Blade Runner (1982) - What did you guys make of the movie and Tears in Rain monologue?

[shaz619]

The movie was very compelling and it surprised me by its depth given the nature of the complex themes. Loved the 2019 dystopian setting as well and use of noir.

This was the speech by Roy Batty:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

Goosebumps !

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=47617]Red Devil[/MENTION] [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=137142]JaDed[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION]

 

[shaz619]

You guys should totally check this out, so awesome! [MENTION=134981]Bhaag Viru Bhaag[/MENTION] [MENTION=141114]Hasan123[/MENTION]

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] you're Deckard and [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] is Roy Batty

 

[KingKhanWC]

This movie was ahead of it's time and Ford was very good in it.

Is it true they a new version will be released soon?

 

[shaz619]

This movie was ahead of it's time and Ford was very good in it.

Is it true they a new version will be released soon?

It has released already, will be watching it soon; from what I hear it has been received quiet well. If you had the choice between the two what would you prefer, IMAX 3D in Cineworld or Isense in Odeon Broadway Plaza ?

 

[KingKhanWC]

It has released already, will be watching it soon; from what I hear it has been received quiet well. If you had the choice between the two what would you prefer, IMAX 3D in Cineworld or Isense in Odeon Broadway Plaza ?

I'd probably go for the IMAX 3D for this film as I expect a lot of fast moving objects in many of the scenes. Let us know what you think once you have watched it.

 

[MosquitoMan]

Broad Street IMAX is by far the best screen in the city, a shame the film is only being screened in annoying 3D.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I'd probably go for the IMAX 3D for this film as I expect a lot of fast moving objects in many of the scenes. Let us know what you think once you have watched it.

Its fantastic, almost as good as the original, which to me is up there with the ATG's.

Here's the clip shaz refers to. If for any reason youve not seen this film yet, WATCH NOW and come back

 

[humzy]

Just watched the new one last night.

it is hard to compare the two as they are both so different in many ways.

I absolutely loved it though, and would consider it on par with the first movie.

Only negative thing for me was the insane length of the film.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Its fantastic, almost as good as the original, which to me is up there with the ATG's.

Here's the clip shaz refers to. If for any reason youve not seen this film yet, WATCH NOW and come back

Looks really good, will watch it very soon. Usually remakes dont live up the original but this could an exception. Thanks

 

[saadibaba]

Its a gorgeous unsettling dystopian sci-fi film with a heavy dose of noir now known as sci-fi-noir. The questions about mortality and essence of humanity looms large over the movie. The movie really belongs in the 70's with its undercurrent of fatalism. It underperformed in theaters when it first came out as audiences were used to more action packed pure sci fi genre movies like Alien from the same director. However, its grown into a cult classic. Of note, seven different versions/cuts of the movie has been released so far, probably the most for any single movie.

 

[James]

A film about being human. Probably the best example in all cinema of a film that makes you think about who and what you are. Given that pretty much every major sci-fi movie since 1982 has imitated Blade Runner in some way, its legacy as a masterpiece is assured.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Amazing movie. Ridley Scott's best along with alien. The new one was just as good and was one of the few movies that live down up to the hype. Credit to the genius Dennis Villeneuve. It's not doing well at the box office but it's not a surprise since majority of film audiences these days have the attention span and mental capacity of a goldfish. The first also didn't too that well either but eventually it's genius was recognized. The same will happen with this

 

[shaz619]

I'd probably go for the IMAX 3D for this film as I expect a lot of fast moving objects in many of the scenes. Let us know what you think once you have watched it.

Broad Street IMAX is by far the best screen in the city, a shame the film is only being screened in annoying 3D.

The IMAX is incredible but I tend to prefer 2D IMAX which is not available for the latest blade runner While isense in terms of visuals is a bit inferior to IMAX it has superior speakers

 

[JaDed]

Surprisingly I have never been able to watch this movie(and I have watched Tron) but I defn plan to watch both soon,big fan of Harrison Ford,they guy is probably in most GOAT scifi/adventure movies ever.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Amazing movie. Ridley Scott's best along with alien. The new one was just as good and was one of the few movies that live down up to the hype. Credit to the genius Dennis Villeneuve. It's not doing well at the box office but it's not a surprise since majority of film audiences these days have the attention span and mental capacity of a goldfish. The first also didn't too that well either but eventually it's genius was recognized. The same will happen with this

Up to the hype* 3D is a gimmick. Don't watch good movies in 3D

 

[shaz619]

Up to the hype* 3D is a gimmick. Don't watch good movies in 3D

The IMAX in the UK is spectacular in terms of visuals but I just feel IMAX 3D is useless which makes it annoying because at times directors can use IMAX cameras for certain scenes. 2D IMAX is lit though, looks like for the latest movie am going to go for isense. What are screens like in your Canada

 

[JaDed]

The IMAX in the UK is spectacular in terms of visuals but I just feel IMAX 3D is useless which makes it annoying because at times directors can use IMAX cameras for certain scenes. 2D IMAX is lit though, looks like for the latest movie am going to go for isense. What are screens like in your Canada

Feel the same here in India,IMAX is remarkable, 3D sucks . Love the huge screens and no glitch in quality.

Have u seen HFR at 48 fps , HOBBIT trilogy was made in that,it was remarkable, though everyone would move to that but seems like screens have to spend money ,current it's 24 frame per second.
Everything looked like happening in real,it was surreal.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

The IMAX in the UK is spectacular in terms of visuals but I just feel IMAX 3D is useless which makes it annoying because at times directors can use IMAX cameras for certain scenes. 2D IMAX is lit though, looks like for the latest movie am going to go for isense. What are screens like in your Canada

3D makes good movies worse. And yeah I watched Dark Knight Rises in IMAX in the UK and I also watched my favourite movie, The Dark Knight in the UK back when it came out. Both of them at the Odeon near marble arch in London. I've seen a lot of other movies there too. Probably my favourite cinema in the world. Most recently I watched Dunkirk here in Canada in IMAX. IMAX is definitely the best way you can experience a movie. But I wouldn't go to IMAX if it had to be in 3D

 

[Aman]

[MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] is it really worth checking out? Tried to convince my friends to go other week but they wanted to see Kingsley instead because they weren't a fan of the genre. Is it still good despite it being sci-fi?

 

[JaDed]

[MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] is it really worth checking out? Tried to convince my friends to go other week but they wanted to see Kingsley instead because they weren't a fan of the genre. Is it still good despite it being sci-fi?

I hate when people look down upon sci fi,also because nerds are looked down upon.

 

[shaz619]

3D makes good movies worse. And yeah I watched Dark Knight Rises in IMAX in the UK and I also watched my favourite movie, The Dark Knight in the UK back when it came out. Both of them at the Odeon near marble arch in London. I've seen a lot of other movies there too. Probably my favourite cinema in the world. Most recently I watched Dunkirk here in Canada in IMAX. IMAX is definitely the best way you can experience a movie. But I wouldn't go to IMAX if it had to be in 3D

DunKirk thankfully was in 2D IMAX in my local Cineworld and man what an incredible experience, I felt as if I was out there on the battlefield. You're lucky, I did not watch TDK in IMAX but I watched in 2D three times in a row when it was released in the cinema's!

The Odeon in my area does not have IMAX but it's speciality is a screen called isense which is described as follows:

Floor-to-ceiling and wall-to-wall – our ISENSE screens are huge; the perfect canvas for our state-of-the-art 4K digital projectors. Four times the resolution of standard projectors, they deliver almost nine million pixels for an even brighter, clearer and more detailed picture.

ISENSE is ODEON’s immersive film experience. Combining cutting edge 4k projection, Dolby ATMOS 3D sound with an optimised screen, you’ll experience films like never before. All from the comfort of a luxury seat. ISENSE is the ultimate way to experience a film, it’s Breathtakingly Real

Not sure if you have experienced Isense in Odeon but their Dolby ATMOS 3D sound speakers are the best in the business, so while the visuals are not on par with IMAX they are still better then the standard quality you get from 2D projectors. So overall it probably is a better option then IMAX 3D because you have an upgrade in the visuals and the sound is outstanding.

 

[shaz619]

Feel the same here in India,IMAX is remarkable, 3D sucks . Love the huge screens and no glitch in quality.

Have u seen HFR at 48 fps , HOBBIT trilogy was made in that,it was remarkable, though everyone would move to that but seems like screens have to spend money ,current it's 24 frame per second.
Everything looked like happening in real,it was surreal.

Totally agree, I may have seen the final Hobbit in IMAX can't remember now but totally loved the movie. Rarely do I enjoy 3D although some folk tell me that you just need to watch certain movies in that format to truly enjoy it and make sure you watch this movie mate before the latest one

 

[shaz619]

I hate when people look down upon sci fi,also because nerds are looked down upon.

So true, I rather go to the cinema on my own to be honest with friends like those And I've done it before as well, we went to the cinema and they wanted to watch 50 Shades Darker instead off John Wick 2 , I go you know what go ahead! I went to the John Wick 2 screen on me own with a large popcorn I did not have to share with anyone

Not sure why there is a stereotype against sci-fi because there have been some amazing releases throughout history in that genre.

 

[JaDed]

So true, I rather go to the cinema on my own to be honest with friends like those And I've done it before as well, we went to the cinema and they wanted to watch 50 Shades Darker instead off John Wick 2 , I go you know what go ahead! I went to the John Wick 2 screen on me own with a large popcorn I did not have to share with anyone

Not sure why there is a stereotype against sci-fi because there have been some amazing releases throughout history in that genre.

I feel the same,also I grew up on scifi genre and all my school friends were into similar movies as well,only when i reached College I realized ppl are not into scifi and some even look down upon it,esp girls,their choice but don't see why to look down upon it.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=47617]Red Devil[/MENTION] [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=137142]JaDed[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION]

Loved it. But it got better when the Director's Cut came out and we got rid of those silly Sam Spade voiceovers and Deckard's identity was revealed.

Every time I watch it I see something new. I have the Blu-ray so you see a lot more colour that was missing from the old VHS days. Every single shot is marvellous - Ridley is a visual genius.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] you're Deckard and [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] is Roy Batty

I was quit when I came in here. I'm twice as quit now.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Amazing movie. Ridley Scott's best along with alien. The new one was just as good and was one of the few movies that live down up to the hype. Credit to the genius Dennis Villeneuve. It's not doing well at the box office but it's not a surprise since majority of film audiences these days have the attention span and mental capacity of a goldfish. The first also didn't too that well either but eventually it's genius was recognized. The same will happen with this

So true. I put this on for a younger audience who wanted a recommendation and they just didn't seem to get it. I wondered if it was dated and it was me, but no, I think that particular crowd just got used to big noises and visuals in films today.

 

[shaz619]

I was quit when I came in here. I'm twice as quit now.

Stop right where you are. You know the score, pal? If you're not cop, you're little people!

 

[shaz619]

Loved it. But it got better when the Director's Cut came out and we got rid of those silly Sam Spade voiceovers and Deckard's identity was revealed.

Every time I watch it I see something new. I have the Blu-ray so you see a lot more colour that was missing from the old VHS days. Every single shot is marvellous - Ridley is a visual genius.

I've only ever seen The Final Cut from 2007, hopefully that was the best one because there are so many versions out there

 

[Robert]

I've only ever seen The Final Cut from 2007, hopefully that was the best one because there are so many versions out there

Don't watch the original, the voiceovers are terrible, and the power of the ending with the paper unicorn is taken away because American test audiences didn't like it / get it.

 

[shah_1]

It's great movie, I didn't understand when I watched it for the first time, had to watch it again to get a proper understanding of the film

The best version is the Final cut, and the theatrical version was the worst one with narration by Deckard, and cliche ending.

It was a beautiful monologue written by Rutger Hauer. This one scene for me turned Batty into protagonist from antagonist.

 

[James]

Every scene is perfect in the Final Cut. Like a prime Sunday beef joint - no fat whatsoever. Each line means something. And the finale on the rooftops is mind-blowing from start to finish. Ridley Scott's best film.

 

[shaz619]

Every scene is perfect in the Final Cut. Like a prime Sunday beef joint - no fat whatsoever. Each line means something. And the finale on the rooftops is mind-blowing from start to finish. Ridley Scott's best film.

You prefer it to the Gladiator as well ? that was a work of art, has to be up there if not his greatest movie. Exceptional talent, underrated director

 

[Robert]

Every scene is perfect in the Final Cut. Like a prime Sunday beef joint - no fat whatsoever. Each line means something. And the finale on the rooftops is mind-blowing from start to finish. Ridley Scott's best film.

This thread inspired me to watch it again. Sadly my Panasonic doesn't seem to play Blu-rays any longer, though DVDs work fine.

 

[Robert]

You prefer it to the Gladiator as well ? that was a work of art, has to be up there if not his greatest movie. Exceptional talent, underrated director

My favourite Ridley film is Thelma and Louise.

 

[James]

You prefer it to the Gladiator as well ? that was a work of art, has to be up there if not his greatest movie. Exceptional talent, underrated director

I always draw a line between Favourite and Best. I could watch Gladiator any day of the week - an ATG blockbuster - my personal favourite Ridley Scott film for entertainment value. But purely on artistic merit I would go for Blade Runner as his best piece of work.

 

[Sidilicious]

Haven't seen the latest one yet, will be watching it soon. But whats the verdict on Deckard? He is a replicant, right?

 

[James]

I haven't seen the new one yet, so no spoilers please..... but based on the Final Cut of the original, I think Deckard was a human being. He merely encountered a series of coincidences as a part of his own mortality and fate [unicorn imagery - unicorns symbolise infinite possibility] to teach him that he (white male) needed to be more tolerant towards replicants (minorities / disadvantaged / the Other). Ridley Scott himself has conversely said that he views Deckard as a replicant - but Scott also says that the film is deliberately left open to interpretation.

 

[Sidilicious]

I haven't seen the new one yet, so no spoilers please..... but based on the Final Cut of the original, I think Deckard was a human being. He merely encountered a series of coincidences as a part of his own mortality and fate [unicorn imagery - unicorns symbolise infinite possibility] to teach him that he (white male) needed to be more tolerant towards replicants (minorities / disadvantaged / the Other). Ridley Scott himself has conversely said that he views Deckard as a replicant - but Scott also says that the film is deliberately left open to interpretation.

But the other Blade runner who brings in Deckard in the beginning of the movie, leaves an origami Unicorn. Deckard doesn't talk about his dreams to anyone, but blade runners can see a replicants dream. There are only 2 conclusions that can be drawn
1. The origami unicorn is a coincidence
2. The other blade runner has seen Deckard dreams, and Deckard himself doesn't know that he is a replicant (like Rachel at the beginning)

 

[James]

For me the movie works better if he is a human: when his life is saved on the rooftops, he has to relearn about the act of good humanity from a "pure" synthetic creation largely unaltered from the ideal human form, because actual organic humans (including himself) have long since degraded into violent uncultured animals.

 

[James]

Furthermore,

There is all sorts of Christian / crucifixion allegory in Roy Batty's death process (nails through hands, dove, blood, slow death, stripped to underwear), like he was the Second Coming who died for the last 2019 years of humanity's sins all over again.

So if Deckard himself, as the only witness to this, was not human himself, then the film would be less coherent...IMO

 

[shaz619]

But the other Blade runner who brings in Deckard in the beginning of the movie, leaves an origami Unicorn. Deckard doesn't talk about his dreams to anyone, but blade runners can see a replicants dream. There are only 2 conclusions that can be drawn
1. The origami unicorn is a coincidence
2. The other blade runner has seen Deckard dreams, and Deckard himself doesn't know that he is a replicant (like Rachel at the beginning)

For me the movie works better if he is a human: when his life is saved on the rooftops, he has to relearn about the act of good humanity from a "pure" synthetic creation largely unaltered from the ideal human form, because actual organic humans (including himself) have long since degraded into violent uncultured animals.

Your questions will be answered to a degree once you've watched the latest one

 

[Donal Cozzie]

For me the movie works better if he is a human: when his life is saved on the rooftops, he has to relearn about the act of good humanity from a "pure" synthetic creation largely unaltered from the ideal human form, because actual organic humans (including himself) have long since degraded into violent uncultured animals.

EXACTLY.

Harrison Ford himself has stated he views him as a human as he felt the audience needed a character to connect to in the film. The new one contrary to popular belief doesnt actually answer this question either....

If Deckard is a replicant so much of the original is lost. Plot is basically 1 replicant making love with another, then running away. Roy's gesture of saving a human in his final moments loses all value and in general its just poor stuff. As you said, if he's a human, the actions and events take on much more significance.

 

[James]

EXACTLY.

Harrison Ford himself has stated he views him as a human as he felt the audience needed a character to connect to in the film. The new one contrary to popular belief doesnt actually answer this question either....

If Deckard is a replicant so much of the original is lost. Plot is basically 1 replicant making love with another, then running away. Roy's gesture of saving a human in his final moments loses all value and in general its just poor stuff. As you said, if he's a human, the actions and events take on much more significance.

I view the unicorn dream as a random drunken experience - then later when he finds the origami, he nods his head because he realises that this is a coincidence and the unicorn is just his own weird thing - BUT if the wrong person had tried to join the dots then he could easily have been mistaken for a replicant himself and become a target, on the basis of supposedly implanted memories.

Rachel asks him at the start of the film if he has ever retired a human by mistake. He pauses for a moment and replies no. But if he has been using similarly weak criteria to this 'unicorn' clue [the red herring long being a staple of hard-boiled detective fiction] when identifying supposed replicants, we can view his knowing look at the end of the film as his answer to Rachel's question changing to "probably, yes".

 

[shaz619]

EXACTLY.

Harrison Ford himself has stated he views him as a human as he felt the audience needed a character to connect to in the film. The new one contrary to popular belief doesnt actually answer this question either....

If Deckard is a replicant so much of the original is lost. Plot is basically 1 replicant making love with another, then running away. Roy's gesture of saving a human in his final moments loses all value and in general its just poor stuff. As you said, if he's a human, the actions and events take on much more significance.

I agree with James as well but those question marks are answered to a degree in the sequel, can't go into it yet because a lot of people have not watched the movie lol

 

[Sidilicious]

EXACTLY.

Harrison Ford himself has stated he views him as a human as he felt the audience needed a character to connect to in the film. The new one contrary to popular belief doesnt actually answer this question either....

If Deckard is a replicant so much of the original is lost. Plot is basically 1 replicant making love with another, then running away. Roy's gesture of saving a human in his final moments loses all value and in general its just poor stuff. As you said, if he's a human, the actions and events take on much more significance.

Actually, I disagree.

The only person who know that Deckard is a replicant is Tyrell and the Police. Even Deckard does not believe that he is a replicant till the last scene when he finds an origami unicorn.

When Roy saved Deckard, Roy believed he was saving a human, just as Deckard believed he was a human. Deckard making love to Rachel, is an act of love making between a human and replicant, because thats what they believed. It does not change the meaning of the movie, but adds to it.