woman, you were also thrusted into the world fully developed -- mature physically, but an emotional novice - and that you allowed yourself to be molded to the satisfaction of your man's desires? It takes a while to get there, but that is what the movie 'Blade Runner' - based upon the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by that classic sci-fi writer, Phillip K. Dick - is all about. The film, made in 1982, pictures life in Los Angeles in 2018. (Even though we're halfway there, we're not even close to achieving the technological advancements depicted.) Harrison Ford, much younger, is the hero. He is a "blade runner," someone who kills the replicants (fake humans relegated to other worlds) when they trespass on Earth. The special effects, although dated and looking like something out of 'Battlestar Galactica', are still excellent. The look of the movie is dark and brooding, like 'Alien', another of Ridley Scott's works. Three replicants come to Earth and Harrison goes to meet them. He kills a few, and falls in love with another. There's some erotically gruesome slow motion death scenes of beautiful, scantily-clad women (Daryl Hannah one of them) being shot in the back and in the gut, oozing innards a la Sam Peckinpah-style, which is ok since they're replicants. Rutger Hauer, who looks like Paul Newman, gives the most touching performance as he struggles to come to grips with the end. The movie is futuristic - but actually much deeper -- which is probably why it's achieved an almost cult-like status. This is a great feature if one wishes to ponder - the meaning of life itself. Don't miss it!
Rating: 
Summary: Bring back 'voice-over narration'!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: I'm afraid this movie has been ruined,like George Lucas's 'Star Wars' remake,with the add-ins,that weren't there in the movies first presentation. Even if the voice-over narration is seriously cheesy,the point is that it was there in that period of time,and now has been removed. I purposely give this a one 'star' because of the deletation of the narration,and please get rid of that 'Unicorn',please!
Rating: 
Summary: the first cut was better
Review: i don't buy this "director's cut" business. despite what critics have panned as a "forced voice-over", there are some important descriptive narratives in the original theatrical release. when bryant refers to replicants as "skin jobs" and we understand the derogatory implications via voice over, this is all lost without the narrative.
i want the original. plain and simple.
Rating: 
Summary: Overated!
Review: I just don't see what all the hype is about. Granted the scenery looks cool, but you only get a few seconds glimpse at it. The story is under developed. This really had potential but ends up flopping. This could have been a wonderful sci fi epic. Instead it bored me to death. ... Harrison Ford is still the man though. But a [bad] ending, the lousiest end to a villan ever. Don't listen to reviews, this movie is terrible. Nothing in life is worse than wasted talent.
Rating:
Summary: The great Blade Runner Swindle
Review: This is not a Director's Cut, but a half-finished edition, recovered in storage somewhere in LA and let loose on the public. Okay, the theatre version was not Ridley Scott's vision. But neither is this. This half-baked movie started the entire Director's Cut-madness, the greatest [cheat] the companies ever made to make us buy and watch the same movies more times. Please, let me have the original(!) theatre version of this fine movie? Please?
Rating: 
Summary: Wish the Original were Available... ...I think??
Review: So much has been said about this film it has almost become a "fabled" movie. I just watched the "Directors Cut" (the only cut available)last night (having only seen the original version many years ago and at the theater). I had heard so many things about this version, yet never anything specific. It turned out to be nothing that I had expected. Here's what went through my mind; (if you've never seen this film, beware of spoiler stuff!!) -I remembered the original being a bit more exciting... ...I think?
-The lack of narration had little effect on my opinion of the film. It did seam a little "lonelier"... ...I think??
-Harrison Ford sure looks young!! He really didn't need to act much.
-I had forgotten how "Asian" L.A. had become in this film. Not sure why this is our future?
-Could not get over the fact that this film takes place 20 years from now. Doubtful L.A. will look like this in 20 years. I would have picked a date most of the viewers would not live to, like 2100. That's just me...
-I had heard that Ford's character dies in this version. I kept waiting for that...
-Some say he is a replicant and will die soon. OK?? I'm going to need some help with that one. It was not apparent to me (Though intriguing).
-I guess they imply that the "Unicorn dream" was implanted, at the end. THAT'S REALLY SUBTLE!! But I get it.
-If he is a replicant, I really don't have much reason to care for him. And why isn't he stronger?
-Given all this, I like the original better... ...I think? You see, my biggest problem is my memories of the original are fading. I really think there is something wrong with that. When I first saw this film in the theater, I thought it was outstanding. Now I see the Directors Cut and think it's OK. It actually moved a little slow for me. If I could just have a clear point of reference/comparison. I'm a little upset that the choice has been denied me. Why is it that both versions were not released together? Now that would be great!! I haven't said much about the DVD itself. Eh. It is an old DVD. NO extras at all. Expectations have risen since this version was released. Hey, it's not expensive. A new version is bound to come out soon. Wait for(and Pay ?$$$?)later. Still a great piece of Sci-Fi.
Rating:
Summary: A entertaining and visual masterpiece!
Review: This is movie displays alot of good filmmaking considered the fact that it was made during the 80's and the visuals for this are amazing and pure state of the art during the time of it's release in the theatre. I though there would be some big collector's edition of this film but this is the only thing they are going to release for Blade Runner in a long time. If your into the Sci-Fi genre with a few good twists and turns then Blade Runner is very fit for your collection!
Rating:
Summary: Bring back the Original cut
Review: (aka "Do androids dream of electric sheep") Ok, the directors cut took out my favoite part, the voice over...I always considered it a tribute to Bogart and noir films, I want that version on DVD, I was smart enough to get it on vhs. The way that some questions are considered, great acting and scene intensity make it unforgetable. Some of the questions: "How long do I have to live?" "How do you know whats real (memories)?" "Does anyone care about how I feel (why did you do this to us)?"
Playing god, as the company finds, does have its dangers. On the poisoned earth, those left behind live among the relics and try to find themselves.
Rating:
Summary: Good Movie, Bad Edit
Review: You know, I love Blade Runner. It's one of the best sci-fi movies I've seen period. It also had this film noir quality with the voice-over. It was dark, it was gritty, it was brutal. I loved it for the cinematic masterpiece it was.
But the Director's Cut doesn't have the voice-over. For me, this kills a lot of the gritty crime-story drama that the movie originally had. I would love to get my hands on a DVD of the orignal cut of Blade Runner, because I like it a lot more.
Rating:
Summary: DIRECTOR'S CUT IS OK - ORIGINAL IS BETTER
Review: There is some debate over which version of BR is the "best".
The original theatrical and videocassette releases contain
the voice-over narration and the "feel good" ending, plus
extra violence scenes - all of which are gone from the
director's cut version. The film's creators, the actors,
and,(from what I can gather)most fans of the film hated the
narration and the ending because they were imposed on
Ridley Scott by the studio because test audiences had trouble
following the plot. Thus, an otherwise great film had
supposedly been adulterated by non-artistic interlopers intent
on dumbing-down the film to increase it's appeal to the
great unwashed masses (and their wallets).
In the specific case of Blade Runner, I feel the studio execs
actually improved my enjoyment of the film. When I saw the
original release in '82, the dreamy Vangelis score, the excellent
visuals of a dark and dying Los Angeles, not to mention the
graphic violence, conspired to alternately seduce and distract
me constantly. The voice-over narration provided the viewpoint
"above it all" that called me back to the plot after being led
off by the texture and power of the production design and the
menace of the fugitive replicants. The famous death scene near
the end, where the replicant Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer)comes to
his preprogrammed end, is one of the great moments in ALL of
science fiction - and the point at which anyone unclear on the
meaning of the film will be straightened out. But the original
voice-over version IS the one that put BR on the map
- and has more charm. As for the unicorn sequences in the
director's cut, I don't need or want
Deckard to turn out to be a replicant. (Deckard's unicorn dreams
known to Gaff,who makes unicorn origami, because Gaff learns of
unicorn "implants" in replicant Deckard from Tyrell) Maybe
Ridley Scott had gotten tired of turning out powerful human dramas,
and just had to add that twist to make it more interesting to himself.
In any other film it would be a
fascinating subject to explore, but in
the context of the rest of BR, awkward. That would mean the
whole movie is about a high-order replicant (Batty) teaching a
low-order replicant (Deckard) what it is to be synthetic. Well,
that's a cool idea, but to have it descend on us in the last
5 minutes, after assuming Deckard is human the whole time, isn't
a thought-provoking shocker ending, but a needless confusion of
an otherwise perfectly wonderful lesson in the dangers of playing
God. We need a quality DVD, loaded with extras, that has both
versions.
|
