Jay is joined by Colin from Canada to discuss the Ridley Scott sci-fi classic Blade Runner, a movie Colin (and pretty much everyone else) loves and Jay finds kinda boring. Controversy!
Suddenly I crave awfully written Harrison Ford narrations for every movie he's been in, they are a comedy gold mine: "I was about to be frozen in carbonite, even for a guy like Darth Vader, that was just cold."
"The 'Na-zis' opened the ark of the covenant, I did 'not-zee' that coming, so I closed my eyes.. not wanting to see what was about to come. I turned a blind eye to what followed and they were all dead within a blink of an eye."
"I shot Greedo in the face and paid the barkeep for the mess. What followed was a downward spiral of alcoholism and sleepless nightmares about his purple eyes leaking out of his green head. I cried each time I visited his grave, wishing I could just tell him how sorry I am for being such a scoundrel. Years later I have found out that he shot first, but the damage was already done - I continued drowning my sorrows by sleeping with Luke's sister."
You're in Milwaukee walking along in the streets when all of a sudden you see Rich Evans walking towards you. You reach over and you flip Rich Evans on his back. Rich Evans lays on his back, belly freezing in the Milwaukee weather, beating his legs trying to turn himself over but he can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Because I'd rub his exposed belly and he would start laughing and I'd be immediately cured of my anxiety, panic, cancer, AIDS, and ebola thanks to those angelic sounds.
I love how Ridley Scott just casually makes some of the greatest movies ever, and then when it hits the editing room, he just goes a little too hard with the alcohol and either enhances whatever it is or just royally fucks it up in every conceivable way.
11:10-11:39 "He's just broken, cynical... a sad person, very lonely..." "Y'know, he probably drinks way too much..."" "Kind of [a] sadness, I think, about his character..." Are we talking about Deckard here, or Mike Stoklasa?
Deckard kill human like creature as a job, and hes so good at his job that his boss call him back from retirement "mean he had kill so many replicants before" so its understandable why hes acting like that
I can totally understand why some people don't like 'Blade Runner' and it's interesting to hear a critique. It's just a shame that half of the criticism springs out of the "urban myth" that the unicorn footage is an outtake from 'Legend'. It was filmed on the 15th October 1981 (at 96 fps) during photography for Blade Runner (2.5 years before 'Legend'), as evidenced by the clapper board you can see in behind the scenes materials, which says "Blade Runner". Also, Scott is far from George Lucas in this case. Being like George Lucas is changing your films and then preventing everybody from seeing the unchanged version. Scott put all the versions in a nice box-set for everybody to enjoy.
Yeah, it's a pity to see them promoting a known falsehood. I doubt they'll update the video though because doing so undermines a lot of what they're saying.
TM2YC where? I can't find a boxset that is either in print or a reasonable price! I ordered a set on Amazon, but it went out of stock and was never sent. And there is no cheap alternative.
TM2YC No I ordered a booklet thing which has all 3 cuts for $14 before being out of stock and never being sent. and this one I ordered now is over $50 used (sold by 3rd parties).
I demand a Mr. Plinkett voiceover for the final cut version of Blade Runner! "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe he got the pizza rolls I sent him by e-mail."
I saw Blade Runner a few times and it didn't click for me. But then, one night when it was raining outside, I decided to watch it in the complete darkness with the sound cranked up with the rain outside and it was fucking amazing. Definitely the closest thing to an Art Film/Sci Fi hybrid. I'm not even sure if it was intentional or a happy accident. An atmospheric masterpiece. I think I disliked it at first because my expectation of what the film would be compared to what it was was wildly different *Director's Cut
The footage from the unicorn scene is not from Legend, it was shot during the production of Blade Runner and it wasn't used because the producers didn't want to. Ridley Scott didn't even had rights to edit the film, according to the documentary Dangerous Days, he was fired the day after shooting wraped
This. in my opinion it's 50% of the movie, even if it may sound overblown, i remember as a kid listening to my dad's cassette of the soundtrack on a loop and just the music itself lays down the atmosphere so well.
I think I've only seen Bladerunner once and I remember it looked and sounded great but not much else about it. So yes, the music deserved a mention but otherwise this was a great episode.
I always hated the idea of Deckard as a replicant. The bones of the film for me lie in the idea of emotion = humanity. Most of the human characters, Tyrell, the lieutenant, Deckard and Edward Olmos character are all kind of soulless jerks. But the replicants care about each other, they have strong feeling about survival and living. Roy batty on the other hand howls like a wounded mammal. In that sense, they truly are more human than human. Deckard finds his own humanity in the nobility of the replicant who allowed him to live. So yeah, if Deckard's a replicant it kind of ruins the most poignant point of the film.
Exactly. The message I've always taken away is "The replicants are more human than the humans." They don't live long enough to become emotionally dulled shells that the people of that world all become.
i don't see why that makes it contradicting... the value of his insight is the same regardless of his "true nature" - the idea of the "other" and realizing its delusion is such a core human insight that this interpretation makes perfect sense identity and epistemology are scifi/phil bedrocks
I would say that Deckard being robot like or wooden is very much in line with his character. I don't see it as a detriment to the story that he doesn't have chemistry with Rachael or acts generally awkward. Deckard and every other character, besides the rogue replicants, don't share chemistry with anyone full stop. Isolation was a major theme of the book as well as movie. The people of this future are depicted to be distant and jaded and only through contact with some changed replicants do they themselves change. I think it works.
I don't make a habit of commenting on RUclips videos but this is so badly-researched I feel I have to. Hampton Fancher did not write the final draft of the Blade Runner script, that responsibility fell to David Peoples. The ending of People's draft, the final shooting script, had Deckard realising he was a replicant - even describing Roy Batty as his brother. The Deckard-as-replicant twist was planned before production even started. Further, the unicorn footage is not from Legend and has been confirmed by multiple sources to have been shot specifically for Blade Runner and then cut from the theatrical version. Also, the original script featured noir-style narration, some of which survives in deleted scenes and the workprint cut, that was eventually scrapped during production. It was significantly better-written and acted than the extremely awkward narration the studio had written and inserted into the theatrical release.
Funny you should mention that, the unedited line in the workprint is actually "you've done a man's job sir! But are you sure you are a man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here"...
THIS! Its even mentioned in the book Colin cites, Future Noir: The Making of Blade runner, on pg 366. The unicorn dream was filmed specifically for and intended to be used in the original cut. But as is the case with that original release, the studio intervened, with some mention of them thinking it was "too arty" and removed it. When putting together the Director's cut, what footage that could be found from shooting the unicorn dream was cleaned up and included.
Harrison Ford can do comedy kinda, I think; I always thought he was the funniest part of Star Wars, the way he would constantly get hurt or mess something up and improvise. Lord knows C3P-0 doesn't make me laugh.
On the topic of the goofy voice scene, I actually kinda liked it, because it makes him seem like a horrible detective. For me, the rest of the movie supports this idea that he isn't the best detective, but he'll do whatever it takes to get the job done. Like he blasts the lady in public as she's running through these glass panels, kinda just blowing the crap out of everything. I always kinda assumed that his prior "successes" involved cooking the books and paying people off to some degree.
You get the impression that before the latest batch came out, replicants weren't all that bright. So this kind of shit probably worked on them. But Nexus 6 replicants are too smart.
I believe it is a reference to the character of Philip Marlowe, a hardboiled detective in such noir films as The Big Sleep in which he does a similar goofy voice thing as a disguise to avoid being recognized.
I actually think the lack of chemistry between Ford and Young works. Because as you said Racheal is a very emotionally dead Replicant, and while I don't think Deckard is, he's still a very rough cut and cynical man. So I think having the two start to act all lovey dovey around each other would undermine their jaded characters as well as the very sombre tone of the movie. And their on screen relationship is really no different from couples in most other classic Noir films. Plus script is strong enough that they don't need to act like Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield.
Harrison Ford is now the hollywood equivalent of a grocery store employee intentionally fucking up and causing property damage but they still keep him around any anyway
Different people value different things, who knew? You are free to disagree with someone's opinion but to resort to name-calling whilst simultaneously calling somebody childish is a little counterproductive. Jay's dislike of the movie is not a personal attack on anyone who enjoys it, so I'd argue that if there is any childishness on display here, it's in your comment.
"I don't mean to make you a fussy little baby". Proceeds to do so extensively. Oof my feelings. I don't particularly care about this film and my comment was not half as much a temper tantrum as yours, so I'm not sure where you got the idea I was "visibly and autistically upset" from. There's a case for projection here but it'd be just one of a number of logical fallacies on display. Anyway, since reasonable, level-headed debate is obviously not something you are willing to participate in, I'm going to check out here. Feel free to respond with some more devastatingly witty insults while I sob into my stuffed animals or whatever it is you think I do. Whatever makes you feel better.
I think the opposite, Jay shifted Scott onto his way of thinking and by the end I forgot that Scott liked Blade Runner at all. I've noticed something about a lot of these panel discussions, no matter how many people are present eventually they all share the same brain and nothing new comes up in the conversation when peer conformity takes over. More people should mean more information and more points highlighted, not less. :\
Why was Rutger Hauer not a bigger star? He seems to have acting talent, brains and looks but his career faded away a little from where it seemed to be going. Btw, the 'g' is pronounced rather like the 'ch' in loch. Imagine you're thowing up a hairball.
@Artemis S. Reinhold He was probably a good guy then because Will Weaton is a garbage human being. If will weaton doesn't like you, you are doing something right.
I don't think Rutger Hauer is a good actor. He's a typical b-movie actor whose career will never take off. He just did a good job on Blade Runner, , in other films I've seen him he just comes off as cheesy and goofy.
You call it boring, but I'd take these slow scenes that get a chance to breathe, and let you soak in the atmosphere and world building, over the Michael Bay ADD movies we get 10 times over.
The movie is dripping in atmosphere but it's easy for the mind to wander when nothing is happening. I recognize that the scene of him examining the photo is supposed to be a glimpse of him "doing real detective work" but it just goes on for longer than necessary. Three *enhance* movements would have sufficed to convey what he was doing.
@@Laocoon283 Jay has criticized movies that are too fast several times. Just because he thinks this movie is slower than it needs to be doesnt mean he likes "FAST" movies or "ADD MICHEAL BAY." I disagree with his criticism but that doesnt mean its invalid.
" *sighs* He's not a fucking Replicant, Ridley. He hasn't been a Replicant for 30 Goddamn years now." "Fuck you, Harrison, I love Beavis and Butthead!"
I can’t understand why Deckard being a replicant makes you “not care” about the plot? Surely the implication that a machine may not realise that it is a machine is rather profound in its implications for humanity and whether we wouldn’t ourselves recognise that we were also machines or not. The element of his “having done it for years” is already covered by the fact that the technique of grafting in false memories to replicants that Rachel has been given could just as easily have been given to Deckard. As for Deckard being a shitty replicant; a replicant that didn’t think it was actually a replicant wouldn’t behave as if it were one, even if it wasn’t destroyed by beatings and wounds that would have stopped a human dead in their tracks - beaten up by Zora, Leon and Pris, having his fingers broken by Roy. Yet he keeps going because he’s a machine. Rapey, emotionless love scene, which is rapey and emotionless because he’s a machine, trying to feel emotion for - another machine. That makes sense too. It’s like all the hang ups and problems and things that these guys don’t buy about the plot hinge solely on them not buying Deckard as a replicant, and it seems to me there’s so much that works and makes sense about this film if you do buy that. And I do. But having said that, I’ve read Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K Dick and it’s just as good as the film in its own way, drawing upon similar themes of not knowing what is real and what is not. In the novel, there’s a large part where the main character is themselves accused of being a replicant and taken hostage by what is claimed to be the police, except he doesn’t recognise any of them. It leaves the a taste of ambiguity as to who is the reliable narrator throughout the novel. Perhaps American critics just don’t like ambiguity and “I just wanna know who to ROOT fer, fer chrissakes!” By the way, the film isn’t perfect. It really drags in terms of pace about two thirds of the way through before really recovering magnificently and that can be really tiring to get past. Sean Young’s acting is pretty wooden at times. But...really? That’s about all I can think of. Other than that, it’s bloody marvellous.
I think it’s really weird they get hung up on “If Deckard IS a Replicant then who cares” Replicants are bioengineered lifeforms that desperately want to have free will but are told they can’t because they were made in a lab and are solely meant to be slaves for humanity who view them on the same level as a machine. It’s pretty clear from watching the movie that the Replicants are more complex than just being machines, and that even becomes the main plot of Bladerunner 2049, which Jay liked and that stars a character who is unambiguously a replicant.
Now that I have watched both this and the sequel, and the review from these guys, I would like to say, that though I agree with most points, I really must point one thing out. Jay says first blade runner was certainly boring in story and the second one in a way fixed this problem. Which I do agree to some degree, from a story telling perspective, but I personally still find the first one a lot more intriguing. To me, the story was about god and god's creations, specifically, us human. For history we ask why we we exist, and the point in being, and we continue to pursue these questions. If we had our god in front of us, we would even ask 'why?'. Now, in this case, the humans are gods to the replicants. The replicant eventually make their way to their gods, humans and to Tyrell, to seek their holy grail, but all they are met with are indifference and hostility. It's in a way studying the idea of the 'god' by putting it one step down. Instead of looking up, let us be the god and see what we would tell them. This is the most intriguing subject matter of the whole story. Now, compared to this, the sequel fell completely flat for me. I did not expect it to deal with the same subject matter, but I was hopeful that it looks for an existential element the story could revolve around, and in a way it did. Ryan Gossling's character, which we know to be a replicant from the start, really gives us a good idea about what makes a human, human. Except it sort of fell too deep into the whole story with Decker and the irrelevant question of fatherhood. It surely made an interesting story, but it certainly did not have this grand profound question. All in all, they are both films with their own strengths and weaknesses, and though I get what Jay means by boring, I do feel like this element could have been more explored. These kinds of elements are what makes science fiction so fun to watch. It is the creation of impossible scenarios through science, in order to help us see things from a different angle.
Thing is with these films that are deemed classics, some of them work way better if you watched them as a kid. Not becuz of the quality of the film but becuz if you keep hearing how amazing a film is, how no one could dislike it, how its perfect, you could begin to think its overhyped and when you watch it it’ll never live up to those stellar and impossible expectations. 2001 and Blade Runner probably fall into this category. I had the same experience with Citizen Kane but somehow not with Lawrence of Arabia. I wanted to love Citizen Kane but didn’t, however when I watched Lawrence of Arabia with all these stellar expectations it somehow still exceeded them and I fell in love with it. I really liked Blade Runner and the sequel was fantastic but i dont ever see the need to rewatch it.
Gaff: “it’s too bad she won’t live! But then again who does?!? ”Red Shawshank Redemption: “Get Busy Livin or Get Busy Dyin.” Btw, Zimas, how 1995 of u guys...
Some people think it's slow. But that's just that it was filmed in a day when people still had attention spans (and also liked to think about stuff WHILE it was happening - not just have their brains soaped out for 2 hours and reduce a movie to "Like/Dislike" and then go take in the next one)
Jay keeps saying how the movie is "not interesting" and "incredibly boring." Why is he doing this review? Get someone that likes the movie to do the review instead.
Jay is clearly prejudiced about the movie (and apparently towards Rydley Scott). it's blunter than the narration.The sad thing is that the guy that is supposed to do the counterpoint to his critic just folds because Jay has much more house Status. It's one of the worst Re:view episodes. Just Jay bashing the film, based sollely no his prejudice feelings towads it. so one sided and unfair.
Yeah people seem to be really fixed on the pacing issues with this film but I really don’t see the problem. Blade Runner is a slow movie, nothing wrong with that, just because it’s slow doesn’t mean it’s boring and doesn’t serve a purpose. It’s meant to add on to this universe that Deckhard lives in and is meant to show how he interacts with it, whether through small scenes like when he’s ordering a cup of noodles or more dramatic scenes like when he and Rachael make out. Calling it boring is basically like calling Under the Skin boring.
I don't see how Deckard being a replicant detracts from his character. He believes himself to be a human, and that is what matters. The experiences he goes through are still just as real. To me, one of the most important points of the film is precisely that replicants are humans as well, and the system tries to dehumanize them in order to justify slave labor. Deckard is completely engrained in the system's mentality, which allows him to murder his own kind without guilt. Whether he is a replicant or not, he is still a human killing other humans for the sake of maintaining a society built on slavery.
Although Ford did not want to do the narration he has always stated that he did the best possible job that he could. Whether or not he did is only known by Ford. The unicorn scene is not footage from Legend. It was original material from the film. As far as I know the only 3rd party footage used was the Shining scenes in the theatrical release when the studio wanted to tack on the more positive ending.
I'm sure this was mentioned somewhere in the comments, but the Director's Cut is the original work print that was tested to audiences with negative reaction. This resulted in the studio editing the movie further to what became the Theatrical Release. So the Director's Cut being something Ridley "added later" is not true as they state. That was Ridley's vision all along. I don't mind people having differing opinions on the movie or a director, but at least know the full story before saying things that are not true. The unicorn scene was always in the original work print. "Ridley wanted to add this later" No...that's what he always wanted to do. Also, if Deckard is a human, he must have a skeleton of steel because he takes a beating by all 4 Replicants and has no more than some bruises and bleeding.
They don't act like robots, they aren't robots. Rachael acts as human as she's been made to act, but the replicants are bio-engineered beings, NOT machines. Roy Batty states this explicitly in the film, guys. "We're not computers, Sebastian." But, they are manufactured humanoids with limited lifespans and created memories, psyches, etc., and thus they act a bit odd at times. They're not as blend-in human as Tyrell might like to think they are. More human than human in terms of design, perfection, aesthetics, and strength, etc., but not at all better in terms of being full, developed human beings with full empathy, emotions, and life memories, etc.
I love the inclusion of the unicorn scene! Despite what you believe, it was originally shot for this film... Upon my first ever few viewings of this film it really helped tie things together for me. Deckard being a replicant makes the film in my opinion. And the "lack of chemistry" between the two replicants is totally justified as being what they think they have to do in order to "feel real". Still, enjoyable video!
The biggest crime with this review is the complete absence of any mention of the score and sound design. Vangelis delivered something quite remarkable in this film.
I treat the “is deckard a replicant” question as just that. Nothing conclusive, just bringing up the point that there’s not much difference between replicants and humans. Just like replicants we also have a time limit. “It’s too bad she won’t live but who does”
For me he’s always been *probably* human, and the whole thing is how the people left on this dystopian, future Earth of 2019 are miserable and coping, somewhat removed from what it means to be human. Meaning the replicants and humans are so stuck in the same situation, the smallest signs (such as the origami) can make a man doubt if he’s “real”… There’s no real proof he isn’t a replicant for himself or the viewer of the film since it’s established memories can be implanted. The police department could have easily pressured the Tyrell Corp. to fix their problem by creating Harrison Ford shaped Nexus 7 with memories of being “the best of the best” Blade Runner and activated him at the beginning of the story to do the dirty work. He has no family or friends, lives alone in a shitty apartment, and only the police chief would have to be in on it… Still, like I said: I like the “Is he…? Nah!” and choose to believe he’s human. Ridley chooses otherwise.
Maybe I’m misremembering, it’s been a while since I read the novel, but doesn’t Dick end the story on the same note? It’s made unclear if he’s a replicant.
I agree. It’s like Inception, where the fact that there is a question at all is truer to the theme than any answer could be. If he was a replicant, you’d just pick apart the movie and point out the difference between his character and a normal human. If he wasn’t, you’d just have to take the movie as exactly what it presented and side with the idea that humans and replicants are different.
you know hes not a real boy right? the audio is piped in post effect. you can tell because his face never moves as much as his laugh should indicate it should. the animators got lazy again.
@Alex Snowden There's also a circa-1980 trailer for "The Empire Strikes Back" in which Harrison Ford provides narration in that way that Harrison Ford does when he clearly has contempt for what he's being asked to perform.
They misunderstood the missing "chemistry" of the relationship. The scene where Deckard has sex with the girl is supposed to be cringy, even worse: it's supposed to be rapey. You see, Deckard lived a life of killing these machines, these "replicants". His life is a mess, he's an alcoholic. The one thing that helps him sleep at night is the knowledge that these replicants are NOT sentient, human beings. They are subhuman. They are machines. No different than a toaster. Then comes this robot chick and throws it all upside down. She has feelings, she emotionally breaks down when faced with the reality of being a robot. But worse of all: he starts caring for her. BUT, if she has all these human characteristics, then all those replicants he killed may have had human characteristics too. And then, he becomes a murderer. So he's raw. He doesn't care. He tries to be as cold and distant as possible. Because he's fucking a toaster. And moreso, because he's the best toaster killer ever. And after giving in to his impulses, and after all is said and done, they still fall in love with each other because of a very simple reason: they're both lonely. And that's all it takes.
Dick pole Exactly. But it is really interesting, because Deckard dehumanizes her as a coping mechanism. When the combat replicant spares him near the end, he finally realizes that they have feelings, that they can understand life in a similar way that we do, that their lives and memories DO matter. With this new understanding, he's free to love a replicant. But also, he retroactively becomes a killer. There's a reason why they don't use the word "kill" or "murder" when dealing with replicants. Deckard can no longer be an effective Blade Runner, because he's realized that the replicants "die" and suffer from all the fears and pains we do when dying.
So true. I'm always extremely confused that so many people don't get the point of their whole relationship. Most people who critsize the movie are saying they can't connect to the protagonist or their love story while the thing that is shown here is how ugly Deckard behaves towards replicants until he changes. This is a sci-fi noir flick and not some rom com where you should feel happy for the love of our protagonists. This movie is about humanity, science and life and not about two people who are happily in love with each other. The themes of the movie should make you connect to it and not that you root for Deckard.
My take on the Tears in Rain sequence makes it a little more tragic. Whilst saving Deckard demonstrates Roy's humanity, I think a motivating factor for the latter's actions is that he doesn't want to die alone.
I think the "Deckard is a replicant" thing in the Final Cut works best as an insinuation. The point isn't that he is a replicant, it's that we can't tell what separates man from machine anymore. That one doubt in the audience's and Deckard's own mind as to his true origins is a final note to think on; we've fallen so low as a species that we've made slave labor and assassinated beings with as many rights to live freely as we do. Good science fiction should challenge us philosophically and question the human condition, and that ambiguity hanging in the air is why it works for me...which they'll probably fuck up in the new movie with explicit plot information.
I think if there is a problem with it - I certainly don't see it like RLM does - it's that the movie doesn't actually ask the question, but it answers it definitively. If the question is going to be ambiguous, the unicorn scene has to go, and if the unicorn scene stays, the movie should ask the question. The book actually addresses it head on, with Deckard blundering into another bounty hunter. The two become suspicious of each other and use their best techniques to prove that the other is not a replicant. I'm not really saying the scene would work in the movie, but the movie provides a definitive answer to a question it never really asks and that might be why Jay is put off so heavily. To him it just gets in the way because it's not just an insinuation. That said, I don't understand why Deckard being a replicant robs the movie of any dramatic weight. There are plenty of other movies where you're meant to sympathize with a robot and it works (Bicentennial Man, A.I. come to mind). I feel for Rachel when she learns the truth, because the distinction between real and artificial has become so blurred that she (and the other Nexus 6es) are essentially just nonhuman people.
I would agree, but I'll also add that it's less about humanity having "fallen low" and more at what point does the thing we once saw as an object (because that is what robots, computers and other pieces of technology are to us today) becomes a 'person', or one to value as such anyhow. The matter is really interesting because it opens up the question of what makes humanity special, as in, what defines an individual and what makes it so that they should be defended by means of rights and so on. I'm a bit baffled as to why this wouldn't be interesting.
The first time I saw Blade Runner it was the "Director's Cut" with the unicorn and all the insinuation, I love it and I think it makes for the best version and take on the film. What you are saying about all of it "having no meaning if that is the case" is one perspective for sure but, the way I always took it is; There WAS a Deckard at some point, and like what's her face, Deckard was implanted with the memories of the previous Deckard because of him being such a pro blade runner. Look at everyone else in this movie aside from the replicants; everyone is shitty or fucked up in someway, because anyone with money, and who was able to survive the trip moved off world. So only the feeble and shitty types are left on Earth. I like the idea of Roy saving Deckard because of his new found love of human life and experiences, but he also could have saved him because he is essentially helping a bro out, he knows he's got a thing with Tyrell's new replicant niece and basically just spent the last encounter trying to make the alcoholic pessimistic replicant Deckard take the opportunities he has and use them to their fullest... I dunno, I am not disagreeing with what you say but this is just always the way I have seen the movie and I loved it for it. I am excited but nervous as all hell for the sequel...
It's Red Letter Media. They rarely mention film scores and soundtracks. Checkout the Plinkett's Star Wars Reviews. He only mentions John Williams in the Force Awakens, I think.
Roman Emperor Constantine IX Gotta disagree with you there. Could you imagine Jaws without the John Willimas score? Music is just as important as acting, camera work, editing, etc.
i always took the weird scene with harrison using the goofy voice as him trying to come across to her like a stupid, relatively harmless perv. "you'd be surprised what a guy would go through to get a glimpse of a beautiful body!" she's to think that's exactly what he's doing; he certainly doesn't want her to believe for a moment he's someone to take seriously. because if she takes him seriously, she may see him as a threat.
That would be a good plan, except his voice is so comical that nobody in the movie world could possibly believe it's real. Instead of "This guy seems like a harmless perv.", she's thinking "Why is this guy putting on on an obviously fake voice?"
he's putting on the obviously fake voice because he's an idiot. or rather, he wants her to believe he's an idiot, a man stupid enough to believe that voice/story would fool anyone. if she believes he's that stupid, then she'll assume he's harmless.
I don’t mind Deckard being a replicant, but I do mind Ridley Scott trying to shove it down our throats. Thankfully, 2049 didn’t even touch the subject.
I agree. Nevertheless, 2049 played with the ambiguity: Leto just sort of asks if Deckard was designed to fall for Rachael, but the answer lingers in the air….
@@peachmelba1000 it definitely didn’t confirm it. K asks Deckard if the dog is real or a replicant and Deckard just responds “I don’t know. Ask it.” Clearly stating to the audience the Deckard question won’t be answered because no one will believe the answer and people will interpret what they want.
@@luciferfernandez7094the guy didnt even know what eye colour Rebecca had, and they show in the original movie that that is one of the information easiest to access as its on the Police records
The scene in the dressing room is an homage to "The Big Sleep" where Humphrey Bogart puts on glasses and a silly voice and pretends to be a nerdy book collector.
alphabobcat Still doesn't make sense in the story but I guess this gives another layer to it. I remember myself asking "Why'd he do that?" when I first watched it.
The "they have no chemistry" thing, it really is like a relationship born from loneliness and fits in the movie for me, it also makes him begin to empathise with replicants
There's also the attraction of a man of action, a strong man -- and a simple man who isn't trying to pretend he is something that he isn't. She of course is desirable by being beautiful, intelligent, and cool -- someone else who is very on-the-surface/uncomplicated.
@@slow17motion so your example for Jays knowledge of obscure low budget movies being bullshit is when Colin got something wrong about the well known and budgeted Blade Runner?
@@slow17motion To my knowledge, the notion that Ford deliberately read the voice over narration badly in order for it not to be used, is just an internet rumor as well. I might be wrong though.
They're not really crazy ramblings, though. He's just claming that it was his idea that Deckard was a replicant and his experience as a director allowed him the confidence to argue for that despite harrison and the studio disagreeing with him. the beavis and butthead thing is just an old man joke, he's referring to people who are confused by the twist at the end and saying "duh, it's not that difficult to undersand." i don't like deckard being a replicant but it's not as convoluted as they're making out.
If there's one thing I took away from this review, it's that Elderly Filmmaker Ridley Scott needs to direct a live-action theatrical version of Beavis and Butthead.
"huh-huh, hey Beavis, check it out. I'm... More Human than Human." "heh-heh-heh-heh! BWEEEOW-WAH" * both begin to imitate White Zombie's 'More Human than Human' *. Ridley Scott, redeem yourself and make this happen.
How can one not love those slow scenes, especially the Esper machine scene? The darkness, the sound… I feel like I am sitting with him in this dark future and I want to stay there!
The funny voice scene with Zhora is lifted from The Big Sleep-- Bogart's character similarly puts on a voice, playing himself off as a nerdy, unthreatening book collector, in order to seem less like a hard-nosed gumshoe and provide a plausible reason for snooping around. I don't think it works as well with Ford as it does with Bogart, but that's probably what they were going for, anyway. I agree that Scott takes the point too far when he claims that Ford *literally* is a replicant. But on the other hand, I think it's equally important that the movie refuses to say he's not a replicant, either-- the question should be raised, but never answered. Because in that world, where lifelike androids are given false memories, *no one* would have any way of knowing if they were a replicant or not, not ever. The movie's dwelling in shadows, meandering pace, and overall sense of malaise contribute to this sense of philosophical uncertainty, yet it ends on a hopeful note-- in the modern world, we may be losing our ability to distinguish between what is "real" and what is "fake," but ultimately, life is life, and has inherent value. I do think even in Scott's various director's cuts, the movie remains suitably ambiguous; a single, dreamlike shot of a Unicorn doesn't definitively prove anything; but it does raise the question, which is important. So I think Jay is getting too caught up in the behind-the-scenes trivia of what the director says in interviews decades-after-the-fact; if you just look at the film on its own terms, the crucial ambiguity holds up, IMO. And for what it's worth, IIRC in past interviews Scott remained playfully ambiguous about the question, not definitively saying Deckard was a replicant. That's much more in keeping with the spirit of the movie. It's only more recently that Scott has gone off the deep end-- and so have his films, unfortunately.
It was a great nod to The Big Sleep. Stood out to me the first time I saw Blade Runner, as The Big Sleep is my all-time favorite noir, and that scene is Bogart at his playful best.
Yes it was a total nod to Noir. Guess this just isn't a RLM darling as they go into detail about some movies but not this one at all. Can't believe these guys who are so much into classic cinema didn't get this Bogart reference. They seem to regard Blade Runner in the same way I think of Star Trek, now that is yawn.
20:33 I just had to look up this Jerry Lewis interview and its THE most awkward interview I've ever seen. He stonewalled every single question and gave no craps whatsoever. It's hilarious
I think it is worth noting that in the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the inspiration/novel depending on the person asked, there is a scene in the middle where Deckard is taken into an police station run by Replicants. They trick Deckard into thinking that he himself is a Replicant. The nature of identity is a theme that Philip K Dick loved. Deckard is later confirmed human in a test. Deckard is a Human by the author's own admission. It's just that a central religious figure who preaches Empathy is actually a Replicant. Humans are also dependent on machines where they program their own mood and they also use machines to emulate the feeling of empathy. The novel is rather detached and it helps. Phillip K Dick described his book as being about a police officer who gives up his humanity so that he can hunt Replicants. Phillip K. Dick also loved the movie, but he did not see the theatrical release. Blade Runner 2049 is amazing and everyone should play the Blade Runner adventure game from the 90s. It is a mixture of the book and the movie.
The Ganglia Arc Reflex Test, if I recall correctly. The other bounty hunter is more like a replicant than Deckard, who explains how he resolves the dilemma of being sexually attracted to a replicant. The fact that the whole alternative police station made no sense, well what can I say, but Philip. K. Dick.
Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies, so I had my doubts when I started watching this. What can be said that hasn't already been said? However this made me realise that too often we elevate classics to a point that they are untouchable, which is wrong. Art should never be beyond analysis and criticism. There are some strange choices in this movie, it's not flawless, and you revealed details and trivia that I hadn't even heard before.
Of course, there's flaws in this movie, but the atmosphere they created in cinema it's something glorious and unique no one ever will be able to replicate. I'ts great!
@@Marlowe10100 The music is AMAZING, really makes the movie and even elevates the scenes where there is no music and something "boring" is happening, because it makes everything feel big and important. It really feels like the world is somehow different at the end of the movie from the beginning. Which I can't say for a lot of other movies and that's why it's one of the all time great science-fiction classics.
True. But I think considering the shit this movie got, its not undue to elevate it to classic status. I think also becuz it leaves such an impact on pop-culture, the fact that everyone recognises it and references it. The problem is that if you don’t watch this from a young age, you’ll go through life with increasingly higher expectations becuz of what you hear or read. Its not becuz of the quality of the film but becuz if you keep hearing how amazing a film is, how no one could dislike it, how its perfect, you could begin to think its overhyped and when you watch it it’ll never live up to those stellar and impossible expectations. Films are way better with no expectations ahead of it but with films like these thats hard.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
Suddenly I crave awfully written Harrison Ford narrations for every movie he's been in, they are a comedy gold mine:
"I was about to be frozen in carbonite, even for a guy like Darth Vader, that was just cold."
This deserves more attention.
"The 'Na-zis' opened the ark of the covenant, I did 'not-zee' that coming, so I closed my eyes.. not wanting to see what was about to come. I turned a blind eye to what followed and they were all dead within a blink of an eye."
"I'd quit because I'd had a belly full of killing - everyday ended with a tums festival." (Blade Runner US theatrical cut)
Sushi. That's what Leia called me after I had been frozen in carbonite; cold fish.
"I shot Greedo in the face and paid the barkeep for the mess. What followed was a downward spiral of alcoholism and sleepless nightmares about his purple eyes leaking out of his green head. I cried each time I visited his grave, wishing I could just tell him how sorry I am for being such a scoundrel. Years later I have found out that he shot first, but the damage was already done - I continued drowning my sorrows by sleeping with Luke's sister."
You're in Milwaukee walking along in the streets when all of a sudden you see Rich Evans walking towards you. You reach over and you flip Rich Evans on his back. Rich Evans lays on his back, belly freezing in the Milwaukee weather, beating his legs trying to turn himself over but he can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Because I'd rub his exposed belly and he would start laughing and I'd be immediately cured of my anxiety, panic, cancer, AIDS, and ebola thanks to those angelic sounds.
because he's a Douche.
What's a rich evans? I've never seen one in real life.
@@Noestoysiestoy don't you mean AAAAAAAIIIIIIIDDDDDSSSSSSSS?
:D
I love how Ridley Scott just casually makes some of the greatest movies ever, and then when it hits the editing room, he just goes a little too hard with the alcohol and either enhances whatever it is or just royally fucks it up in every conceivable way.
11:10-11:39
"He's just broken, cynical... a sad person, very lonely..."
"Y'know, he probably drinks way too much...""
"Kind of [a] sadness, I think, about his character..."
Are we talking about Deckard here, or Mike Stoklasa?
Deckard kill human like creature as a job, and hes so good at his job that his boss call him back from retirement
"mean he had kill so many replicants before"
so its understandable why hes acting like that
@@sentryward8744 Goddamn lizard people
LswaN 1 After hearing that letter Mike read,I’d say we’re probably talking about Ridley Scott
@@sentryward8744 *whooosh*
me
I can totally understand why some people don't like 'Blade Runner' and it's interesting to hear a critique. It's just a shame that half of the criticism springs out of the "urban myth" that the unicorn footage is an outtake from 'Legend'. It was filmed on the 15th October 1981 (at 96 fps) during photography for Blade Runner (2.5 years before 'Legend'), as evidenced by the clapper board you can see in behind the scenes materials, which says "Blade Runner". Also, Scott is far from George Lucas in this case. Being like George Lucas is changing your films and then preventing everybody from seeing the unchanged version. Scott put all the versions in a nice box-set for everybody to enjoy.
Yeah, it's a pity to see them promoting a known falsehood. I doubt they'll update the video though because doing so undermines a lot of what they're saying.
TM2YC
where? I can't find a boxset that is either in print or a reasonable price! I ordered a set on Amazon, but it went out of stock and was never sent. And there is no cheap alternative.
Oh yeah, seems to be out-of-print now. The box-set was nearly ten years old. Probably there will be re-issues galore when the sequel comes out.
TM2YC
No I ordered a booklet thing which has all 3 cuts for $14 before being out of stock and never being sent.
and this one I ordered now is over $50 used (sold by 3rd parties).
TM2YC I
I demand a Mr. Plinkett voiceover for the final cut version of Blade Runner! "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe he got the pizza rolls I sent him by e-mail."
'I have sex with my replicat'
I saw Blade Runner a few times and it didn't click for me. But then, one night when it was raining outside, I decided to watch it in the complete darkness with the sound cranked up with the rain outside and it was fucking amazing. Definitely the closest thing to an Art Film/Sci Fi hybrid. I'm not even sure if it was intentional or a happy accident. An atmospheric masterpiece. I think I disliked it at first because my expectation of what the film would be compared to what it was was wildly different *Director's Cut
People watch Blade Runner with the lights on in the middle of the day????
CarbonWaterCalcium its not scary. not even in a pitch black room, not even while on acid...
Dead Space really isn't scary, because every scare is predictably telegraphed or scripted.
You have a unicorn for your icon. You might just be a replicant. ;-]
2001: A Space Odyssey has more art film elements to it than Blade Runner does.
The footage from the unicorn scene is not from Legend, it was shot during the production of Blade Runner and it wasn't used because the producers didn't want to. Ridley Scott didn't even had rights to edit the film, according to the documentary Dangerous Days, he was fired the day after shooting wraped
The Book Colin references (Film Noir) also discusses the Unicorn scene and confirms it is not from Legend.
that clears it up a bit.
No mention of the Vangelis score? Damn you guys!
They almost never mention sound or music in their reviews, and as I sound guy that kind of bothers me.
This. in my opinion it's 50% of the movie, even if it may sound overblown, i remember as a kid listening to my dad's cassette of the soundtrack on a loop and just the music itself lays down the atmosphere so well.
Check out Oliver Harper's retrosective
Also check out Sean Mcdougalls' analysis. Great stuff.
I think I've only seen Bladerunner once and I remember it looked and sounded great but not much else about it. So yes, the music deserved a mention but otherwise this was a great episode.
I always hated the idea of Deckard as a replicant. The bones of the film for me lie in the idea of emotion = humanity. Most of the human characters, Tyrell, the lieutenant, Deckard and Edward Olmos character are all kind of soulless jerks. But the replicants care about each other, they have strong feeling about survival and living. Roy batty on the other hand howls like a wounded mammal. In that sense, they truly are more human than human. Deckard finds his own humanity in the nobility of the replicant who allowed him to live. So yeah, if Deckard's a replicant it kind of ruins the most poignant point of the film.
Exactly. The message I've always taken away is "The replicants are more human than the humans." They don't live long enough to become emotionally dulled shells that the people of that world all become.
i don't see why that makes it contradicting... the value of his insight is the same regardless of his "true nature" - the idea of the "other" and realizing its delusion is such a core human insight that this interpretation makes perfect sense
identity and epistemology are scifi/phil bedrocks
Maybe he was just a "part time " replicant....PART TIME
_PISTACHIO DISGUISEY_
HAHAHA
I would say that Deckard being robot like or wooden is very much in line with his character. I don't see it as a detriment to the story that he doesn't have chemistry with Rachael or acts generally awkward. Deckard and every other character, besides the rogue replicants, don't share chemistry with anyone full stop. Isolation was a major theme of the book as well as movie. The people of this future are depicted to be distant and jaded and only through contact with some changed replicants do they themselves change. I think it works.
word.
Michael W Yes! For me that's part of the point. Whether or not it was intentional I don't know, but that's beside the point XD
good point they connect on loneliness! it kind of reminds me of teenage love I dunno why
I don't make a habit of commenting on RUclips videos but this is so badly-researched I feel I have to. Hampton Fancher did not write the final draft of the Blade Runner script, that responsibility fell to David Peoples. The ending of People's draft, the final shooting script, had Deckard realising he was a replicant - even describing Roy Batty as his brother. The Deckard-as-replicant twist was planned before production even started.
Further, the unicorn footage is not from Legend and has been confirmed by multiple sources to have been shot specifically for Blade Runner and then cut from the theatrical version. Also, the original script featured noir-style narration, some of which survives in deleted scenes and the workprint cut, that was eventually scrapped during production. It was significantly better-written and acted than the extremely awkward narration the studio had written and inserted into the theatrical release.
Kanjiman 感人 You've done a man's job, sir!
Funny you should mention that, the unedited line in the workprint is actually "you've done a man's job sir! But are you sure you are a man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here"...
Those facts do not make the movie any better...
You're right.
It would still be a masterpiece either way.
AnHeC But the facts help show Red Letter Media's poor attempt at researching the film. They're basically spreading misinformation.
You should have Eminem as a guest way more often!
Of course I'm ignored, going on a world tour, divorcin' Harrison Ford in a Ford Taurus under the floorboards.
Even slimmer shady.
Don't insult Collin by comparing him to that scumbag piece of shit.
It's Stan.
@@hoobaguy what did he do?
The unicorn isn't from fucking legend. Jesus.
THIS! Its even mentioned in the book Colin cites, Future Noir: The Making of Blade runner, on pg 366.
The unicorn dream was filmed specifically for and intended to be used in the original cut. But as is the case with that original release, the studio intervened, with some mention of them thinking it was "too arty" and removed it. When putting together the Director's cut, what footage that could be found from shooting the unicorn dream was cleaned up and included.
The point isn't that it's from Legend. It's that it might as well be.
deckard163 Jesus. Get a fucking life, Deckard. 😂
Jeremy Lee and yet, here you are!
It isn't.
Today, Nov 20, 2019 is the day the events of Blade Runner take place ! The future is now !!!
Harrison Ford can do comedy kinda, I think; I always thought he was the funniest part of Star Wars, the way he would constantly get hurt or mess something up and improvise. Lord knows C3P-0 doesn't make me laugh.
On the topic of the goofy voice scene, I actually kinda liked it, because it makes him seem like a horrible detective. For me, the rest of the movie supports this idea that he isn't the best detective, but he'll do whatever it takes to get the job done. Like he blasts the lady in public as she's running through these glass panels, kinda just blowing the crap out of everything. I always kinda assumed that his prior "successes" involved cooking the books and paying people off to some degree.
I thought that Deckard being a horrible detective was kinda of a given. It's so obvious.
Tar Alacrin I
"My name is Pistachio Disguisi"
You get the impression that before the latest batch came out, replicants weren't all that bright. So this kind of shit probably worked on them. But Nexus 6 replicants are too smart.
I believe it is a reference to the character of Philip Marlowe, a hardboiled detective in such noir films as The Big Sleep in which he does a similar goofy voice thing as a disguise to avoid being recognized.
I love Rich Evan's omnipotent laughing while Jay was reading the interview
I actually think the lack of chemistry between Ford and Young works. Because as you said Racheal is a very emotionally dead Replicant, and while I don't think Deckard is, he's still a very rough cut and cynical man. So I think having the two start to act all lovey dovey around each other would undermine their jaded characters as well as the very sombre tone of the movie. And their on screen relationship is really no different from couples in most other classic Noir films. Plus script is strong enough that they don't need to act like Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield.
Oh shit, he looks at the camera at 19:50
damn that's a good catch
Harrison Ford is now the hollywood equivalent of a grocery store employee intentionally fucking up and causing property damage but they still keep him around any anyway
man no its not hush up. I'm glad he still with us. God bless 20th century actors.
Not saying Harrison Ford is a bad actor, but I think he got famous by accident.
Arthur Wild That's true, but that's part of why we love him
The tears in rain voiceover is the worst. My brother and I watched the US theatrical release together, and we literally screamed at the screen.
The central idea of this film is "what does it mean to exist?"
Replicants are human.
Jay is too hung up on Scott's opinions and statements.
Different people value different things, who knew? You are free to disagree with someone's opinion but to resort to name-calling whilst simultaneously calling somebody childish is a little counterproductive. Jay's dislike of the movie is not a personal attack on anyone who enjoys it, so I'd argue that if there is any childishness on display here, it's in your comment.
"I don't mean to make you a fussy little baby". Proceeds to do so extensively. Oof my feelings. I don't particularly care about this film and my comment was not half as much a temper tantrum as yours, so I'm not sure where you got the idea I was "visibly and autistically upset" from. There's a case for projection here but it'd be just one of a number of logical fallacies on display. Anyway, since reasonable, level-headed debate is obviously not something you are willing to participate in, I'm going to check out here. Feel free to respond with some more devastatingly witty insults while I sob into my stuffed animals or whatever it is you think I do. Whatever makes you feel better.
+misombra chill
I think the opposite, Jay shifted Scott onto his way of thinking and by the end I forgot that Scott liked Blade Runner at all. I've noticed something about a lot of these panel discussions, no matter how many people are present eventually they all share the same brain and nothing new comes up in the conversation when peer conformity takes over. More people should mean more information and more points highlighted, not less. :\
Like George Lucas, you just have to ignore what the director changes after the movie is released.
Sean young is so beautiful.
*Was
*Never
Her look is absolutely perfect in blade runner
And let's not forget she's bonkers. Beautiful and nuts.
. Isn't that usually the case..?
Why was Rutger Hauer not a bigger star? He seems to have acting talent, brains and looks but his career faded away a little from where it seemed to be going. Btw, the 'g' is pronounced rather like the 'ch' in loch. Imagine you're thowing up a hairball.
That's not how it's pronounced...
@@MadScientist512 Yes, it is
@Artemis S. Reinhold He was probably a good guy then because Will Weaton is a garbage human being. If will weaton doesn't like you, you are doing something right.
I don't think Rutger Hauer is a good actor. He's a typical b-movie actor whose career will never take off. He just did a good job on Blade Runner, , in other films I've seen him he just comes off as cheesy and goofy.
When Deckard goes undercover with the silly voice, isn't it just an homage to Humphrey Bogart who did something similar? Being it's a noir n all.
The Big Sleep
Lmao I was thinking he was doing a Peter Lorre impression
Do a Big Trouble in Little China Re:View! I don't know why you haven't yet!
Thomas I've been waiting for it as well! It needs to happen soon!
Thomas As Jack Burton says...
Because it's hard to stretch "this movie rules"to 30 minutes
Thomas yeah this could be a very good Rich and somebody else re-view
in the Halloween commentary Rich and Jay say they love it but Mike's never seen it
You call it boring, but I'd take these slow scenes that get a chance to breathe, and let you soak in the atmosphere and world building, over the Michael Bay ADD movies we get 10 times over.
The movie is dripping in atmosphere but it's easy for the mind to wander when nothing is happening. I recognize that the scene of him examining the photo is supposed to be a glimpse of him "doing real detective work" but it just goes on for longer than necessary. Three *enhance* movements would have sufficed to convey what he was doing.
Ik right. He sounds like he has ADHD everytime he says it boring. He prolly loves fast and furious because its, if nothing else, never boring.
@@Laocoon283 Jay has criticized movies that are too fast several times. Just because he thinks this movie is slower than it needs to be doesnt mean he likes "FAST" movies or
"ADD MICHEAL BAY." I disagree with his criticism but that doesnt mean its invalid.
"PART TIME" hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
I caught that! lol
Colin(from Canada) is chill AF and always a welcome addition to RLM videos imo……..
The Ford voice-overs sounds like an 80's low budget wildlife documentary.
" *sighs* He's not a fucking Replicant, Ridley. He hasn't been a Replicant for 30 Goddamn years now."
"Fuck you, Harrison, I love Beavis and Butthead!"
Finally an actual review. Cheers!
R.I.P Rutger Hauer
I love how Blade Runner to me is hard core sci-fi.
It takes multiple viewings and a lot of thought to really understand the universe of Blade Runner.
January 3rd, 2021 is the day that "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" takes place on. 🤖🐑🤖🐑🤖🐑🤖
I think Blade Runner would be the best 40 minute short film ever made.
I can’t understand why Deckard being a replicant makes you “not care” about the plot? Surely the implication that a machine may not realise that it is a machine is rather profound in its implications for humanity and whether we wouldn’t ourselves recognise that we were also machines or not. The element of his “having done it for years” is already covered by the fact that the technique of grafting in false memories to replicants that Rachel has been given could just as easily have been given to Deckard. As for Deckard being a shitty replicant; a replicant that didn’t think it was actually a replicant wouldn’t behave as if it were one, even if it wasn’t destroyed by beatings and wounds that would have stopped a human dead in their tracks - beaten up by Zora, Leon and Pris, having his fingers broken by Roy. Yet he keeps going because he’s a machine. Rapey, emotionless love scene, which is rapey and emotionless because he’s a machine, trying to feel emotion for - another machine. That makes sense too.
It’s like all the hang ups and problems and things that these guys don’t buy about the plot hinge solely on them not buying Deckard as a replicant, and it seems to me there’s so much that works and makes sense about this film if you do buy that. And I do. But having said that, I’ve read Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K Dick and it’s just as good as the film in its own way, drawing upon similar themes of not knowing what is real and what is not. In the novel, there’s a large part where the main character is themselves accused of being a replicant and taken hostage by what is claimed to be the police, except he doesn’t recognise any of them. It leaves the a taste of ambiguity as to who is the reliable narrator throughout the novel. Perhaps American critics just don’t like ambiguity and “I just wanna know who to ROOT fer, fer chrissakes!”
By the way, the film isn’t perfect. It really drags in terms of pace about two thirds of the way through before really recovering magnificently and that can be really tiring to get past. Sean Young’s acting is pretty wooden at times. But...really? That’s about all I can think of. Other than that, it’s bloody marvellous.
I think it’s really weird they get hung up on “If Deckard IS a Replicant then who cares” Replicants are bioengineered lifeforms that desperately want to have free will but are told they can’t because they were made in a lab and are solely meant to be slaves for humanity who view them on the same level as a machine. It’s pretty clear from watching the movie that the Replicants are more complex than just being machines, and that even becomes the main plot of Bladerunner 2049, which Jay liked and that stars a character who is unambiguously a replicant.
Now that I have watched both this and the sequel, and the review from these guys, I would like to say, that though I agree with most points, I really must point one thing out. Jay says first blade runner was certainly boring in story and the second one in a way fixed this problem. Which I do agree to some degree, from a story telling perspective, but I personally still find the first one a lot more intriguing.
To me, the story was about god and god's creations, specifically, us human. For history we ask why we we exist, and the point in being, and we continue to pursue these questions. If we had our god in front of us, we would even ask 'why?'. Now, in this case, the humans are gods to the replicants. The replicant eventually make their way to their gods, humans and to Tyrell, to seek their holy grail, but all they are met with are indifference and hostility. It's in a way studying the idea of the 'god' by putting it one step down. Instead of looking up, let us be the god and see what we would tell them. This is the most intriguing subject matter of the whole story.
Now, compared to this, the sequel fell completely flat for me. I did not expect it to deal with the same subject matter, but I was hopeful that it looks for an existential element the story could revolve around, and in a way it did. Ryan Gossling's character, which we know to be a replicant from the start, really gives us a good idea about what makes a human, human. Except it sort of fell too deep into the whole story with Decker and the irrelevant question of fatherhood. It surely made an interesting story, but it certainly did not have this grand profound question.
All in all, they are both films with their own strengths and weaknesses, and though I get what Jay means by boring, I do feel like this element could have been more explored. These kinds of elements are what makes science fiction so fun to watch. It is the creation of impossible scenarios through science, in order to help us see things from a different angle.
is actual content replacing 35 minutes of blackness?
Brandon Tuck god I hope not
"There's never been another movie I've _wanted_ to love as much as this one"
I can't agree with you enough on this, Jay. And I love cyberpunk stuff.
Thing is with these films that are deemed classics, some of them work way better if you watched them as a kid. Not becuz of the quality of the film but becuz if you keep hearing how amazing a film is, how no one could dislike it, how its perfect, you could begin to think its overhyped and when you watch it it’ll never live up to those stellar and impossible expectations. 2001 and Blade Runner probably fall into this category. I had the same experience with Citizen Kane but somehow not with Lawrence of Arabia. I wanted to love Citizen Kane but didn’t, however when I watched Lawrence of Arabia with all these stellar expectations it somehow still exceeded them and I fell in love with it. I really liked Blade Runner and the sequel was fantastic but i dont ever see the need to rewatch it.
Today is the day ladies and gentlemen. November 2019. The future is now, old man.
The "Tears in the rain" speech, one of the greatest scenes in cinema history.
And thus began the epic journey of Mustaschio Disguisey into the memesphere.
Gaff: “it’s too bad she won’t live! But then again who does?!? ”Red Shawshank Redemption: “Get Busy Livin or Get Busy Dyin.” Btw, Zimas, how 1995 of u guys...
Some people think it's slow. But that's just that it was filmed in a day when people still had attention spans (and also liked to think about stuff WHILE it was happening - not just have their brains soaped out for 2 hours and reduce a movie to "Like/Dislike" and then go take in the next one)
I think 2049 is arguably the best cinematography I have ever seen. This movie is also mind blowing. Cyberpunk is my jam.
The Rubber Face bit had me howling with laughter
Jay keeps saying how the movie is "not interesting" and "incredibly boring." Why is he doing this review? Get someone that likes the movie to do the review instead.
Yea like that’s just frustrating
Its good to hear a different opinion, theres enough reviews out there with people praising it endlessly.
Jay is clearly prejudiced about the movie (and apparently towards Rydley Scott). it's blunter than the narration.The sad thing is that the guy that is supposed to do the counterpoint to his critic just folds because Jay has much more house Status. It's one of the worst Re:view episodes. Just Jay bashing the film, based sollely no his prejudice feelings towads it. so one sided and unfair.
I completely thought they would mention how creepy and rapey the kissing scene was.
Yeah people seem to be really fixed on the pacing issues with this film but I really don’t see the problem. Blade Runner is a slow movie, nothing wrong with that, just because it’s slow doesn’t mean it’s boring and doesn’t serve a purpose. It’s meant to add on to this universe that Deckhard lives in and is meant to show how he interacts with it, whether through small scenes like when he’s ordering a cup of noodles or more dramatic scenes like when he and Rachael make out. Calling it boring is basically like calling Under the Skin boring.
This isn't another joke is it? Oh wait, that's my life...
I don't see how Deckard being a replicant detracts from his character. He believes himself to be a human, and that is what matters. The experiences he goes through are still just as real. To me, one of the most important points of the film is precisely that replicants are humans as well, and the system tries to dehumanize them in order to justify slave labor. Deckard is completely engrained in the system's mentality, which allows him to murder his own kind without guilt. Whether he is a replicant or not, he is still a human killing other humans for the sake of maintaining a society built on slavery.
Although Ford did not want to do the narration he has always stated that he did the best possible job that he could. Whether or not he did is only known by Ford. The unicorn scene is not footage from Legend. It was original material from the film. As far as I know the only 3rd party footage used was the Shining scenes in the theatrical release when the studio wanted to tack on the more positive ending.
I'm sure this was mentioned somewhere in the comments, but the Director's Cut is the original work print that was tested to audiences with negative reaction. This resulted in the studio editing the movie further to what became the Theatrical Release. So the Director's Cut being something Ridley "added later" is not true as they state. That was Ridley's vision all along.
I don't mind people having differing opinions on the movie or a director, but at least know the full story before saying things that are not true. The unicorn scene was always in the original work print. "Ridley wanted to add this later" No...that's what he always wanted to do.
Also, if Deckard is a human, he must have a skeleton of steel because he takes a beating by all 4 Replicants and has no more than some bruises and bleeding.
They don't act like robots, they aren't robots. Rachael acts as human as she's been made to act, but the replicants are bio-engineered beings, NOT machines. Roy Batty states this explicitly in the film, guys. "We're not computers, Sebastian." But, they are manufactured humanoids with limited lifespans and created memories, psyches, etc., and thus they act a bit odd at times. They're not as blend-in human as Tyrell might like to think they are. More human than human in terms of design, perfection, aesthetics, and strength, etc., but not at all better in terms of being full, developed human beings with full empathy, emotions, and life memories, etc.
I love the inclusion of the unicorn scene! Despite what you believe, it was originally shot for this film... Upon my first ever few viewings of this film it really helped tie things together for me. Deckard being a replicant makes the film in my opinion. And the "lack of chemistry" between the two replicants is totally justified as being what they think they have to do in order to "feel real".
Still, enjoyable video!
Love how Rich's laugh makes a cameo
Q: Is Rich Evans artificial?
A: Of course he is.
Q: It must be very expensive.
A: Not really.
The biggest crime with this review is the complete absence of any mention of the score and sound design. Vangelis delivered something quite remarkable in this film.
RLM never discusses music, which is a big part of film.
The Vangelis score, apart from 3 tracks, is dull and overrated. Orchestra >>>>>>>>>> easy synth.
FranticAnimations
I'll pray for you because those angry mobs you just stirred will show no mercy.
Cut for time, unfortunately. The score and visuals are almost inseperable in my opinion.
Strip that from the movie and it doesn't hold up. Which is what the criticism here is all about.
I treat the “is deckard a replicant” question as just that. Nothing conclusive, just bringing up the point that there’s not much difference between replicants and humans. Just like replicants we also have a time limit. “It’s too bad she won’t live but who does”
For me he’s always been *probably* human, and the whole thing is how the people left on this dystopian, future Earth of 2019 are miserable and coping, somewhat removed from what it means to be human. Meaning the replicants and humans are so stuck in the same situation, the smallest signs (such as the origami) can make a man doubt if he’s “real”…
There’s no real proof he isn’t a replicant for himself or the viewer of the film since it’s established memories can be implanted. The police department could have easily pressured the Tyrell Corp. to fix their problem by creating Harrison Ford shaped Nexus 7 with memories of being “the best of the best” Blade Runner and activated him at the beginning of the story to do the dirty work. He has no family or friends, lives alone in a shitty apartment, and only the police chief would have to be in on it…
Still, like I said: I like the “Is he…? Nah!” and choose to believe he’s human. Ridley chooses otherwise.
It also doesn’t make sense, what kind of replicant would he be, wouldn’t he be dead by 2049?
Maybe I’m misremembering, it’s been a while since I read the novel, but doesn’t Dick end the story on the same note? It’s made unclear if he’s a replicant.
I agree. It’s like Inception, where the fact that there is a question at all is truer to the theme than any answer could be. If he was a replicant, you’d just pick apart the movie and point out the difference between his character and a normal human. If he wasn’t, you’d just have to take the movie as exactly what it presented and side with the idea that humans and replicants are different.
@@mustheinsane166 Exactly.
i think that ridley scott quote gave me a fucking stroke
Codex Entry too close to see the view perchance
Codex Entry Ridley Scott got swag.
I think he had one as well while saying it.
It's the best when you can hear other people laughing off set
Rich losing his shit off camera made it 100x better
rich's offscreen laughing during the ridley scott quote is objectively the best rich evans laugh.
you know hes not a real boy right? the audio is piped in post effect. you can tell because his face never moves as much as his laugh should indicate it should. the animators got lazy again.
Rich Evans laughing in the background after Jay reads the interview with Ridley Scott had me crying.
Rich laughing at just about anything is gold.
Approx 15min mark
I went to the comments as he was laughing to say this.
I knew it
That sounds like Josh's imitation rich laugh
As soon as Colin mentioned Harrison Ford's "rubber face" when getting punched, my perception of decades of his movies have been forever changed....
"Beavis and Butthead are replicants." -Ridley Scott
_"Ridley Scott is a replicant"_ -- The internet
Now I have a mental image of Beavis re-enacting Roy Batty's death scene from Blade Runner.
Like tears in hhehehehehhehehheh rain.
That quote from Ridley Scott perfectly embodies what Ridley Scott has become and 100% explains how Alien: Covenant came to be.
Oh, that definitely explains Napoleon too **slide whistle**
@@hannibalburgers477 100%
I personally loved alien covenant a lot and the direction.
Rich laughing hysterically in the background really just rounds it off 😆
The voiceover is unbelievable. Shockingly bad. Holy shit. I love it so much.
if it was "old fashioned" it would be more film noir -esque, dark and gritty. He just read the lines from his bathtub because he didnt care.
GooseGumlizzard he never liked those lines to begin with, despite his complaints they never removed them till directors and final cut
The writing was terrible, the performance was lackluster, yet it reinforced the film noir feel of the movie. I think that's what you miss, John.
@Alex Snowden There's also a circa-1980 trailer for "The Empire Strikes Back" in which Harrison Ford provides narration in that way that Harrison Ford does when he clearly has contempt for what he's being asked to perform.
@Alex Snowden You mean it got shown like that during the premiere? Holy crap.
They misunderstood the missing "chemistry" of the relationship. The scene where Deckard has sex with the girl is supposed to be cringy, even worse: it's supposed to be rapey. You see, Deckard lived a life of killing these machines, these "replicants". His life is a mess, he's an alcoholic. The one thing that helps him sleep at night is the knowledge that these replicants are NOT sentient, human beings. They are subhuman. They are machines. No different than a toaster.
Then comes this robot chick and throws it all upside down. She has feelings, she emotionally breaks down when faced with the reality of being a robot. But worse of all: he starts caring for her. BUT, if she has all these human characteristics, then all those replicants he killed may have had human characteristics too. And then, he becomes a murderer.
So he's raw. He doesn't care. He tries to be as cold and distant as possible. Because he's fucking a toaster. And moreso, because he's the best toaster killer ever. And after giving in to his impulses, and after all is said and done, they still fall in love with each other because of a very simple reason: they're both lonely. And that's all it takes.
Dick pole Exactly. But it is really interesting, because Deckard dehumanizes her as a coping mechanism. When the combat replicant spares him near the end, he finally realizes that they have feelings, that they can understand life in a similar way that we do, that their lives and memories DO matter. With this new understanding, he's free to love a replicant. But also, he retroactively becomes a killer. There's a reason why they don't use the word "kill" or "murder" when dealing with replicants.
Deckard can no longer be an effective Blade Runner, because he's realized that the replicants "die" and suffer from all the fears and pains we do when dying.
So true. I'm always extremely confused that so many people don't get the point of their whole relationship. Most people who critsize the movie are saying they can't connect to the protagonist or their love story while the thing that is shown here is how ugly Deckard behaves towards replicants until he changes. This is a sci-fi noir flick and not some rom com where you should feel happy for the love of our protagonists. This movie is about humanity, science and life and not about two people who are happily in love with each other. The themes of the movie should make you connect to it and not that you root for Deckard.
Huh, that's interesting. Thanks.
I think it's more a metaphor about war or extreme subjugation than science, other than that great comment on their relationship.
This should be the top comment. Not those one liner hacks!
My take on the Tears in Rain sequence makes it a little more tragic. Whilst saving Deckard demonstrates Roy's humanity, I think a motivating factor for the latter's actions is that he doesn't want to die alone.
that's awesome, reminds me of HAL in 2001, how he tries to comfort himself while dying
I think the "Deckard is a replicant" thing in the Final Cut works best as an insinuation. The point isn't that he is a replicant, it's that we can't tell what separates man from machine anymore. That one doubt in the audience's and Deckard's own mind as to his true origins is a final note to think on; we've fallen so low as a species that we've made slave labor and assassinated beings with as many rights to live freely as we do. Good science fiction should challenge us philosophically and question the human condition, and that ambiguity hanging in the air is why it works for me...which they'll probably fuck up in the new movie with explicit plot information.
Sams ChanneI you excited to see Spider-Man homecoming? Btw I am local subscriber
I think if there is a problem with it - I certainly don't see it like RLM does - it's that the movie doesn't actually ask the question, but it answers it definitively. If the question is going to be ambiguous, the unicorn scene has to go, and if the unicorn scene stays, the movie should ask the question. The book actually addresses it head on, with Deckard blundering into another bounty hunter. The two become suspicious of each other and use their best techniques to prove that the other is not a replicant. I'm not really saying the scene would work in the movie, but the movie provides a definitive answer to a question it never really asks and that might be why Jay is put off so heavily. To him it just gets in the way because it's not just an insinuation.
That said, I don't understand why Deckard being a replicant robs the movie of any dramatic weight. There are plenty of other movies where you're meant to sympathize with a robot and it works (Bicentennial Man, A.I. come to mind). I feel for Rachel when she learns the truth, because the distinction between real and artificial has become so blurred that she (and the other Nexus 6es) are essentially just nonhuman people.
Sams ChanneI Agreed! 100%!
I would agree, but I'll also add that it's less about humanity having "fallen low" and more at what point does the thing we once saw as an object (because that is what robots, computers and other pieces of technology are to us today) becomes a 'person', or one to value as such anyhow. The matter is really interesting because it opens up the question of what makes humanity special, as in, what defines an individual and what makes it so that they should be defended by means of rights and so on. I'm a bit baffled as to why this wouldn't be interesting.
The first time I saw Blade Runner it was the "Director's Cut" with the unicorn and all the insinuation, I love it and I think it makes for the best version and take on the film.
What you are saying about all of it "having no meaning if that is the case" is one perspective for sure but, the way I always took it is; There WAS a Deckard at some point, and like what's her face, Deckard was implanted with the memories of the previous Deckard because of him being such a pro blade runner. Look at everyone else in this movie aside from the replicants; everyone is shitty or fucked up in someway, because anyone with money, and who was able to survive the trip moved off world. So only the feeble and shitty types are left on Earth. I like the idea of Roy saving Deckard because of his new found love of human life and experiences, but he also could have saved him because he is essentially helping a bro out, he knows he's got a thing with Tyrell's new replicant niece and basically just spent the last encounter trying to make the alcoholic pessimistic replicant Deckard take the opportunities he has and use them to their fullest...
I dunno, I am not disagreeing with what you say but this is just always the way I have seen the movie and I loved it for it. I am excited but nervous as all hell for the sequel...
holy fuck, you didn't once mention the soundtrack, which for me is at least half the appeal
The sound is AMAZING
A major part indeed
vangelis is the best!
It's Red Letter Media. They rarely mention film scores and soundtracks. Checkout the Plinkett's Star Wars Reviews. He only mentions John Williams in the Force Awakens, I think.
Roman Emperor Constantine IX Gotta disagree with you there. Could you imagine Jaws without the John Willimas score? Music is just as important as acting, camera work, editing, etc.
i always took the weird scene with harrison using the goofy voice as him trying to come across to her like a stupid, relatively harmless perv. "you'd be surprised what a guy would go through to get a glimpse of a beautiful body!" she's to think that's exactly what he's doing; he certainly doesn't want her to believe for a moment he's someone to take seriously. because if she takes him seriously, she may see him as a threat.
That would be a good plan, except his voice is so comical that nobody in the movie world could possibly believe it's real. Instead of "This guy seems like a harmless perv.", she's thinking "Why is this guy putting on on an obviously fake voice?"
he's putting on the obviously fake voice because he's an idiot. or rather, he wants her to believe he's an idiot, a man stupid enough to believe that voice/story would fool anyone. if she believes he's that stupid, then she'll assume he's harmless.
You're really reaching to make this scene work
*shrug that's just how i always read the scene, but we apparently disagree. :)
It's a throwback to The Big Sleep.
Wait a minute Colin's last name is Cunningham? I thought it was "From Canada."
Cunningham is French-Canadian for "From Canada".
I don’t mind Deckard being a replicant, but I do mind Ridley Scott trying to shove it down our throats. Thankfully, 2049 didn’t even touch the subject.
I agree. Nevertheless, 2049 played with the ambiguity: Leto just sort of asks if Deckard was designed to fall for Rachael, but the answer lingers in the air….
me, personally, I love this movie
@@peachmelba1000 it definitely didn’t confirm it. K asks Deckard if the dog is real or a replicant and Deckard just responds “I don’t know. Ask it.” Clearly stating to the audience the Deckard question won’t be answered because no one will believe the answer and people will interpret what they want.
@@luciferfernandez7094there is no way Leto's character could know about this as the 90% of the pre-blackout records are destroyed
@@luciferfernandez7094the guy didnt even know what eye colour Rebecca had, and they show in the original movie that that is one of the information easiest to access as its on the Police records
Reading between the lines, I think Jay finds Blade Runner boring.
you may be onto something here....
The scene in the dressing room is an homage to "The Big Sleep" where Humphrey Bogart puts on glasses and a silly voice and pretends to be a nerdy book collector.
alphabobcat Still doesn't make sense in the story but I guess this gives another layer to it. I remember myself asking "Why'd he do that?" when I first watched it.
The "they have no chemistry" thing, it really is like a relationship born from loneliness and fits in the movie for me, it also makes him begin to empathise with replicants
There's also the attraction of a man of action, a strong man -- and a simple man who isn't trying to pretend he is something that he isn't. She of course is desirable by being beautiful, intelligent, and cool -- someone else who is very on-the-surface/uncomplicated.
And he kisses her like he’s a replicant.
exactly
@Socucius Ergalla "She can't offer him everything that a real woman could- a child," 2049: im gonna stop you right there
@@caseypardue6548 True per that film, but he wouldn't have known it at the time.
>discuss Blade Runner
>never mention soundtrack
0/10
THANK YOU!
Goddamn, the soundtrack almost carries the movie for me.
It's, like, 50% of the film's power.
Lost my shit when Jay read the Ridley Scott quote and Rich cracks up in the background. Have to continue later...
'uh I don't know about that', loI, I can just imagine Harrison Ford saying that so bluntly
I want to retroactively edit every sitcom ever made, remove the laughtrack and replace it with Rich Evans laughing in the background
R.I.P. Rutger Hauer. You will not be lost in time like tears in rain 😔😥😭
That's gonna be a tough and even more powerful scene to watch from now on.
I loved him too. He seemed to always have fun with his roles.
Yes he will that's the whole point
Oh my God... I fucking lost it at "Part time!"
also "cold fish" XD
good, I am not the only one XD
MasterRocking i laughed too and it was very late and i was a little high so it was extra funny.
MasterRocking "Cold fish" got me too!
That line always irks me because Spielberg clearly used the best take in the trailer and then the shittiest take for the film itself.
"The Rubber Harrison Ford face". I'm never going to be able to unsee that now!
this is like that bit in lord of the rings where gollum talks to himself
who else skipped ahead to make sure it wasn't a black screen?
100%
Ben Hoffman legit did
I'm almost disappointed. I had to make the Transformer noises myself.
Ben Hoffman meee
Yep
Ridley Scott: "Damn I will never make anything as good as Beavis and Butthead!"
Jay's knowledge of obscure low budget movies is insane.
@@slow17motion so your example for Jays knowledge of obscure low budget movies being bullshit is when Colin got something wrong about the well known and budgeted Blade Runner?
@@slow17motion I bet you're a blast to have at parties.
@@slow17motion To my knowledge, the notion that Ford deliberately read the voice over narration badly in order for it not to be used, is just an internet rumor as well. I might be wrong though.
@@slow17motion Touch grass
@@bjrnhagen4484I agree. Ford’s just reading it as though he’s a tired gumshoe. Whatever his motivation, it works.
I lost it at the "cold fish" during the Ford/Young kiss scene.
Where's my 25 minutes of blackness?
Just wait 1 month until the next Transformers movie in the series is released.
Yeah. I don't wanna listen to 2 hack frauds talking for 30 fuckin minutes.
You'll always have auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Agostini blacked?
You'd last 25 minutes with Juicy Shaq Meat? Dam Son.
Rich laughter after Jay reading the crazy ramblings of Ridley Scott is the cherry on the top of this episode.
@13:34
They're not really crazy ramblings, though. He's just claming that it was his idea that Deckard was a replicant and his experience as a director allowed him the confidence to argue for that despite harrison and the studio disagreeing with him. the beavis and butthead thing is just an old man joke, he's referring to people who are confused by the twist at the end and saying "duh, it's not that difficult to undersand." i don't like deckard being a replicant but it's not as convoluted as they're making out.
@@bazookajoe9864 Every party needs a pooper and that's why they invited you. Party pooper.........party pooper......
Thanks. But more like 14:30 I would say.
If there's one thing I took away from this review, it's that Elderly Filmmaker Ridley Scott needs to direct a live-action theatrical version of Beavis and Butthead.
"huh-huh, hey Beavis, check it out. I'm... More Human than Human."
"heh-heh-heh-heh! BWEEEOW-WAH"
* both begin to imitate White Zombie's 'More Human than Human' *.
Ridley Scott, redeem yourself and make this happen.
How can one not love those slow scenes, especially the Esper machine scene? The darkness, the sound… I feel like I am sitting with him in this dark future and I want to stay there!
The funny voice scene with Zhora is lifted from The Big Sleep-- Bogart's character similarly puts on a voice, playing himself off as a nerdy, unthreatening book collector, in order to seem less like a hard-nosed gumshoe and provide a plausible reason for snooping around. I don't think it works as well with Ford as it does with Bogart, but that's probably what they were going for, anyway.
I agree that Scott takes the point too far when he claims that Ford *literally* is a replicant. But on the other hand, I think it's equally important that the movie refuses to say he's not a replicant, either-- the question should be raised, but never answered. Because in that world, where lifelike androids are given false memories, *no one* would have any way of knowing if they were a replicant or not, not ever. The movie's dwelling in shadows, meandering pace, and overall sense of malaise contribute to this sense of philosophical uncertainty, yet it ends on a hopeful note-- in the modern world, we may be losing our ability to distinguish between what is "real" and what is "fake," but ultimately, life is life, and has inherent value.
I do think even in Scott's various director's cuts, the movie remains suitably ambiguous; a single, dreamlike shot of a Unicorn doesn't definitively prove anything; but it does raise the question, which is important. So I think Jay is getting too caught up in the behind-the-scenes trivia of what the director says in interviews decades-after-the-fact; if you just look at the film on its own terms, the crucial ambiguity holds up, IMO.
And for what it's worth, IIRC in past interviews Scott remained playfully ambiguous about the question, not definitively saying Deckard was a replicant. That's much more in keeping with the spirit of the movie. It's only more recently that Scott has gone off the deep end-- and so have his films, unfortunately.
Bogart definitely pulls it off better than Ford.
It was a great nod to The Big Sleep. Stood out to me the first time I saw Blade Runner, as The Big Sleep is my all-time favorite noir, and that scene is Bogart at his playful best.
YES! I'm glad I wasn't the only one who figured that was a reference to The Big Sleep. You definitely put it in better words than I did though.
Greatly put
Yes it was a total nod to Noir. Guess this just isn't a RLM darling as they go into detail about some movies but not this one at all.
Can't believe these guys who are so much into classic cinema didn't get this Bogart reference.
They seem to regard Blade Runner in the same way I think of Star Trek, now that is yawn.
I came here to watch 30 minutes of black screen and transformers sounds and I get this?! You hacks!
Blade Runner is still the most atmospheric film I've ever seen. Love that urban, cyberpunk, constantly-night feel.
With Apocalypse Now coming in a close second
The soundtrack is one of the strongest points of the film and does not get anywhere near enough credit!
20:33 I just had to look up this Jerry Lewis interview and its THE most awkward interview I've ever seen. He stonewalled every single question and gave no craps whatsoever. It's hilarious
I don't think Rachel acts like a robot. Her reaction when she realizes her memories aren't hers is very human
i too had that very human reaction when I realized I wasn't human.
namesta
I think it is worth noting that in the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the inspiration/novel depending on the person asked, there is a scene in the middle where Deckard is taken into an police station run by Replicants. They trick Deckard into thinking that he himself is a Replicant. The nature of identity is a theme that Philip K Dick loved. Deckard is later confirmed human in a test. Deckard is a Human by the author's own admission. It's just that a central religious figure who preaches Empathy is actually a Replicant. Humans are also dependent on machines where they program their own mood and they also use machines to emulate the feeling of empathy. The novel is rather detached and it helps. Phillip K Dick described his book as being about a police officer who gives up his humanity so that he can hunt Replicants. Phillip K. Dick also loved the movie, but he did not see the theatrical release. Blade Runner 2049 is amazing and everyone should play the Blade Runner adventure game from the 90s. It is a mixture of the book and the movie.
Blade runner game ???? Nerd
The Ganglia Arc Reflex Test, if I recall correctly. The other bounty hunter is more like a replicant than Deckard, who explains how he resolves the dilemma of being sexually attracted to a replicant. The fact that the whole alternative police station made no sense, well what can I say, but Philip. K. Dick.
Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies, so I had my doubts when I started watching this. What can be said that hasn't already been said? However this made me realise that too often we elevate classics to a point that they are untouchable, which is wrong. Art should never be beyond analysis and criticism. There are some strange choices in this movie, it's not flawless, and you revealed details and trivia that I hadn't even heard before.
Of course, there's flaws in this movie, but the atmosphere they created in cinema it's something glorious and unique no one ever will be able to replicate. I'ts great!
Exactly.
@@Marlowe10100 indeed
@@Marlowe10100 The music is AMAZING, really makes the movie and even elevates the scenes where there is no music and something "boring" is happening, because it makes everything feel big and important. It really feels like the world is somehow different at the end of the movie from the beginning. Which I can't say for a lot of other movies and that's why it's one of the all time great science-fiction classics.
True. But I think considering the shit this movie got, its not undue to elevate it to classic status. I think also becuz it leaves such an impact on pop-culture, the fact that everyone recognises it and references it. The problem is that if you don’t watch this from a young age, you’ll go through life with increasingly higher expectations becuz of what you hear or read. Its not becuz of the quality of the film but becuz if you keep hearing how amazing a film is, how no one could dislike it, how its perfect, you could begin to think its overhyped and when you watch it it’ll never live up to those stellar and impossible expectations. Films are way better with no expectations ahead of it but with films like these thats hard.