Is Blade Runner overrated? (cinema, scenes, action, romance)

[ironpony]

It's considered to be one of the best movies ever made by many people, but whenever I see it, I cannot understand why. I like the movie and think it's a good movie, just not great or a masterpiece.

The biggest weakness of the movie for me is that we the audience are suppose to feel empathy for the replicants cause of how they are treated and have no place in the world. But at the same time, the two main replicants, Roy and Pris, act like such villainess over the top mustache twirlers, that it remove all the empathy. I mean Roy Batty himself decides to actually howl, while he is being hunted and seems to taking lustful pleasure in the experience.

The main character, Deckard I didn't really find to be that interesting either. He's just your typical hard boiled tracker, and there doesn't seem to be much more too him than that. And he doesn't really have hardly any chemistry with Rachel. In order to get Rachel in the mood to kiss him he throws her up against the wall, and blocks her in, telling her say kiss me until she says it. Yeah, I can really feel the romance there (not).

I also did not care for the hints that Decard could be a replicant cause the story is about how Replicants do not have a fair place in the world, so a human falling for a replicant is part of that theme. If both turn out to be replicants, I feel it cancels out the point. It's kind of like if Romeo was actually a Capulet all along. It just doesn't feel special therefore.

Although the special effects and cinematography are fantastic and I give it praise for that.
I feel like instead of one of the best movies of all time, it's more like a movie of the week at best. What do you think, or what is it that I am missing about it, that's better?

[AFtrEFkt]

I'll let Mark take this one.

[nc17]

Blade Runner doesn't have mustache-twirling villains, who are evil for the sake of being evil. The replicants have desperate demands, and they kill either out of self-defense, or frustration. If you believe Tyrell, short life expectancy is an unfortunate byproduct of earlier replicant models. Blade runners do their job, reluctantly, and in Deckard's case, often incompetently. It's really 3 groups who are doing what anyone would expect them to do. It all has the trappings of a noir tragedy. (the sequel on the other hand has a villain or two who's simply evil for the sake of it, which I thought was disappointing)

The replicant theory is Ridley Scott's theory, which would carry more weight if he had greater involvement in the production. The actors don't agree with the theory, the writer doesn't agree with the theory, the story it's loosely adapted from doesn't support the theory. And I think the theory makes the movie worse.

Of course the production design is incredibly influential, and helped visualize the sub-genre of cyberpunk, which tells stories that are less far-fetched today than they were in the 80s. It's nonetheless an important part of science fiction.

The main criticism that I think holds weight is the plot being too simple. The movie was adapted by a short story, and the movie is paced like a short story, that lasts 2 hours. Still, it's better than an overly complicated story that's riddled with plot holes (which modern movies tend to suffer from).

[ironpony]

Well I thought Blade Runner had one possible plot hole which was why would the humans make the replicants so exact to them, that they wouldn't be able to tell them apart? I mean they are slaves working on another planet, so if they were to give the replicants say, certain features, that would make them stick out like a sore thumb, then they would be easily spotted if they decided to run.

Why make them so exact to humans, that you can't even tell if they are replicants with even a blood test, or an X-ray machine? Why design them so they have to undergo a voight kampff test to see if they are replicants?

I thought that might have been a plot hole, not that I am complaining about that though, just noticing it.


As for the villains, even though they are killing in self defense or out of frusteration, I feel they are overacting it though, and Roy and Pris are all over the place with their performances, especially Roy. He seems to be taking some sort of pleasure in it, and that drained me of empathy for him.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by ironpony

It's considered to be one of the best movies ever made by many people, but whenever I see it, I cannot understand why. I like the movie and think it's a good movie, just not great or a masterpiece.

Originally Posted by ironpony

The biggest weakness of the movie for me is that we the audience are suppose to feel empathy for the replicants cause of how they are treated and have no place in the world. But at the same time, the two main replicants, Roy and Pris, act like such villainess over the top mustache twirlers, that it remove all the empathy. I mean Roy Batty himself decides to actually howl, while he is being hunted and seems to taking lustful pleasure in the experience.

The thing you have to keep in mind to understand Rutger Hauer's genius performance: The replicants are toddlers. They are 3-year olds stuck in adult bodies. They have an infantile emotional buffer going against adult physical impulses. Roy is a basically a naughty boy who was trained to be a killer. How could he not tend to psychopathy?

Originally Posted by ironpony

The main character, Deckard I didn't really find to be that interesting either. He's just your typical hard boiled tracker, and there doesn't seem to be much more too him than that.

Wrong. Deckard is the "hero" who is in actual fact the villain --- and he doesn't finally admit it till the end. He's fighting against it the whole movie, but he doesn't finally give in until Roy's final act of kindness.

Originally Posted by ironpony

And he doesn't really have hardly any chemistry with Rachel. In order to get Rachel in the mood to kiss him he throws her up against the wall, and blocks her in, telling her say kiss me until she says it.

Yeah, that's true. But again, Deckard is NOT a hero. He's a villain. And it didn't help that Harrison Ford and Sean Young couldn't stand one another.

Originally Posted by ironpony

I also did not care for the hints that Decard could be a replicant cause the story is about how Replicants do not have a fair place in the world, so a human falling for a replicant is part of that theme. If both turn out to be replicants, I feel it cancels out the point. It's kind of like if Romeo was actually a Capulet all along. It just doesn't feel special therefore.

YES!!! 100% correct. But keep in mind that the whole Deckard-is-a-replicant aspect is something that Ridley Scott pulled out of his posterior years after the movie came out. When the movie was made, even Scott admitted he had no clue what it was about. It was only years later when he started tinkering with it that he came up with the stupid gimmick of Deckard being a replicant.

Every other person involved with the movie --- Hampton Fancher, who wrote it; David Peoples, who co-wrote it; Michael Deeley, who produced it; Harrison Ford, who played the part --- say that there is no way Deckard was intended to be a replicant. Ridley Scott just needs to lay off the hooch.

Originally Posted by ironpony

I feel like instead of one of the best movies of all time, it's more like a movie of the week at best.

[ironpony]

Okay thanks. But I didn't say at all that Deckard was the hero. I know he's not a hero at all in this movie and is the villain overall. But even as a villain I don't think he is that interesting still cause again, he's just a hard boiled tracker with no chemistry with his love interest. Even if the starts hated each other in real life, I still think the movie should be faulted for this.

And even if Roy Batty is a 3 year old in a man's body he is still taking a lot of pleasure in what he is doing, to the point where I feel the empathy is drained. There are several scenes where he is all smiling and wide-eyed, when he is talking, and it's like, you have only a short time left to live, and you want to strike back, so why not wipe that pretentious smile off your face. I mean if you were to compare him to the Frankenstein monster for example, you don't see the Frankenstein monster, smiling, and howling it up, having such a good time over being a monster in society.

As for the if Deckard is a replicant thing, that was just a minor complaint. I suppose it doesn't really effect the movie, if Ridley came up with this afterward, but I still feel that the portrayal of the replicants and Deckard's love story, are most problematic.

[AFtrEFkt]

"...movie of the week at best."

Yikes! So, what are some of your "favorite" movies?

[Aredhel]

Originally Posted by ironpony

And even if Roy Batty is a 3 year old in a man's body he is still taking a lot of pleasure in what he is doing, to the point where I feel the empathy is drained.

Most people take at least some pleasure in revenge.

There are several scenes where he is all smiling and wide-eyed, when he is talking, and it's like, you have only a short time left to live, and you want to strike back, so why not wipe that pretentious smile off your face. I mean if you were to compare him to the Frankenstein monster for example, you don't see the Frankenstein monster, smiling, and howling it up, having such a good time over being a monster in society.

He's "howling it up" in the immediate aftermath of his lover's death, while pursuing the man directly responsible for that death. And he knows he's on the edge of death himself.

No, Roy Batty is not a good person. But he was never given the chance to be. He was deliberately manufactured to be a killing machine. What excuses do the human characters have for their unjustifiable actions? To understand Batty, you need to reflect on Tyrell.

[ironpony]

But I thought that him howling it up in the aftermath of his lover's death was disrespectable to the lover, and that caused me, the viewer, to loose respect or what the character was trying to achieve. But he was acting like this throughout the movie. I just thought Roy should have been more angry and depressed about his situation. Even before the revenge he is constantly smiling the whole time, when it seemed out of place with what he should be feeling.

Plus I feel Roy is severely misplacing the blame. I thought that he should go after whoever in the government is standing by the laws that replicants should be illegal instead and that would have been much more justifiable to his case. Tyrell is just a middle man, so to speak.

[Dirt Grinder]

The original and the sequel would make amusing short stories, at best.