Blade Runner: Director’s Cut it’s not just the effects that aren’t special

 

Blade Runner: The Director’s Cut – 1992 (1982)

Director Ridley Scott
Starring Harrison Ford, Sean Young, Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, M.Emmett Walsh, Edward James Olmos, William Sanderson, Joanna Cassidy, Brion James, Joe Turkel
Screenplay Hampton Fancher, David Peoples based upon the story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick

“This was not called execution, it was called retirement.”

Few movies have received the critical blessing of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.  The grit, grime, endless advertising and Asian influence was a contrast from much of the futuristic Utopian visions that had been expressed in Sci-Fi up to that time.  Some see a relationship between this and Scott’s first classic work, Alien, in that both films have androids as central characters.  While it definitely benefits from its Philip K. Dick source, as well as the subtle direction of Scott, time has left it a touch dated, and the acting has not improved things one bit.

The gist of the story is a futuristic film noir private eye.  Richard Decker (Ford) is the reluctant tracker of renegade androids who have landed on earth in search of a way to defy their programming and live a longer life.  His reluctance is brought on by nothing but the script, judging on how easy it is to change his mind.  Decker’s first trip is to visit the owner of Tyrell (Turkel) Corporation, who is responsible for making these beings.  While there he comes across an android (Young) who is convinced by implanted memories that she is the niece of Tyrell.  Of course he is smitten by this android, and eventually she too will be added to the list of those to be retired.

As Decker, Ford spends a lot of the film getting his butt kicked.  By the end, it had be wondering why the heck he was hiredfor the job.  If his performance is the kind that emits

Smoking…not so hot.

a sterling reputation as “the best,” its surprising that the robots weren’t running all of civilization.

No life behind those eyes

Young and Hanna seem appropriately cast as robots, as their

Inspiration for a future TV show…no doubt

performances have the range of, say, Tiffany Brissette from Small Wonder.  At the time of release, I might have given them credit for nailing the role, but having seen much of their later work, I can see it certainly wasn’t a method acting.

The rest of the performances, save for Hauer’s nutjob Batty, are nothing to write home about.  The script is not that bad, it’s just dry as hell.  Which is a good contrast to the incessantly stormy L.A. weather of 2019.  It is apparently raining and dark all the time.  Hopefully the Dodgers had a roof by then, or else there’d be nothing but rain outs.

The atmosphere is just part of the plan for Ridley Scott, who does a decent job making the special effects, unless you compare it to The Empire Strikes Back or even Scott’s own Alien.  Though possessing nowhere near the budget as the Star Wars films, he seems to be pushing the limits of his skill to work within his limits here,  While many of the subsequent re-releases of the film have made things cleaner, but the ships still only rise as fast as the rope levers would move it.

Perhaps the biggest drawback to the film is the Vangelis score.  Using the early ’80’s reed-thin keyboard sounds of the day, the annoying sounds run rampant throughout the movie.  This makes it impossible for one to think of anything but the big shoulder pad, Flock of Seagulls haircut look.  Or maybe just Tron.

There is a certain poetry to the last half hour of the film, and there are several shots that have become hallmarks of his visual style.  When its time to get moving, the story really kicks into place.  His courage to end the film in a non-violent way works astoundingly well, even today.  Overall, the film leaves some questions unanswered, but it doesn’t insist that you even ask them.

Part of the film’s cult status is in the pairing of the author and director.  It is a good film, but nowhere near a classic,.  This is not what one could consider a failure, just something that one would expect to come closer to its reputation.

(*** out of *****)

 

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Blade Runner: Director’s Cut it’s not just the effects that aren’t special

  1. Ah, the special effects were great for the day — and I agree with you that the Vangelis score hasn’t aged well, but again, it fits perfectly with the early 80s cyberpunkish vibe….. I also think the end is pitch perfect….

    1. Thanks for reading and thank for your reply, Joachim. I think, for me, a more accurate description of the special effects in relation to their day would be “adequate.” Even the Last Starfighter was better in that regard.

      1. I guess just seeing the slow, deliberate and clunky rise of the ships just seems goofy by now. The grit and grime was original, to be sure.

      2. I definitely agree, though Scott did a wonderful job with Prometheus in most respects. Please check out the review I wrote here. I would love to see what you think.

      3. I operate with spoilers — I generally read them — haha, I watch films often knowing exactly what will happen. I also read enough sci-fi novels to predict any end to a sci-fi film 😉

  2. Good day! I could have sworn I’ve been to your blog before but after browsing through many of the articles I realized it’s new to me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely delighted I stumbled upon it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking back regularly!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s