Am I retarded if this movie doesn't really click with me?

Am I retarded if this movie doesn't really click with me?
The music and aesthetic is nice but I don't get why it's heralded as one of the greatest sci fi movies ever. Maybe it is because I was spoiled on Deckard being a replicant but I don't feel much mystery, tension, anything from it.

Deckard is not a replicant. Ridley Scott is a retard for ever suggesting that.

Bump
I just don't get it. I've heard the "deep" questions about AI and what makes us human a million times so maybe that's it. Cool world design. But the plot is so slow and boring, characters are completely charmless and uninteresting, what is the big deal?

Wrong
Don't get hung up on not liking things that other people like, you're literally 30 years late so your opinion isn't exactly groundbreaking

Older movies than Blade Runner still hold up for me though. I don't see the charm in this one other than just the aesthetic.

I dont get it either OP

to me SCi fi as a genre is about high science and its effect on everything down to the lowest facets of society. And Blade Runner tackles none of that. Doesn't explore what makes humans human at all or the complications of creating artificial life.

A movie like AI handled the concept far more thoroughly

Well there you go

This is the problem for me that I was having a hard time putting into words. The characters are uninteresting, plot is not gripping in any way, and the themes are not well explored really. Something completely flowery and gay like Her does a better job of exploring the theme of AI vs humanity. Blade Runner doesn't even really seem to explore its themes, just happens to have them. The setting and aesthetic is the most interpart and 2 hours of staring at something pretty that I feel uninvolved in is just boring. It doesn't make me think, doesn't make me question anything, it's just sort of nothing.

No. This movie suck balls.

A lot of you are describing the elements of cyberpunk. Blade runner is not necessarily cyberpunk, but at the time it was made, the genre was the cat's ass, so Ridley ran with it and there you have it. Phillip K Dick was not one for a lot of detail in his stories either, notably the one that Blade Runner was made from. Dick liked to do a LOT of drugs and I guess churn out half baked (but good) sci-fi. The problem is, many sci fi fans want the concepts and the "How does it work" out of their sci fi, rather than the atmosphere, slickness and gravitas that Blade Runner offers. So yeah, I can sympathize with your not liking the film, it was just the time it was made.

>Deckard being a replicant
That's not really a big part of the movie as a whole. The appeal is just the noir theme and the aesthetics and visuals. The use of real sets and props to get that realistic gritty look in such fantastic cyberpunk settings is still impressive especially today with CGI taking it's place.

No, this movie is an overrated piece of shit

...

Boring shit. Overrated trash.

No it's a film that's carried entirely by the visuals. It has nothing to do with the book it was meant to be adapting (iirc a lot of the words and names were taken from a different, completely unrelated book).

OP here, just watching some of the lines from the voice over now. Without the bad delivery these should have been in the movie to give some sort of direction and retain the noir/detective feel. Without it the noir feel is completely lost. Deckard doesn't seem like a tough pulp detective, he seems like a loser who gets raped by every single thing that moves and is doing the job because of some vague threat by his ex boss. I know noir characters take a beating and have tough luck but he just seems like a bumbling buffoon without character or backstory at all without some of the voiceover. That and the fact that he is a replicant makes no sense considering he gets his ass absolutely walloped by replicants with actual replicant abilities. It makes no sense.

>That and the fact that he is a replicant makes no sense considering he gets his ass absolutely walloped by replicants with actual replicant abilities. It makes no sense.
You could argue that Deckard was a much older and more outdated model than the replicant antagonists, but that just introduces the bigger problem of how Deckard has managed to flawlessly mimick humanity and fool his employers when even modern replicants are supposedly easy to catch out.

itt: active audience that cant recognize their conditioning and get out of their own way

underrated post

>Wrong
BEAVIS and BUTTHEAD
BEAVIS and BUTTHEAD
BEAVIS and BUTTHEAD
BEAVIS and BUTTHEAD
BEAVIS and BUTTHEAD

WE GOT A BEAVIS AND BUTTHEADER HERE!

Why didn't they have Harrison deliver the lines well? They're not terrible and would have added some direction to the story and also make it feel like a noir story. He doesn't seem like a tough pulpy detective, it feels like he thinks he is but is actually a bumbling retard. He has his gun pointed at him more than he points it and he gets his ass kicked by every single person unless he's shooting an unarmed running woman in the back. That and he is literally only doing it because his ex-boss made a very vague threat about midgets (?) And if he is a replicant (which he is) why does he get his ass walloped by every other replicant? That and the final chase scene/climax is him sitting in a room having an anxiety attack for 7 minutes before jumping out a window and failing to jump 7 feet then getting taunted until the guy he was supposed to kill literally dies of old age

You guys can't seem to just let the film as an experience wash over you. Trying to put together the plot discrepancies, being so overly concerned with every small detail and every action of every character, you're doing it wrong. Just watch it, feel it. It's good shit.

>inb4 some fedora says hurr durr maybe Marvel movies are more your type

People only like Blade Runner because of the atmosphere and music. The characters are boring and dry besides Batty and the story is a jumbled mess with pacing problems and hardly any context to Deckard's motivation. I wish Batty was the main character and we saw more about him and coming to terms with death and what it means to be human.

Give it time. It took ten years to click for me.

>tfw Ridley Scott blew his load making sci-fi movies about space truckers and police recruit-reject janitors

This.

Except you're doing it wrong because there is tons of nuance in every scene, that's PART of the atmosphere, is reading into those nuances.

Deckard is not dry, Rachel is not dry. They're both severely suffering, troubled characters. Roy and Pris too suffer. J.S. Sebastian suffers. Deckard is a drunken mess over his line of work and Rachel's entire reality has not only crumbled around her, down to even the most precious and private childhood memory, but as a result of her knowing this she is now marked for death.

Deckards motivation is self-preservation, and later self-preservation of both he and Rachel. He fights these facsimiles of humanity and extinguishes them with growing remorse, but doing his best to enforce a sense of detachment because as he's told in the station, you're police or you're nothing.

The noir/detective feel comes off fine without the voice over. Deckard is down on his luck in an oppressive gloomy city. He's supposed to feel like an inferior human hunting down and managing to kill much stronger and faster robots with a giant pistol. This is his job so he's done it before now successfully. Replicant or not this is a theme in the movie so if you want to bring that up, he's clearly an inferior model to the Nexus 6s.

>Harrison Ford name is bigger than the movie title in the poster
Welp, you know the answer senpai

Don't watch it for the plot, watch it for for the world crafting, aesthetics, and the music.

It's more like The Revenant than Terminator. The revenant was largely about sound and atmosphere...think of Bladerunner the same way.

>Am I retarded if this movie doesn't really click with me?
No, the movie is just shit. It's only hyped by literal autists.

here's the truth about it: this flick isn't deficient in substance, but it has STYLE OUT THE ASS FAMU

What book where thwy taken from?

This, people on Sup Forums just cant judge a movie for wath it is, they want alwaus the same safe thing

not the same user but I'm assuming the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick which inspired Blade Runner.

I just finished the book today and wasn't too impressed with it, pretty underwhelming. I've yet to see Blade Runner so hopefully the movie will do more for me than the book did.

Its heart is about loosing the love of ones life, a feel (You) will never experience.

>dude just turn your brain off lmao
This is the Blade Runner audience.

Idk OP, I watched it a lot of years ago and thought it was really boring, but I was probably still in my teens.
I was thinking of watching it again because I really like Villeneuve and would like to appreciate the film well, but reading a lot of the posts here, I'm afraid I'd just find it boring again.
Also, I've never been too big on Ridley Scott, although he has made some films I like, I just get the feeling that he's a bit of a hack.

I never liked it