Written by: Kevin Berge
Who knew you could make one of the most acclaimed sci-fi movies of all time by combing Raymond Chandler and Isaac Asimov? (Image Courtesy of: bladerunner.wikia.com)
Quick Take: Blade Runner is a majestically constructed science fiction landscape which is driven by an intriguing exploration of identity and otherness, but its characters and story are too abstractly defined without having real driving heart. Beyond one of the best performances of Harrison Ford's career, the acting and storytelling let down a beautifully crafted film.
***This review will break down Blade Runner, expecting the reader to have seen the film. Those who have not and do not wish to be spoiled on this 1982 film should go watch it first before reading further.***
I've never known quite what to make of Blade Runner. I know that I should love it based on what else I enjoy watching. It is Ridley Scott's (Alien) most fascinating work, combining noir styling with a futuristic landscape and a powerfully symbolic tale derived from one of science fiction's most acclaimed authors Philip K. Dick (Ubik).
As someone who loves sci-fi and symbolic storytelling, I always believed Blade Runner would be a movie that connected with me at some point, but each time I watch it, I feel oddly empty. Perhaps it is the structure which has gone through numerous cuts, none a perfect combination. The Final Cut is probably the best, but I'm far from confident.
Perhaps it's the film's age. Now 35 years old, it is clear to see where the movie is hindered by the filmmaking of its time with sometimes awkward action and even more odd choices in representative technology. However, the movie itself is gorgeous to look at with its environments and noir-inspired shades of blue and green.
These all contribute, but it comes down to many more pieces. The acting is oddly mixed, sometimes feeling choppy. Harrison Ford (Star Wars) is the exception in maybe the best performance of his career, the perfect rogue role for him with a biting sarcasm behind his clear charisma.
He plays Blade Runner (police officer/bounty hunter) Rick Deckard who is tasked with hunting down a rogue group of replicants, artificial lifeforms who are nearly indistinguishable from human beings beyond a few key features, led by Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) who seeks a way to extend his mere four-year life.
The story takes place in a 2019 Los Angeles (far-distant future at that time) that is intensely realized, creating an environment that is darkly foreboding. The landscape allows the story to explore in-depth the concept of identity through the dynamic between its human and replicant characters.
This is most clearly seen in Deckard's own struggle as the movie constantly questions whether he is human or replicant (particularly in The Final Cut). As close as replicants are to humans, their fabricated memories and dreams distance them from their own identities. In hunting replicants, Deckard separates himself from them, so, if he is one, it clouds his very purpose and existence.
I've never known quite what to make of Blade Runner. I know that I should love it based on what else I enjoy watching. It is Ridley Scott's (Alien) most fascinating work, combining noir styling with a futuristic landscape and a powerfully symbolic tale derived from one of science fiction's most acclaimed authors Philip K. Dick (Ubik).
As someone who loves sci-fi and symbolic storytelling, I always believed Blade Runner would be a movie that connected with me at some point, but each time I watch it, I feel oddly empty. Perhaps it is the structure which has gone through numerous cuts, none a perfect combination. The Final Cut is probably the best, but I'm far from confident.
Perhaps it's the film's age. Now 35 years old, it is clear to see where the movie is hindered by the filmmaking of its time with sometimes awkward action and even more odd choices in representative technology. However, the movie itself is gorgeous to look at with its environments and noir-inspired shades of blue and green.
These all contribute, but it comes down to many more pieces. The acting is oddly mixed, sometimes feeling choppy. Harrison Ford (Star Wars) is the exception in maybe the best performance of his career, the perfect rogue role for him with a biting sarcasm behind his clear charisma.
He plays Blade Runner (police officer/bounty hunter) Rick Deckard who is tasked with hunting down a rogue group of replicants, artificial lifeforms who are nearly indistinguishable from human beings beyond a few key features, led by Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) who seeks a way to extend his mere four-year life.
The story takes place in a 2019 Los Angeles (far-distant future at that time) that is intensely realized, creating an environment that is darkly foreboding. The landscape allows the story to explore in-depth the concept of identity through the dynamic between its human and replicant characters.
This is most clearly seen in Deckard's own struggle as the movie constantly questions whether he is human or replicant (particularly in The Final Cut). As close as replicants are to humans, their fabricated memories and dreams distance them from their own identities. In hunting replicants, Deckard separates himself from them, so, if he is one, it clouds his very purpose and existence.
It sure does rain a lot in Blade Runner. I guess it helps with creating memorable similes. (Image Courtesy of: youtube.com)
From Rachael's (Sean Young) struggle with finding she is a replicant to Roy's fight against his impending and perhaps unfair death, the replicants themselves fight over who they are and how they can live at every stage. Their very existence is defined by symbols particularly in dolls (trapped otherness) and doves (impossible freedom).
Robert K. Dick has created a discussion of otherness in exploring a constantly discussed fantasy: artificial life. Ridley Scott frames it through a gritty lens. The soundtrack from Vangelis (Chariots of Fire) and visual design capture the essence of the world that is varied yet contained.
Each piece makes for a powerful and captivating experience, but it always fails to grip me. I know that it stands as a landmark of the science fiction genre, and my opinion on it is in the minority. However, I cannot help but feel the philosophical musings and masterful world-building lack heart.
This is not to say it had to be a happy-go-lucky tale but rather that it needed a driving emotion. Deckard is very much the hard-nosed noir detective, downtrodden and far from personable which means he needs something in the world around him to latch onto, to feel something for.
His romance with Rachael is supposed to serve this purpose, but again the acting and perhaps the editing get in the way. There is hardly enough time spent on it to invest in it. Roy's fight for survival could have also been a driving story to root for in its moral ambiguity, but too little time is building making him more than a generic villain until the closing moments.
The entirety of this story is its higher concepts rather than true character development which makes for an unexciting ride in a breathtaking landscape. Scott seems to be too enamored by Dick's ideas and his world rather than taking the time to inhabit his characters.
I have always wanted to love Blade Runner, but I find myself cautiously all right with it instead. There is no doubt it is a beautiful film even 35 years later. However, beauty and imagination are too much of what the movie depends on.
Robert K. Dick has created a discussion of otherness in exploring a constantly discussed fantasy: artificial life. Ridley Scott frames it through a gritty lens. The soundtrack from Vangelis (Chariots of Fire) and visual design capture the essence of the world that is varied yet contained.
Each piece makes for a powerful and captivating experience, but it always fails to grip me. I know that it stands as a landmark of the science fiction genre, and my opinion on it is in the minority. However, I cannot help but feel the philosophical musings and masterful world-building lack heart.
This is not to say it had to be a happy-go-lucky tale but rather that it needed a driving emotion. Deckard is very much the hard-nosed noir detective, downtrodden and far from personable which means he needs something in the world around him to latch onto, to feel something for.
His romance with Rachael is supposed to serve this purpose, but again the acting and perhaps the editing get in the way. There is hardly enough time spent on it to invest in it. Roy's fight for survival could have also been a driving story to root for in its moral ambiguity, but too little time is building making him more than a generic villain until the closing moments.
The entirety of this story is its higher concepts rather than true character development which makes for an unexciting ride in a breathtaking landscape. Scott seems to be too enamored by Dick's ideas and his world rather than taking the time to inhabit his characters.
I have always wanted to love Blade Runner, but I find myself cautiously all right with it instead. There is no doubt it is a beautiful film even 35 years later. However, beauty and imagination are too much of what the movie depends on.
