It's so fucking phenomenal that anybody could consider this a masterpiece...

It's so fucking phenomenal that anybody could consider this a masterpiece. Harrison Ford's performance is so shit and wooden. Boring hackneyed writing. Flat uninteresting characters. "But it's pretty and has ambient synth music!", fuck off.

The only worthwhile part of this movie is Roy Batty and his ending soliloquy (which was improvised). I can't be the only one that feels this way. This shit flick deserved to be forgotten. Is the sequel any better or is it the same shit?

>soliloquy
Kill yourself my man.

It's referred to as a soliloquy on the Wikipedia page.

you're right OP, most overrated flick there is, it's just beautiful set design and FX, but lack of story and good characters and chemistry, except the bad guy

clunky eyecandy but i like the ending bit like you said

I literally just watched this to prepare for 2049 tomorrow and I agree. Movie was carried by the visuals. Soundtrack wasn't even that impressive like everyone says

Forgot to mention that I did like Pris. She wasn't completely boring.

I'm not a fan of the soundtrack either, but I saw a video about the making of it and it was like a huge groundbreaking technical achievement or whatever.

Threads like this make me glad Blade Runner 2049 bombed. It could have been much worse.

It's the cyber punk genre in general I think. Off the bat it's not an interesting genre as it just looks like a "futuristic gimmick" on the surface.

This movie was made in 82, never once was I compelled to sit through it as a kid, it wasn't star wars, it wasn't compelling sci fi at all.

But now I get it....

It's the lifelessness of the cyber punk fictional world relative to humanity that really sparks the feels. I never understood that until recently and now cyber punk is like my new favorite genre.

TLDR stfu because youre wrong
seriously a good movie, given the year it was made, plus the cinematic element is just fucking fire.

Is it as bad as the original movie?

horrible post.

2049 is an amazing movie all around and far superior to the original.

The original movie is one of the best movies ever made by a major studio. I haven't seen the new one. I'm just saying, had it been more popular, we'd have many more threads by teenagers weaned on Christopher Nolan and Joss Whedon movies bitching about not understanding why Blade Runner is so great after they watched it once.

I never claimed I can cure shit taste and lack of understanding with a post on a anonymous message board though.

Again though, relative to 1982, the film was absolutely amazing.

>Again though, relative to 1982
Nah, that other guy is right. Stop posting.

Key takeaways from this thread.
1. You're a pleb
2. Blade Runner is great, especially for the time
3. 2049 is even better

Good to know. Thanks.

Okay, kid.

you were doing so well user

It's okay to have shit taste m8

Just don't expect everyone else to have shit taste

Great movie. My favorite scenes were actually in the toy maker's studio or whatever with the creepy genetic abominations he made that looked like christmas elves or something. And how they acted so bizarre.

Nah, has nothing to do with taste. I think Blade Runner is great. You're just an idiot. Please see yourself out.

it wasnt improvised you fucking hack and this is pasta faggot, go read an officail source next time cuckadoodle doo

I think it fucking sucks but goddamn it is beautiful. I feel like I'd actually like it if I saw it in a cinema, on a proper big screen, not at home.

another garbage thread by a paki

Certainly a creative way to get on people's nerves.

"for the time" doesn't mean anything.
A lot of movies were great "for the time", it doesn't mean they're still great.
Blade Runner wasn't even great "for the time", it had amazing visuals "for the time", the visuals are still amazing.
But a great film can't exist on visuals alone.

You're saying relative to 1982 the movie wasn't amazing....so maybe shit taste has nothing to do with it, though I wouldn't rule it out lel, but you're saying you're just shit for brains than?

just stopping by to say I agree with everything you say OP I really REALLY cant see why people like it and it isnt even good Sci-Fi was so many other movies tackled the meaining of life and AI and thinking far better

No, it's an amazing film, period. I don't need to say, "relative to 1982", because that's dumb.

Edited and rewritten, whatever.

>so many other movies
Humor me. Let's have a good laugh.

Good cinema =/= good visuals. Good cinema can carry a movie because it captures and embodies the films tone. Something Blade Runner excelled at, which is why it gets the praise that it gets.

>I feel like I'd actually like it if I saw it in a cinema, on a proper big screen, not at home.
If a movie can only be enjoyed in a theater it isn't a good movie.

Ex Machina is a better movie than Blade Runner.

You fuck off.

As far as I know, I can only see Blade Runner 2049 in a theater, so I guess it's not a good movie.

AI
2001
Ex machina

>this entire post
go back to /r/TrueFilm

Well, I was hoping for a laugh, but that response is actually a bit depressing. Some hipster indiewood movie which namedrops the Turing Test is better than Blade Runner... somebody end the human race.

The tears in rain part and the dove were both improvised by Rutger.

That's it? That's your hang up? On the fact that a perfect cyber punk film was filmed and translated perfectly on said film in the year 1982 when the 80's got flooded with terrible lame shit?

You're kind of a cunt, lol aren't you?

>being obtuse on purpose
You have to wait obviously, to see if it holds up. I thought Fury Road was fantastic when I saw it in theaters when in reality it's really not that good.

>Boring hackneyed writing
I bet you enjoy the books of Terry Pratchett

think for yourself dummy

a soliloquy is when a person is essentially talking to themselves. Monologue is the proper word here

>Ex machina
>tackled the meaining of life and AI and thinking far better

What the fuck are you people smoking?

>AI
>2001
Love these movies, but AI certainly isn't better than Blade Runner. 2001 is, but it is one movie, and I don't think it explores its themes with the kind of depth that Blade Runner does - it's more about Kubrick's grandiosity.
>Ex Machina
Yeah, whoa dude, guy dancing in neon lights with his roboslave, I'm pickle rick

No its not. Its when a person is talking to the audience. Decker is the audience.

Ex Machina IS a better film than Blade Runner. Better characters. Better acting. Better commentary. Better more original writing. It's just not as visually creative, but it still looks good.

Total Recall comes from the same author and has almost the exact same setting, leagues above Blade Runner. Arnold Schwarzenegger even gives a better performance than Harrison Ford.

It was a joke. And as a credit to myself, I thought Fury Road sucked when I saw it in theaters.
Lots of great movies in the 80's. Fuck off your with your cyber punk faggotry.

i just like the atmosphere desu

>Yeah, whoa dude, guy dancing in neon lights with his roboslave

Anything can be shit when taken out of context. Nathan was a great character and that was a great scene.

Troll or legit retarded?

What a random remark.

I've never read a Terry Pratchett book.

Blade runner is shit at tackling the topic of sythetic intelligence and life and you fucking know it

if it wasnt for the improved tears in the rain monologue there would be NO existential themes

get recked causal

>And as a credit to myself, I thought Fury Road sucked when I saw it in theaters.
Because you have a hateboner for feminists or where you actually able to identify and diagnose the film's faults?

Ghost in the Shell, the original, is a lot better than Blade Runner too.

>Anything can be shit when taken out of context.
This is one of those not-so-rare things that is shit in context as well.
>Nathan was a great character and that was a great scene.
Nathan is a bro cliche, hilariously underwritten for someone who is supposed to be a genius, and the dance sequence is lame piece of randomness aimed at its hipster audience, placed at just the right time to keep them awake.

>Lots of great movies in the 80's. Fuck off your with your cyber punk faggotry.
Lol ffs no one said this was the only good film to come out of the 80's, but how many cyber punk films came out in the 80's that still hold their weight? How many quality cyber punk films are there in general?

There's a reason why the genre doesn't get exploited in cinema. Because on the surface it's just shiny futuristic techno societies. Blade Runner captured the inhumane element of it pretty fucking thoroughly.

Now pipe down, cunt. Men are having a discussion.

Blade Runner would have been just as good without Roy's speech.
I think you've completely missed the point of his final moments. In fact, I'm pretty sure you missed the point of the whole fucking movie.

Because much of the second half is redundant, and when the action is visually muddled to begin with, I lose interest real fast. I've long since gotten used to everything from Hollywood having some kind of lefty subtext where I hardly care anymore.
Sorry, don't watch cartoons.

You're a cliché, you know that?

>indiewood
Ex Machina is invalid because it's was an indie movie? Ridley Scott only go to Blade Runner because Alien was such a huge success and the studio system had collapsed.

Blade Runner did horribly critically and financially when it came out. It's only lauded as a masterpiece now because nerds found it later and jerked off endlessly over how aesthetic it was.

As long as I'm right.

>Blade Runner would have been just as good without Roy's speech.

>lame piece of randomness aimed at its hipster audience
Just stop. You know nothing about film.

Why can't characters be stoic? Stoic =/= bad

>Roger Ebert praised the visuals of both the original and the Director's Cut versions and recommended it for that reason; however, he found the human story clichéd and a little thin.

Deckard isn't stoic, he's flat and uninteresting.

>Ex Machina is invalid because it's was an indie movie?
Never said that.
> Ridley Scott only go to Blade Runner because Alien was such a huge success and the studio system had collapsed.
>Blade Runner did horribly critically and financially when it came out.
And?
> It's only lauded as a masterpiece now because nerds found it later and jerked off endlessly over how aesthetic it was.
According to you. This is getting repeated a lot lately, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it's almost exactly what Jay from RLM said in his review. Blade Runner has gained a following for a lot of different reasons. It's not simply its visuals. This is not Days of Heaven.

Why post this?
He isn't stoic. He's a bit flat, but he's supposed to be. Uninteresting? Nah, he's actually pretty unique for a protagonist.

this fucking thread is filled with redditors

blade runner is probably the best movie that tackles existentialism, because there's so much more going on in the plot, like it goes by too fast to even dwell on the questions

>most real animals died, now they're almost all synthetic, owning and showing EMPATHY for a real animal is considered a prestigious and human trait, to the point where it's even enforced severely by law and the replicant test is basically a lie detector test but with all morality based questions, because replicants are said to not feel empathy

>there's clues that point to deckard being a replicant (not saying that he is or isn't), but the point is that it doesn't fucking matter because at the end of the day he still has to retire the rebel replicants and show NO EMPATHY because they are literally terrorist murderers and he's a cop

>rutger's ebin monologue is beautiful and pointless, just like he says, because he still has a limited lifespan. on a molecular level, replicants are pretty identical to humans, except for some minor differences. rutger has seen things most people haven't, whether it's the horrors of combat or anything as simple as a beautiful sunset, so he's suggesting being able to experience and appreciate that makes him just as human as humans. when he saves deckard, you could say he breaks the mold of "REPLICANTS HAVE NO EMPATHY", or he simply does it for his own reasons- to prove a point, but the fact is it doesn't matter.

that's without even going into any of the aesthetics, cyberpunk, dystopia, etc of the movie.

it's a masterpiece

Contrarian faggots thay watched the RLM review and now think it's cool to call the original bad.

if your pleb brain thought this one was boring, then you're going to fall asleep to 2049

>Why post this?
Because he was right.

I've never watched an RLM video in my life.

I didn't say Blade Runner was boring. I can handle slower paced movies, Blade Runner is just shit. Generic writing, bad acting, uninteresting characters outside of Roy, and nothing interesting to say.

Maybe not cool, but safe. Blade Runner is a somewhat challenging film, and for a young viewer, it probably requires subsequent viewings. But thanks to RLM, they feel they can trust their first response and just say, "hey, it's boring!" instead of investing any time or thought.
His view was typical of critics then, and this film over time has become the quintessential "great film that the critics got wrong." Ebert had lots of dumb opinions. What is it about this opinion that strikes you as particularly worthy?
Point still stands.

>Blade Runner was boring
>Generic writing
>bad acting
>uninteresting characters
>nothing interesting to say
Speaking of nothing interesting to say...

Pris has a dick. Once you see it, you'll never watch ever again.

I sat in on the first screening of Blade Runner back in 1982 (oldfag). The audiences didn't think too much of the movie. I also bought the comic book of the film with the cool Drew Struzan cover art.

People laughed at how short Harrison Ford's haircut was and how it made his head and face look huge. They disliked the voiceover by Ford. The violence and nudity shocked more than a few audiences, though it's mild by today's standards. The most disturbing scene was where Roy Batty kisses Tyrell on the mouth and a lot of people were very uncomfortable with it. The use of the word "Fucker" caused many reviewers to turn away from the film. The Slow Motion scenes of Zora getting shot in the back as she tumbles through plexiglass seemed overly long, cranked & stupid. In this first screening, Deckard was NOT considered a Replicant... and it was made quite clear how super STRONG replicants were. Having sat through the sequel, it demonstrates again how weak Deckard is compared to K and the other replicants. The only person who thinks Deckard is an android is Ridley Scott... and Ford disagreed. With the Directors Cut, it was impressed upon audiences that Deckard was a replicant and this has become the mantra of the fanboi today.


I saw it a second time a few weeks after the first screening in '82 and a few people even walked out. I'd seen how the effects were done in CINEFEX magazine and was astounded at so how much work went into the film. A year after it screened I was more interested in it and would hire it often on VHS. Eventually it became available for sale and years later I bought it on DVD. Then the Directors edition DVD. Then a longer Sountrack was released in the late 90s which was awesome.

Not overly impressed with the "sequel". It was vaguely nostalgic but missed a lot of the visual impact and musical overtones of the original. Still a little annoyed they didn't get Vangelis to do it.

The effects of the original film still hold up quite well today.

Decker is not the audience, you stupid fuck. Decker is a character in the movie. Jesus fuck just take the L.

Oh teach me the ways, oh great master. Where is that elusive brilliance within the candy colored dance sequence in Ex Machina? Truly this is filmmaking at its finest, but if only I could see why.

>would hire it often on VHS
what country are you from that has VHS escorts?

...

Redditors love Blade Runner.

Critics didn't get it wrong though. The critics were right. It's the later critics that were wrong.

Blade Runner is not a challenging film in the slightest. You sound like a Rick & Morty fan.

>synth music

lmao you don't even know wtf you talking about

What was the point of this post?

Character development.

OP is a faggot.

>when reddit has better taste

pathetic.

>Ford's performance is so shit and wooden
Give examples.
>Boring hackneyed writing
This is a statement. You have yet to prove it.
>Flat uninteresting characters
A statement, elaborate.
>"But it's pretty and has ambient synth music!", fuck off
Strawman.
In essence, your entire post is baseless, and you have nothing to say.

...

...

...

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssss queen slay

>Decker

Nobody yet has given any real reason as to what makes Blade Runner a good film.

It's just name calling, "2deep4u" accusations, and "the visuals are so beautiful".