Is it really that good or just overrated due to nostalgia goggles?

Is it really that good or just overrated due to nostalgia goggles?

Other urls found in this thread:

vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/09/the-battle-for-blade-runner-harrison-ford-ridley-scott/amp
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Boring.

its pretty fuckin good.

Very divisive. Watch it and decide for yourself.

Im probably the only person who thinks extremely pretentious and ... Horrible.

I've heard some say it's boring, others think it's pretty fuckin good, while still other think it's very divisive, and that you should watch it and decide for yourself.

Visual Masterpiece. A Flawed Story. It misses too much out of PKD's original novel.

Decent movie, has some plot problems. Very unfortunate as an adaptation, the book is much better.

It's kinda boring and divisive, kinda pretentious, a little bit horrible, but all in all it's a visual masterpiece, it does have kind of a flawed story and it does kinda miss too much of PKD's original novel, but it's a decent movie and nobody can deny that, personally i think it's pretty fuckin good but you should watch it and decide for yourself.

Its okay.
Visually speaking, it still holds up really, really well, and tries its best to distract you from how mediocre the story itself is.
Thankfully the performances, characters and nice noir atmosphere make up for it, and turn it from 'Meh' into one of those movies that makes you say 'Yea sure, I guess i'll watch this again'
Worth a watch at least once if you haven't seen it yet.

The thing is, it still gets play because as an influential '80s sci-fi movie it fits into the modern movie culture that caters to adolescent boys' tastes. But it's the least 'hip' and 'forward-thinking' of that particular genre & moment in time. Something like Aliens fits neatly into the modern blockbuster formula people are familiar with, it codified those tropes, but Blade Runner is an homage to the noir movies of the '40s and '50s, and it feels rooted in a lot of the dramatic filmmaking of the '70s.

So when kids who grew up on nothing but the B-movie-as-A-movie era hear about Blade Runner's reputation and decide to check it out, thinking "Hey, I liked Aliens and Road Warrior too," it ends up throwing them for a loop. They'd never watch a movie like Out of the Past or In a Lonely Place, and that's what Blade Runner was trying to be but in a sci-fi setting. So it offends their sensibilities and they throw a shit fit.

Nostalgia goggles? For middle aged up maybe. I'm 25, so it can't be nostalgia for me. Still one of my favorite films and I'm looking forward to 2049.

>Visual Masterpiece. A Flawed Story. It misses too much out of PKD's original novel.

Pretty much this.

I remember watching this years ago before I knew that it was considered as some kind of masterpiece and thinking it was pretty boring. The overall story is good but the script is all over the place and the dialogue is just awful in some scenes.

I honestly think if it wasn't for the groundbreaking visuals, this film would not be considered in such high regard by some.

This is the best opinion in the thread. So many people just dismiss Blade Runner as an okay movie with great visuals without realizing all the cues it takes from film noir as far as atmosphere/dialogue/pacing is concerned. It's a very unique film in that regard.

Its a fucking horrible movie, harrison ford can't act and look like he didn't even wanned.

long pauses between plot advancing just so you can look harrison staring at photos or drinking.

and in the end the bad guy says something meaninful then just die.

interesting movie looking at what is human. cool future setting and atmosphere.

I agree. but again. for today's audience is probably "too slow"

I am going to see Blade Runner 2049 when it's out and I know I am going to be disappointed.

Although Blade Runner is foawed it is not a total trainwreck like Blade Runner 2049 will be.

Blade Runner 2049 = The Force Awakens

eye candy

Watched it for the first time the other day and I enjoyed it a lot. Some of it is a little slow and so I understand why people think it's boring. But visually it's amazing and holds up amazingly for a 35 year old film.
I think part of the reason I liked it though is that I'm a cyberpunkfag and I desperately want to live in a comfy apartment in a rainy cyberpunk city with a cute robot waifu
also the "Deckard is a replicant lmao" twist is fucking stupid

I'm with you.

I've read the book first and movie's just a bastardazied version of the original story. Still a very pretty and well done movie, but could have been so much bigger.

Seems to be the case with all of the PHD adapations.

>bastardazied version of the original story

>chicken heads

yah the movie took a bunch of stuff out

Everybody read this
vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/09/the-battle-for-blade-runner-harrison-ford-ridley-scott/amp

I liked it, it had a certain lovecraftian quality to it

2049 at least had Hampton Fancher do a draft of the script. That's the only thing that has me interested, otherwise I'd dismiss it outright.

Great visuals

Great set design

GOD TIER soundtrack

Mediocre plot

Approach it as a traditional narrative film and you'll be disappointed. Approach it as an audio-visual showcase and you'll enjoy it.

also Deckard isn't a replica because that trashes the whole "what measure is Isa man" theme

It was good.
It certainly doesn't need a remake, much less when there are plenty of Dick novels that could do with a movie.

>Approach it as an audio-visual showcase and you'll enjoy it.

this

whats interesting about this movie is how easily I get sucked into that world. I want to be there. They hardly show any of that world but only glimpses.

I live in Toronto and at dundas square they are playing blade runner trailers. its fucking nuts to see a trailer advertising a future city in a part of Canada that looks like fucking blade runner city.

>tfw

Hampton Francher used a ton of the stuff Ridley rejected for Blade Runner for the new one. David Peoples wrote about 70% of the script for Blade Runner because Hampton is a hack.

Nostalgia isn't a factor, because it bombed and isn't associated with a specific time period. Everyone came back to it at different times under different circumstances.

And yes, it's great. It's "slow pace" is a blessing now, because it acts as an audience shit filter.

The effects and cinematography are second to none and still hold up, but everything else is boring, stiff, forced, pseudointellectual drivel. The themes aren't as rich or deeply-explored as fans think and Deckard's sardonic characterization doesn't excuse Harrison Ford's phoned-in performance.

As if Ridley wasn't a hack himself. His last good movie was 17 years ago.

This. It's a fantastic STYLE over Substance movie.

Watch it that way.

More of a novella, really. It didn't use a lot of the themes from the PKD but it had a really good deep story of its own, for an action romance movie. The characters are the best part of it, even the side characters. Even Harrison Ford managed to come off okay without knowing how to act.

>David Peoples wrote about 70% of the script for Blade Runner

no he didn't.

t. someone who has actually read Fancher's last draft of Blade Runner

I liked the bit where he shot the stripper.

It's a very Lovecraftian film

it's worth an afternoon at least.

Exceptional in everything, barring perhaps as an adaptation (depends if you prefer faithfulness to the original or flow).
Not a true action movie, kids here find it boring for this reason>
It rewards re-watches.

It's still good.

>good a e s t h e t I c
>rutger hauer is great
>everything else is trash
I remember having to examine the plot and characters for a college film class, and they're actually underwritten to the point that it was a problem. I was supposed to point out sympathetic moments for the replicates, but only Roy even has sympathetic moments, and I had to bullshit the others. It's like a supermodel; easy on the eyes, nothing on the brain, but everyone wants to fuck it so they keep saying it has a great personality.

*Replicants
fucking autocorrect

Characters don't need to be sympathetic you fucking pleb.

and roy's plenty sympathetic anyways
his whole arc mimics the protag's for a reason