![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
migmitSo, I did finally watch the “Blade Runner”. Not the new one. The original, by Ridley Scott. Well, not original original; I watched the thing called “director's cut”. There are, apparently, five different versions of that movie — which is the first sign that something is off.
I didn't like it. I consider this time mostly wasted. Now I'll try to tell why.
Spoiler alert: I'm not going to shy away from revealing everything that happened in the movie. Not a lot did, but still.
So, about the most important elements, as usual. Story — and characters.
Story starts with the main protagonist, Rick Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, being pulled out of retirement. Apparently, there is a big threat — several androids (called “replicants” in the movie) are on Earth, and that's... bad? The movie establishes the rules before it even starts, in a “galaxy far away”-style. Yes, it simply gives us a couple of screens of text to read. This text informs us that androids are considered a VERY BAD THING, for some reason.
We are told by the police chief that Deckard is the best “blade runner”, which is, as the same text informed us, a slang term for “android killer”. We are also told that the main android — Batty — is the best of it's kind, better than any human, a “prodigal son” of some kind. We are told — by himself — that he saw things that humans can't even believe. And here is a thing: NONE of those things are in any way substantiated by what is shown on screen.
Let's talk about Deckard for a moment. There are several ways in which a cop can be better than others, overall or in some specific area. He could be — and that's the least interesting option — a martial arts expert, or a terrific marksman. He could be very logical, easily spotting tiny nuances in witnesses' stories or evidence. He could be very compassionate, able to connect with victims and get more information from them than they thought possible themselves. He could be very intuitive, jumping to conclusions no one of his collegues could even dream of. He could be very good at reflection, getting under criminal's skin. He could have a lot of determination, following the smallest threads to the end and refusing to admit defeat. What is Deckard?
That's right; we don't know anything about him in the beginning, and we don't know much more after the end. We are just told that “he is the best”. Well, we learn that he is not great when it comes to fighting. But that's it. He even comes off as somewhat stupid — he is shown the pictures of the androids, and, when he sees one of them pretending to be a mannequin, he comes closer and practically peeks into her eyes, instead of drawing his gun and shooting her. Well, he shares that stupidity with the rest of the police, I'll give him that: they make a suspect go through the test that is supposed to make androids reveal themselves — despite that suspect looking exactly like the photograph of the android they have.
Only once do we see Deckard following a lead — well, actually, two leads, but he follows them in the same direction. And, frankly, that's what we would expect from any cop or a PI — he finds something that clearly doesn't belong, wonders what it is, and then follows where it takes him.
Speaking of which — what is Deckard? It appears that he is a cop. He does use some priviliges of one, for example, parking where normal people aren't allowed to. But when he needs to know what some strange piece of evidence is, he goes to a shady store, hoping that the owner would know. A cop would likely turn it to the lab, to some guy in a white coat.
Turning to the androids, we are told that they are very dangerous, but what do we actually see? All androids, in turn, attack Deckard. They do not do anything worse than a regular criminal on a run would do to a pursuing cop. Hell, there is nothing worse than a COP would do to a threatening criminal. We also see the android leader, played by Rutger Hauer, murdering two people; first — a certifiable douchebag against whom this android holds a completely justifiable grudge, and second — a creepy guy who is, unfortunately to him, a witness of the first murder. Now, is that bad? Certainly. Is it so bad that you need the best of the best, the elite “blade runner”, to track down this murderer? Not really.
By the way, who calls the elite police squad “blade runners”? If anything, it gives an impression of someone so reckless that he will fall any second now. Oh well.
The point is, we don't see anything that confirms what we were told. We are just supposed to believe without any proof that Deckard is the best cop, that Hauer's character is the “prodigal son”, that he has “seen thing” that nobody would believe, that androids are extremely bad news... but it's all just words.
There is another substory, almost unconnected to the main one, of Deckard relationship with a female android, Rachael. Here is how one of the main scenes goes:
Woman opens the door to leave.
Big man slams his fist into the door, forcing it to close.
Woman steps back and keeps going backwards until her back is against the wall.
Big man approaches her, blocking every way for her to escape.
He says “Say ‘kiss me’”.
She does.
He does.
He says “Say ‘I want you’”.
She does it, unconvincingly.
He says “Say it like you mean it”.
She says it again, doing a somewhat better job.
Ridley Scott's voiceover says “He is not raping her, he is forcing her to acknowledge her feelings for him”.
Sorry, that last bit was my imagination.
And then there is the final confrontation between Deckard and the big bad. During which the big bad strips to his underwear, somehow gets a bird in his hand, and then drops dead, because androids come with an expiration date. Really? You guys spent nearly two hours trying to build the tension — not quite successfully — and than the bad guy just dies on his own?
I've seen a lot of praise for the questions this movie asks. Copying verbatim from another, very positive, review: “Who are we? What makes us human? What does AI mean for our identity?”
Weirdly, the review I copied this from calls it “story”. It's not a story. It's a questionnaire. That nobody bothered to go through.
Look, I'm OK with asking questions. But if you want my interest, try to do some research. Explore those questions. It's fine if the research is inconclusive. But it should be. Make an effort. You can't just ask a question and then ignore it. I can do the same with ease: “What if you boss is a vampire feeding on your frustration when your work gets too hard?” That might be a valid concern.
At some point Rachael asks Deckard if he has taken the test himself — that is, if he is certain he is human. Which might have been a good opportunity to explore. If only Deckard didn't choose exactly this moment to take a quick nap. No, really; he passed out for about five minutes, and the question — quite an interesting one — was completely forgotten after that.
I've seen statements that “Blade Runner” is simply the best sci-fi movie ever. But I struggle to understand how is it possible for anyone to even like it. In total, it's a bland, unimaginative story with stick figures instead of characters and dialogs from a teenager written fanfic.
I didn't like it. I consider this time mostly wasted. Now I'll try to tell why.
Spoiler alert: I'm not going to shy away from revealing everything that happened in the movie. Not a lot did, but still.
So, about the most important elements, as usual. Story — and characters.
Story starts with the main protagonist, Rick Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, being pulled out of retirement. Apparently, there is a big threat — several androids (called “replicants” in the movie) are on Earth, and that's... bad? The movie establishes the rules before it even starts, in a “galaxy far away”-style. Yes, it simply gives us a couple of screens of text to read. This text informs us that androids are considered a VERY BAD THING, for some reason.
We are told by the police chief that Deckard is the best “blade runner”, which is, as the same text informed us, a slang term for “android killer”. We are also told that the main android — Batty — is the best of it's kind, better than any human, a “prodigal son” of some kind. We are told — by himself — that he saw things that humans can't even believe. And here is a thing: NONE of those things are in any way substantiated by what is shown on screen.
Let's talk about Deckard for a moment. There are several ways in which a cop can be better than others, overall or in some specific area. He could be — and that's the least interesting option — a martial arts expert, or a terrific marksman. He could be very logical, easily spotting tiny nuances in witnesses' stories or evidence. He could be very compassionate, able to connect with victims and get more information from them than they thought possible themselves. He could be very intuitive, jumping to conclusions no one of his collegues could even dream of. He could be very good at reflection, getting under criminal's skin. He could have a lot of determination, following the smallest threads to the end and refusing to admit defeat. What is Deckard?
That's right; we don't know anything about him in the beginning, and we don't know much more after the end. We are just told that “he is the best”. Well, we learn that he is not great when it comes to fighting. But that's it. He even comes off as somewhat stupid — he is shown the pictures of the androids, and, when he sees one of them pretending to be a mannequin, he comes closer and practically peeks into her eyes, instead of drawing his gun and shooting her. Well, he shares that stupidity with the rest of the police, I'll give him that: they make a suspect go through the test that is supposed to make androids reveal themselves — despite that suspect looking exactly like the photograph of the android they have.
Only once do we see Deckard following a lead — well, actually, two leads, but he follows them in the same direction. And, frankly, that's what we would expect from any cop or a PI — he finds something that clearly doesn't belong, wonders what it is, and then follows where it takes him.
Speaking of which — what is Deckard? It appears that he is a cop. He does use some priviliges of one, for example, parking where normal people aren't allowed to. But when he needs to know what some strange piece of evidence is, he goes to a shady store, hoping that the owner would know. A cop would likely turn it to the lab, to some guy in a white coat.
Turning to the androids, we are told that they are very dangerous, but what do we actually see? All androids, in turn, attack Deckard. They do not do anything worse than a regular criminal on a run would do to a pursuing cop. Hell, there is nothing worse than a COP would do to a threatening criminal. We also see the android leader, played by Rutger Hauer, murdering two people; first — a certifiable douchebag against whom this android holds a completely justifiable grudge, and second — a creepy guy who is, unfortunately to him, a witness of the first murder. Now, is that bad? Certainly. Is it so bad that you need the best of the best, the elite “blade runner”, to track down this murderer? Not really.
By the way, who calls the elite police squad “blade runners”? If anything, it gives an impression of someone so reckless that he will fall any second now. Oh well.
The point is, we don't see anything that confirms what we were told. We are just supposed to believe without any proof that Deckard is the best cop, that Hauer's character is the “prodigal son”, that he has “seen thing” that nobody would believe, that androids are extremely bad news... but it's all just words.
There is another substory, almost unconnected to the main one, of Deckard relationship with a female android, Rachael. Here is how one of the main scenes goes:
Woman opens the door to leave.
Big man slams his fist into the door, forcing it to close.
Woman steps back and keeps going backwards until her back is against the wall.
Big man approaches her, blocking every way for her to escape.
He says “Say ‘kiss me’”.
She does.
He does.
He says “Say ‘I want you’”.
She does it, unconvincingly.
He says “Say it like you mean it”.
She says it again, doing a somewhat better job.
Ridley Scott's voiceover says “He is not raping her, he is forcing her to acknowledge her feelings for him”.
Sorry, that last bit was my imagination.
And then there is the final confrontation between Deckard and the big bad. During which the big bad strips to his underwear, somehow gets a bird in his hand, and then drops dead, because androids come with an expiration date. Really? You guys spent nearly two hours trying to build the tension — not quite successfully — and than the bad guy just dies on his own?
I've seen a lot of praise for the questions this movie asks. Copying verbatim from another, very positive, review: “Who are we? What makes us human? What does AI mean for our identity?”
Weirdly, the review I copied this from calls it “story”. It's not a story. It's a questionnaire. That nobody bothered to go through.
Look, I'm OK with asking questions. But if you want my interest, try to do some research. Explore those questions. It's fine if the research is inconclusive. But it should be. Make an effort. You can't just ask a question and then ignore it. I can do the same with ease: “What if you boss is a vampire feeding on your frustration when your work gets too hard?” That might be a valid concern.
At some point Rachael asks Deckard if he has taken the test himself — that is, if he is certain he is human. Which might have been a good opportunity to explore. If only Deckard didn't choose exactly this moment to take a quick nap. No, really; he passed out for about five minutes, and the question — quite an interesting one — was completely forgotten after that.
I've seen statements that “Blade Runner” is simply the best sci-fi movie ever. But I struggle to understand how is it possible for anyone to even like it. In total, it's a bland, unimaginative story with stick figures instead of characters and dialogs from a teenager written fanfic.
