  click about to buy on DVD |
Technically any good? Without a doubt this version is more clean and "perfected" than the "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner. Though, to be honest, I was happy with the original cut, much happier with the director's cut but just sorta shrugged at this one. Sure, they got rid of the wires holding up the flying cars and the shots of Joanna Cassidy's stunt woman have been replaced, which is nice, but honestly, the film already blew me away and those few flaws it had were a reflection of the times the film was originally made in. Seems a shame to do away with those old versions just because director Ridley Scott came down with a case of Georgelucasitis. Imagine if Leonardo Da Vinci came forward in time and decided to touch up the Mona Lisa. In my mind, that's what Blade Runner: The Final Cut is like.
How did it leave me feeling? Entertained for sure, but ultimately underwhelmed. I had heard that Scott was going to clear up the question of whether Ford's character was a replicant or not and, in my opinion, he really didn't. There's one shot where it looks like he's got the glowing eyes-thing, but then he still gets his ass thoroughly whooped by Rutger Hauer. So....?
Final Rating? DNS - Do Not See for any other reason than it's playing on the big screen. Seriously, if you already loved Blade Runner you don't need to bother running out to buy this new DVD unless it's tiny imperfections reeeally bothered you. In fact, everyone should hang onto your older DVDs of the film because they're worth a lot more now that they're on the endangered species list.
Deckard got a beating from Roy and was outsmarted by Rachael because he was a less-advanced model.
ReplyDeleteYet, he was "advanced" enough to be the best Blade Runner to catch them all.
ReplyDeleteOr, at least, advanced enough to catch them all and wait for Roy to die of "natural" causes.
This is because a cop is generally better at solving crimes than a couple strippers or a guy trained to lift heavy things are at getting away with them.
ReplyDeleteYour argument invites so many questions. Like, why not include this back story in the movie? Or...
ReplyDeleteHe's a replicant, but he *doesn't* have a limited lifespan, has his own life and seems to be reasonably well adjusted to being a human. So, why are the other "more advanced" replicants crazy? They're not crazy--they just don't want to die. Why are they going to die after 4 years? Because their designers didn't want them to become individuals. Why, when Deckard is a reasonably well-functioning replicant who passes for human, even with himself?
Seems like there are an awful lot of arbitrary decisions being made here just to keep the story going. Ultimately, I think, as with a lot of good movies/stories, Blade Runner is great, but once you get to the Quantum Level, things fall apart and make little sense.
OR Deckard isn't a replicant and it all fits together just fine. Guess one of us should read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and find out what the original author had in mind. Personally, I'm thinking about writing a story about an ex-slave who is hired to capture runaway slaves during the civil war. Or maybe I'll set it in the future?
I better read the Philip K. Dick book first. :)
I think part of the charm and appeal of the movie that you're missing out on is that it isn't explicitly stated whether Deckard is a replicant or not (in the book, he's not). The idea that the replicants don't know what they are (e.g. Deckard's "How can it not know what it is?") is at the core of so much of PKD's writing, that to spell that all out in needless backstory would belabor the whole point of the movie and tidily deflate the introspection and contemplation that the film invites.
ReplyDeleteAnd you notice that Deckard has settled nicely into being a human with a nice, human-length lifespan. So did Roy and the other Nexus 6's, until they found out what they were. And just as Roy figured out his own mortality, Deckard, at the end of the film, learns that his own life may not be what he took for granted, and now that he knows better who (and what) he is, he should begin to live his life accordingly. And regardless of whether he's a replicant or not, he's begun to see the value in his own life. He knows that one day he (and Rachael) will die -- that's Gaff's hint to him at the end: "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" This is the sobering lesson I take away from the film. It doesn't matter if you've got 4 years to live or 40, you have to make the most of all of it, because it will all be lost in the end.
Like tears in rain, one might say.
This is a moral that can be applied to anyone's life, replicant or no.
Honestly, I thought this was obvious. Maybe you should read the book. ;)
Reply to 1st paragraph: I'm not missing it--I just don't think it's handled very well. The way to keep people guessing is by allowing both plotlines to be possible. Too many questions exist with the "Deckard is a replicant" plotline. If the events of the story didn't make it obvious he couldn't be a replicant then I'd agree with you on leaving it the way it is. But when the audience has to read into the story so deeply, it absolves the storyteller of his responsibility to tell the whole story--assuming Deckard is a replicant.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible to have Deckard be a replicant without overly saying he's a replicant--just avoid showing him getting his ass whooped so supremely. Of course, this is where you say that taking those scenes out would make the film be boring--well, only if you don't replace them with something better. It's not like the choices are a) as it is and b) suckier.
I don't believe I'm missing anything about this film, including it's flaws. I'm very familiar with these themes, too--Ghost in the Shell, I feel, deals with them much more effectively--if not in the movies, in the TV series.
In reply to your 2nd paragraph: I know, I get it. Though I don't *see* Deckard's transformation on screen. All I *see* is that he's leaving before he gets in trouble for saving a replicant that he's fallen in love with. I *get* all the stuff you mention, but only when I read into it. I don't see anything in the film that expressly, or even vaguely, suggests he's learned much of anything by the end of the movie.
However, this isn't about what I take away from the film--it's about the film itself. I'm a writer, so story-construction is where I come from when talking about a film.
I'm glad you got so much from it, but I'm talking about it's flaws. You're talking about it's strengths. In my mind, it would have been better to put the script through an extra couple of drafts to make it seem more ambiguous as to whether Deckard was a replicant or not. As it is now, as it has always been, for me, it seems like just a funny joke that pops in at one scene to fuck with us. Almost like an afterthought of Ridley during the post-process.
So, please, don't assume I'm not getting themes when I'm talking about construction. You can understand the theme of Blade Runner by reading it's synopsis on IMDB. "What is human?" That's the theme. I'm so down with that theme--believe me.
It isn't important whether Deckard's human or not. In a movie that asks, "What is human?" the uncertainty is what's important. Adding scenes that spell that out would make it suckier. Then it's a fairly superficial story about robots chasing robots. And? So?
ReplyDeleteYou say you get the choices Deckard makes by the end of the film, and without having to be hit over the head with them -- that sounds like deft writing to me, not flawed plotting. If the crux of the movie is about not knowing what you are, what scene could be added that would strengthen that already clear theme?
So now I'm confused, previously you wanted more scenes indicating Deckard was a replicant, now you want the movie to be more ambiguous... when the fact of whether he's a replicant is beside the point. Now I don't get it.
You've missed what I said: "In my mind, it would have been better to put the script through an extra couple of drafts to make it seem more ambiguous as to whether Deckard was a replicant or not."
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it is important whether he is or not--I'm saying if you want it to be ambiguous then MAKE it ambiguous. One hint that Deckard is a replicant does NOT create ambiguity--it's a quick little joke to mess with the audience. This is especially true when you think about it more and realize that there is plenty of evidence that Deckard is a regular human being. In my mind ambiguity would exist if there was enough evidence to assume either was true but nothing so definite as to be able to say yes or no.
Personally, I don't care whether he's a replicant or not--I just want the story to work better. Just make both possibilities equally likely (or at the very least, equally possible). I don't see any evidence that Deckard is a replicant beyond that one shot where his eyes are "glowing". Of course, if that means he's DEFINITELY a replicant, then there's no ambiguity, is there? If it doesn't mean that he's definitely a replicant then we need to see a few more things that suggest he could be a replicant or the choice of showing the glowing eyes is just sort of a weak choice--or, like I said, a joke on the audience, which I'm fine with--just so long as it's an intentional joke.
And I don't get that he's in doubt of who he is at all. Totally never got that.
To me, the irony and the subtlety of this movie lies in the comparison between this lonely, desperate human and these lonely, desperate robots. The brilliance of this movie is in it's ability to point out the similarities between humans and robots. Since we don't have robots like Roy and Priss, yet--the comparison is even more critical of humanity, itself. How different are humans from robots? Not much, it would seem. This aspect falls apart of Deckard is anything but human. However, if Scott wants it to be ambiguous, I'm cool with that choice--it's his movie. I just don't see it yet and that's what I was hoping for in this "Final" cut.
Hey, can you even find the original studio cut on DVD anywhere?