They're different:
Christopher said:
The director's cut had a legendarily bad DVD transfer for almost a decade before Warner finally released a cleaned-up version... not long before releasing the Final Cut extravaganza. Yay Warner.
Blade Runner! Any Good?
- Thread starter Snick27
- Start date
They're different:
The director's cut had a legendarily bad DVD transfer for almost a decade before Warner finally released a cleaned-up version... not long before releasing the Final Cut extravaganza. Yay Warner.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
Yes, it's great! Get the director's cut. I saw the original hack job in the theaters and walked out like
Then I got the director's cut (I guess that's also what people refer to as the Final Cut) for Xmas. Wow! It's actually a great movie.
Caveat: slow stuff doesn't bother me as long as the plotline/characters/situation are basically interesting. I also loved Lost. So if a fast pace is a must for you, this probably isn't the movie for me.
Off-topic for a moment, Temis; why is your Vorta namesake a
Starfleet officer being assimilated by the Borg?
Folks complain of 2001 or ST-TMP being slow. They're roller coaster rides compared to Blade Runner.
I'd like to like this film, but it never fails to put me to sleep.
One of the best movies (not just sci-fi), period. Great visuals, acting, music and plot. You are just immersed in the world that Ridley Scott creates.
Great movie, and if you can get to see it in HD then even better.
I've no clue whether you'll like it or not. But I think if you're interested in science fiction Blade Runner is definitely a movie you should at least give a try. As others have said, it's a classic that has had a major influence on movies that followed.
On a personal level, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. I think the atmosphere, music and the design are amazing. It's also got what I feel is an intriguing story and premise. Fortunately, many of the questions raised with regards to what it means to be human, carried in no small part by Hauer's IMHO amazing turn as Batty.
I'd also recommend seeing the Final Cut first. If you end up really liking it, it might be worth checking out the other versions as well.
On a personal level, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. I think the atmosphere, music and the design are amazing. It's also got what I feel is an intriguing story and premise. Fortunately, many of the questions raised with regards to what it means to be human, carried in no small part by Hauer's IMHO amazing turn as Batty.
I'd also recommend seeing the Final Cut first. If you end up really liking it, it might be worth checking out the other versions as well.
I didn't understand what Blade Runner was really about until I realized... (spoiler boxed for the benefit of those who haven't seen it)
And that's why I hate the theatrical cut. Well, that and Harrison Ford's abysmal delivery of the voiceovers.
...that Batty is the hero and Deckard is the villain, or at least the patsy. Sure, Batty kills people, but so does Deckard. And Batty is a freedom fighter, a leader trying to liberate his people from a form of oppression that inevitably kills them, and striking out at the people responsible for that oppression. Deckard is just an assassin hired to kill runaway slaves. Deckard's journey through the movie is the discovery that he's on the wrong side. Throughout the film, Batty is the one who shows more emotion and vulnerability, more compassion as well as anger. He's the more human character, perhaps because he's the one with more to lose, more to strive for. Yes, he's an antihero, given the violence of his tactics, but Hauer's performance conveys that Batty is conflicted and regretful about the violence, while Deckard is cold and mechanical about killing.
And of course Batty chooses to save Deckard's life in the climax. That's a classic Captain Kirk move right there. And that's where Deckard finally, clearly understands that he's not the good guy here. The narration in the theatrical cut totally ruined that by having Deckard say he didn't know why Batty saved him, reducing it to some random, inexplicable glitch in an Evil Robot rather than a life-changing revelation for Deckard that the replicants had been on the right side all along.
And of course Batty chooses to save Deckard's life in the climax. That's a classic Captain Kirk move right there. And that's where Deckard finally, clearly understands that he's not the good guy here. The narration in the theatrical cut totally ruined that by having Deckard say he didn't know why Batty saved him, reducing it to some random, inexplicable glitch in an Evil Robot rather than a life-changing revelation for Deckard that the replicants had been on the right side all along.
And that's why I hate the theatrical cut. Well, that and Harrison Ford's abysmal delivery of the voiceovers.
I really like Blade Runner. It's a very good movie--but it's obviously not to everybody's taste. As the saying goes: "those who like this kind of thing will find this the kind of thing they like."
And I have to agree with the authors of The Rough Guide to Film Noir. They include Blade Runner in their list of fifty essential film noirs--but they also describe it as the "most overrated" film noir of all time.
And I have to agree with the authors of The Rough Guide to Film Noir. They include Blade Runner in their list of fifty essential film noirs--but they also describe it as the "most overrated" film noir of all time.
To the OP -- if you find you like sci-fi movies with film noir influences, there's also Dark City, Alphaville, Gattaca, The Thirteenth Floor to name but a few.
You know, at first I found the movie horribly boring. However, over the time it grew on me and now I consider it one of my 10 favorite Sci-fi movies.
In fact, I think I began to like the movie after I had started reading some of the classic cyberpunk novels. Becoming a fan of William Gibson's work certainly helped in appreciating Blade Runner (although in a strict sense, the movie is probably more Biopunk than Cyberpunk).
In fact, I think I began to like the movie after I had started reading some of the classic cyberpunk novels. Becoming a fan of William Gibson's work certainly helped in appreciating Blade Runner (although in a strict sense, the movie is probably more Biopunk than Cyberpunk).
`````"Blade Runner: The Director's Cut" in Widescreen is, for my money, the definitive version. I usually like directors' cuts the best (gigantic exception: "Apocalypse Now Redux"--self-indulgent, meandering, nonsensical crap!) because there tend to be marketing reasons, not artistic-vision reasons, for cutting a "theatrical release" version the way it winds up being shown.
`````And "Blade Runner" was made from Philip K. Dick's masterpiece, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", so it had awesome material to work with. It's edgy and dark, and still feels dystopic/futuristic even now. I try not to watch it more frequently that once every two years, so I don't burn out on it. It's good to forget details between viewings; it keeps the experience semifresh. Watch it late at night with all the lights off.
`````And about "Escape From New York"? It's definitely B-movie material, but it's fast-paced and a lot of people get killed and stuff blown up, so it's got that goin' for it. The sequel, "Escape From L. A." shouldn't have been made, I don't believe, until the production team had a better script to work with. Pity. And a threequel that I'd like to see but will NEVER be made would be "Escape from Disney World." Ha! If a third flick is ever contemplated (don't hold your breath,) it would be fun to set it off-Earth. How about, "Escape From Luna City"? (Set part of it in "Harriman Square," with a nod to the late lamented Dean, Robert A. Heinlein.)
Yes, it's great! Get the director's cut. I saw the original hack job in the theaters and walked out like
Then I got the director's cut (I guess that's also what people refer to as the Final Cut) for Xmas. Wow! It's actually a great movie.
This is really quite silly, they aren't that different that one is walk out of the cinema bad and the other good. You must have been pretty much ignoring the substance of the film and using some banal criteria to judge it as a whole.
^It's childish to assume that just because someone sees things differently than you do, they must be blind or ignorant. There are plenty of people who feel the theatrical cut is inferior to later versions, including the people who made the film. It's nonsensical to suggest they're all ignoring its substance or using banal criteria. People can have sincere, intelligent differences of opinion without anyone needing to insult anyone else over it.
Daredevil Theatrical vs Daredevil DC
Chronicles of Riddick Theatrical vs Riddick DC
Kingdom of Heaven Theatrical vs Kingdom of Heaven DC
There are plenty of examples of walkout bad becoming gems on home video...
Chronicles of Riddick Theatrical vs Riddick DC
Kingdom of Heaven Theatrical vs Kingdom of Heaven DC
There are plenty of examples of walkout bad becoming gems on home video...
No, you didn't. You directly insulted the other poster by calling her opinion silly and based on ignorance or invalid criteria. You didn't question the opinion, you dismissed the intelligence of the person expressing it. And if you're aware that Temis's opinion is far from unprecedented, then it's even more indefensible for you to call her silly and ignorant for it.
As I said, I didn't recognize "the substance of the film" until I saw the director's cut, because the theatrical cut intentionally altered and obscured its true substance with the inept voiceovers and the illogical happy ending. So I think it's perfectly comprehensible why someone would see the theatrical cut as a radically different, far inferior film to the director's cut or Final Cut. If you see it differently, that's your outlook, but don't go around accusing people of ignorance or banality just because their own judgments don't exactly match yours.
Similar threads
