(Movie Review)Believe it or not, I'm just now seeing this film for the first time. Obviously I'm pretty late on this one.
Growing up in a house with basic cable, I had plenty of opportunities to see this movie as a high school student. And indeed I did try and watch it from time to time, but I was never able to sit through it.
Recently Whisky's post got me thinking about it again. And it also caught my eye in the video store a few weeks ago, so I decided to give it another try.
The movie stars a young Harrison Ford when he was at the height of his fame, fresh off of "Star Wars" and the first "Indiana Jones".
As a high school student, I always came into this movie expecting another "Star Wars" esque fast paced action movie. And no doubt these misplaced expectations were the reason I could never make it past the first 15 minutes of this movie.
"Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" are both cinematic classics in their way, but they're pop culture classics. "Blade Runner" belongs to a whole other category of classic film.
"Blade Runner" is a classic in the sense that "Citizen Kane" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" are classic films. It's a work of art, and requires more effort to engage.
Because of my limited intellect, I seldom appreciate classic films the first time I see them. The first time I watched "Citizen Kane" it bored me to tears. Every subsequent time I've watched it, I've loved it.
In the same way, maybe this film will grow on me with repeated viewings. But for my first time through I found it a bit long and hard to sit through.
(For what it's worth, the great Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel also didn't think much of this film after their first viewing either--see video here).
I'll start with the good.
The visuals and special effects are really good.
The special effects are seamless. Even by today's standards they look really good, so I can only imagine how impressive they must have been to movie-goers back in 1982.
Visually, the movie presents a unique blend of a classic 1930s film noir detective atmosphere mixed with a futuristic setting.
This is a lot of fun to watch.
Although the film is still a product of its time. Some of this futuristic world is mixed up with 1980s fashion, which probably seemed natural enough back in 1982, but watching it now, it's just enough to take you out of the futuristic setting of the movie.
There's also a noticeable Asian theme throughout the futuristic city. I've been told the style of the movie was deliberately modeled on the congestion of Shibuya, and having visited Shibuya a couple years ago, I appreciated the connection.
I did feel like I was getting hit over the head a little bit with the symbolism at points. The eye motif was a little bit too obvious for my tastes. And the part at the end when the dove takes off right as the character was dying was not only obvious but cliched as well. And in slow motion--I hate slow motion.
As for the plot of the movie: Um, yeah, it was all rignt I guess. I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on the plot. The real point of this movie is in the visuals.
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on Democracy Now!
and Rachel Maddow: The Republicans' Small Angry Tent
and Real Time New Rules: Grow a Set and Stand Up for the 70% of Americans Who Aren't Crazy
4 comments:
Nice to see you saw it. I wasn't altogether sure what to make of it the first time around, either -- and I saw it back in the day, on a Friday afternoon. I remember a guy behind me bursting out in weird, uncontrollable laughter when Pris (Daryl Hannah) got shot. It wasn't a scene that struck me as funny, but I think so much of the movie was similarly so unexpected that we all filed out of the theatre with "Huh?" looks on our faces.
And the suggestion that Decker was also a replicant didn't sink home until my third or fourth viewing. I was used to simpler movies, I guess.
Did you see Alien on the big screen, by any chance?
The 1979 Theatrical release of "Alien" was a bit before my time, at least as a member of the movie going public. And if it ever got a re-release in the theaters, I missed it.
I have seen it several times on TV though, and once on a big screen TV, if that counts.
I assume you're asking because they're by the same director?
Yeah, same director. They also had a similar scale to them. I'd studied a book detailing the production of Alien prior to my actually seeing the movie, so I thought I was ready for it. But when I finally saw the movie in a rep theater I was blown away. Of course, Giger's aesthetic -- which was completely unprecedented -- had a lot to do with my response. It's remarkable how common place the Alien is as a punchline these days.
Actually I was a bit under-impressed by the first "Alien" movie, perhaps because, as you said, it's so much a part of pop culture now it's lost it's original shock value.
I also watched "Aliens" first, which probably spoiled it for me.
Actually, "Aliens" I loved. One of my favorite movies of all time. Maybe it just has to do with whichever shocked you first.
Post a Comment