Comments on: BLADE RUNNER Review d: Ridley Scott scr: Hampton Fancher, David Peoples

By: GAFF

GAFF — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:46:59 +0000

Lets be honest here, anything any of us say isnt going to change this writers opinion – the very fact that the reasons he give why he doesnt like blade runner is the very things that everyone else gets. The richness of the charcterisation in this is so subtle that even the great film critic roger egbert didnt get it first time BUT now he does. Mainly because he took the blinkers off and let Blade Runner in. I get the feeling the author has a deeper chip on his shoulder and something bigger than Blade Runner is eating him – Blade Runner is a easy target because he knows he will get a reaction from us all and he will get his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he needs a happy memory (and humour)implant – anyone know the number for the Tyrell Corporation?

By: Callista Sky

Callista Sky — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:53:33 +0000

To think I wasted my time reading this 4-part blog…. The note at the end states "Also, please note that Alt Film Guide has no contact information for the talent The Author of the blog) mentioned in this blog…." I can see why.

By: Greg Cameron

Greg Cameron — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:31:21 +0000

I disagree strenuously. "Blade Runner" is a classic, I'm afraid - I've watched this film countless times and continue to find it fascinating and moving. Like most visions of the future, it is not accurate in its predictions of the future(as it currently appears to be unfolding) and it is reflective of the place and times that gave rise to it(at the time of filming, Americans were very concerned with Japan and West Germany overrunning their industrial base - globalization turned out to be a bit more complicated than that). However,"Blade Runner" shows its true modernity/post-modernity in its consideration of the question of identity. Arnold Schoenberg once told an L.A. music class, "I wonder sometimes who I am." That issue is central to this picture. Post-modernists often say that identity is a fictional construct. And psychologists argue that memories after only a short period of time are creative reconstructions of the events which supposedly gave rise to them(whatever they might have been, really). If you can't trust your memories, can you be sure who you really are? The female replicant in this picture has implanted memories - they are 'real' to her. Does this make her any less real than the fictions floating around in our own brains? I found the scene where Harrison Ford points out her memories were implanted and the female replicant breaks down in tears to be very moving. And, of course, is the Harrison Ford character himself 'real?' Like Star Trek - the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Star Trek Voyager, "Blade Runner" examines the issue of whether a synthetically created being (or the product of any other mechanical process) can be self-aware/sentient and hence 'alive.' It does so in a more provocative way than those series(which I am, incidentally, quite fond of) furthermore. When the Rutger Hauer replicant tells the Harrison Ford character of all the things he has seen, are his memories any less real than those of a human? The movie is also self-reflexive in a way that should appeal to post-modernists. The prematurely aging body mechanic/tinkerer has a living quarter full of synthetically created beings that inevitably recall "the Wizard of Oz." Such echoes are surely ironic in the dystopian context of the film. They may also provide an implicit critique of the techno-nightmare of the film. When the Rutger Hauer howls like a werewolf, he is engaging in irony - surely a very human activity. He is aware of himself being considered a 'monster' by the human world - he is, after all, being hunted down as though he were one. The film also makes an existential point. The Olmos character tells Harrison Ford that the female replicant is doomed to oblivion - but then again aren't we all? If we are all to be erased like a computer disc, all we have is to find meaning and make the existential gamble of love in the moments we have. At the end, Harrison Ford and the female replicant are on the run. In a very real sense, whether we know it or not, aren't we all on the run? Sorry, I find this film, in spite of its being 'dated', to be touching and even at times profound. My feelings are this film are real to me. Am I any less real than you? I suppose the matter is open to debate. At any rate, that is my take. Make of it what you will....Greg Cameron, Surrey, B.C., Canada

By: Victor

Victor — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:28:50 +0000

Dan,

What exactly do you know about directing, script writing, acting or film in general ? Stick to rating poetry. You obviously know little about film. Spielberg and his movies and the other acclaimed films you bash will ontinue to be considered great, nothing you can do about it.

By: Lengthy Johnson

Lengthy Johnson — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:13:24 +0000

Well, Blade Runner has several unique qualities. The first is the hypnotic cinematography and slow pace which creates a new space in the mind of the viewer.

The second is the highly allegorical story, which deals with existential issues – fully on par with Bergman.

Why are we here, who made us, why do we die and what happens then?

Acting is also outstanding with best performances from most of the cast.

As for your critique of Ridley Scott, I'd say it is misdirected. In fact any scene from any Scott movie is instantly recogniseable. His films are totally iconic. Except his latest three films.

Next time, try a big shot of scotch before you watch Blade Runner. It might quieten your own thoughts and open your mind to the film.

By: Dan Schneider

Dan Schneider — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:46:12 +0000

Why waste so much time and space to criticise a movie you don’t like?
- Beacause it is Blade Runner and it will get people riled up.

***My liks or dislikes have little to do with criticism. I dislike most Bergman films but recognize his quality. As for riling up. I don't care, although it seems your Johnson got up; so are you saying you like being so easily manipulated?

I speak to a lot of people who don’t like Blade Runner. They are usually younger than 20 and almost never film critics.
I first saw Blade Runner when I was about 15 and I didn’t like it. To be more precise: I didn’t get it.
Now I get it and it’s good. Very good.

***It's a dull and pretentious film. Lgan's Run, at least, did not take itself seriously.

And the Final Cut is the best version and the Theatrical Version with the narrative by Ford is more or less a joke.

***And we also see that you are a joiner. Good luck with your enjoyment, sayeth your heart to your brain.

By: Lengthy Johnson

Lengthy Johnson — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:39:26 +0000

Dan, Dan, Dan.

Why waste so much time and space to criticise a movie you don't like?

- Beacause it is Blade Runner and it will get people riled up.

I speak to a lot of people who don't like Blade Runner. They are usually younger than 20 and almost never film critics.

I first saw Blade Runner when I was about 15 and I didn't like it. To be more precise: I didn't get it.

Now I get it and it's good. Very good.

And the Final Cut is the best version and the Theatrical Version with the narrative by Ford is more or less a joke.

By: Brian Barker

Brian Barker — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:34:43 +0000

An interesting comment about the Esperanto language!

It's unforunate that however that most people do not know that this new global language is also a living language.

Esperanto is in the top 100 languages, out of 6,800 worldwide, according to the CIA factbook. It is the 17th most used language in Wikipedia, and in use by Skype, Firefox and Facebook.

Native Esperanto speakers,(people who have used the language from birth), include George Soros,World Chess Champion Susan Polger, Ulrich Brandenberg the new German Ambassador to NATO and Nobel Laureate Daniel Bovet.

Further information can be seen at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8837438938991452670 A glimpse of the language can be seen at http://www.lernu.net