xpost - don't say "quite" anymore.
― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:41 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:42 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:44 (7 years ago) Permalink
also: weird '80s references to race and stuff, à la "goonies" and "gremlins." you don't see that anymore for some reason.
the unexpected thing about this film is that the scenes of violence are the worst in the film, and the climax isn't as exciting as you'd hope. it breaks the mood of frustrated desire and apprehension that the film works so hard to build.
has anyone evaluated scott as an action director? i mean, the "action" scenes of this film really let it down, as much for narrative as visual reasons. and IIRC the action scenes of "gladiator" left a lot to be desired as well.
sometimes i feel similarly about david lynch, although he has been known to make really interesting things out of pretty violent scenes.
also i've been told the ending of the director's cut is TOO SUBTLE but
***SPOILERS***
it's hard to imagine how they could have telegraphed the message "DECKERT IS A REPLICANT" any clearer than the edward james olmos character placing the unicorn origami figure outside his apartment. i am impressed by the *economy* of this motif though--they don't overdo it.
― amateurist0, Monday, 17 April 2006 04:46 (7 years ago) Permalink
okay, I like the Director's Cut way more.
― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:48 (7 years ago) Permalink
i was 12 or 13, just old enough for my dad to take me (he wanted to see it, so i think taking me became kind of a way for him to justify an evening away from home). completely blew my mind.
i think it makes most sense in the context of the urban dystopia films of the time. it's the ultimate urban dytopia, even more than taxi driver or the warriors or escape from new york or whatever. and more prescient by a long shot, because those movies were all predicated on urban desolation, whereas in blade runner the wealth hasn't abandoned the city, it's just moved even farther up above it than before. in a lot of those other movies, you're meant to assume that there's wealth somewhere, but it's certainly not in the city, it's fled somewhere far away. in blade runner, it's right there in your face, looming up above in the penthouses (and selling things to you from giant billboards, recruiting you to go work shit jobs in outer space for megacorporations). i still love it. but just for fun, here's a little of pauline kael's review (from july 7, 1982):
Blade Runner is a suspenseless thriller; it appears to be a victim of its own imaginative use of hardware and miniatures and mattes. At some point, Scott and the others must have decided that the story was unimportant; maybe the booming, lewd and sultry score by Chariots-for-Hire Vangelis that seems to come out of the smoke convinced them that the audience would be moved even if the vital parts of the story were trimmed.
...Blade Runner doesn't engage you directly; it forces passivity on you. It sets you down in this lopsided maze of a city, with its post-human feeling, and keeps you persuaded that something bad is about to happen. Some of the scenes seem to have six subtexts but no text, and no context either.
...[T]his movie loses track of the few expectations it sets up, and the formlessness adds to a viewer's demoralization -- the film itself seems part of the atmosphere of decay. Blade Runner has nothing to give the audience -- not even a second of sorrow for Sebastian. It hasn't been thought out in human terms. If anybody comes around with a test to detect humanoids, maybe Ridley Scott and his associates should hide. With all the smoke in this movie, you feel as if everyone connected with it needs to have his flue cleaned.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:48 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:49 (7 years ago) Permalink
Scott is not a consistent director in any genre, but dude, watch one Alien.
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:49 (7 years ago) Permalink
― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:50 (7 years ago) Permalink
― amateurist0, Monday, 17 April 2006 04:51 (7 years ago) Permalink
what a bad joke
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:53 (7 years ago) Permalink
not that she's entirely wrong, but it's 95% opinion, 5% description, and a few too many puns
― amateurist0, Monday, 17 April 2006 04:54 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:54 (7 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:55 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:56 (7 years ago) Permalink
also kenan you sound like an ass
Well, Alien is a horror film, not an action film, so maybe you're onto something. But you sound like an ass most of the time, too.
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:57 (7 years ago) Permalink
Try it out, it's UNCANNY.
― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:58 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:58 (7 years ago) Permalink
also a lot of her reasons for disliking the movie were part of its strength! it really is a visual movie, despite the powerful score and quotable dialogue. 'the design is the statement", etc. IIRC she didnt like 2001 either.
― latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:59 (7 years ago) Permalink
Yes! I always thought this was clear too, yet have heard a lot of people argue against it, though with no footing, mostly "He can't be!" Get one ability to follow metaphor? I don't know.
― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:00 (7 years ago) Permalink
-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), April 17th, 2006.
otm!
― latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:00 (7 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:01 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:03 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:07 (7 years ago) Permalink
(altho if she hadn't retired she might've raved up mission to mars).
oh man that movie
*begin digression*
mission to mars is soooo bad. we saw on it on my brother's b-day and he was so exasperated at the movie and its retardedness that when the alien hologram thingie shed a tear he burst out laughing in the crowded theater, making a bunch of others laugh with him. god bless my brother.
and goddamn the amount of eye shadow gary sinise wears in this movie.
*end digression*
― latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:07 (7 years ago) Permalink
Ebert!
Ebert gave this movie three stars. He did not understand it at all.
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:10 (7 years ago) Permalink
i think in one of his reviews he admitted he prolly would have rated it higher if he was reviewing it nowadays.
― latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:12 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:13 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:14 (7 years ago) Permalink
Before the shooting began, Christopher Nolan invited the whole film crew to a private screening of Blade Runner (1982). After the film he said to the whole crew, "This is how we're going to make Batman."
― kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:18 (7 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:19 (7 years ago) Permalink
Though they do both have Rutger Hauer. ;-)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:21 (7 years ago) Permalink
very true, but the scene seemed so close
― kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:23 (7 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:24 (7 years ago) Permalink
― timmy tannin (pompous), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:27 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:27 (7 years ago) Permalink
um... you think we just figured this out right now?
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:28 (7 years ago) Permalink
― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:29 (7 years ago) Permalink
― kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:29 (7 years ago) Permalink
i was criticizing her writing, smuggo
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:31 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:32 (7 years ago) Permalink
-- kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (jdsalmo...), April 17th, 2006.
otfm! like 2001 and the first two Alien movies, it really holds up amazingly compared to other movies in the genre, then and now.
― latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:33 (7 years ago) Permalink
I didn't care for Black Hawk Down that much, but it wasn't because of Scott - if anything his work was the one thing I liked about it.
― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:33 (7 years ago) Permalink
― geoff (gcannon), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:35 (7 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:35 (7 years ago) Permalink
xpost
sorry, Ned, others brought it up
― timmy tannin (pompous), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:35 (7 years ago) Permalink
As I said upthread: "The visuals. God, what visuals. They do not age, which is point of discussion in itself. This movie should look dated, but it doesn't. Why?"
Maybe because, apart from the special effects it employs, it borrows so much from noir that it doesn't age? And that the city shots are so borrowed from every other futurescape ever (Metropolis especially) that they're more like amalgams of futurity than original visions?
― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 05:37 (7 years ago) Permalink
the protagonist is a neurotic mass of resentments/self loathing
why PKD's books are relatable in a nutshell
― ☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Monday, 11 March 2013 16:00 (2 months ago) Permalink
― nate woolls, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 21:44 (2 months ago) Permalink
this movie gets worse with every screening
― his girlfriend was all 'ugh and he wears a solar backpack' (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 March 2013 21:51 (2 months ago) Permalink
we must use Vangelis
― wmlynch, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 21:58 (2 months ago) Permalink
Vangelis and tits = box office gold
― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Wednesday, 13 March 2013 22:10 (2 months ago) Permalink
it's amazing how every single producer has the exact same vocabulary when giving notes
― christmas candy bar (al leong), Wednesday, 13 March 2013 22:10 (2 months ago) Permalink
I would love to write a massive alternate history of 'what if the producers had final say on the movies that they DIDN'T get final say over that turned out awesome'
my title needs work obv
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 13 March 2013 22:26 (2 months ago) Permalink
they have put back more tits
― j., Wednesday, 13 March 2013 22:59 (2 months ago) Permalink
There is no motion picture that cannot be improved by asking, WHERE THE TITTAYS AT?
― ARE YOU HIRING A NANNY OR A SHAMAN (Phil D.), Wednesday, 13 March 2013 23:01 (2 months ago) Permalink
more vangelis, less voice-over, can't really complain
― zero dark (s1ocki), Wednesday, 13 March 2013 23:03 (2 months ago) Permalink
"The synagogue music is awful on the street. We must use Vangelis."
Is he referring to this piece of music, which is by Demis Roussos and Vangelis?
http://youtu.be/rkfnEWvJX1I
― DavidM, Thursday, 14 March 2013 10:40 (2 months ago) Permalink
What I like in particular are the little pockets of the familiar that persist in the monolithic city, like: a 30s/40s detective character, a china-town, a toymaker.
― cardamon, Thursday, 14 March 2013 19:30 (2 months ago) Permalink