Make Your Picks

CiCi's horror reviews!

→ in
Tools    





Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Oh, one of those . Yeah, we watch different movies CiCi

Looking forward to your Blade Runner review
Well, none of us need to look through your internet history! Dirty beast

Daaaaamn, CiCi. Back at it again with those killer reviews!
Aww, thank you, MM! It's good to be back, this is what brought me to this site all those months ago (reviewing, not a random Pam Grier film)



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Thank you Camo for unintentionally reminding me to post this via the controversial film opinions thread! Anyway, this is a film I hugely adore now; Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.



Positives
The world is developed with such intricacy, to an extent I have never seen matched. Everything to the last detail has been altered in some way to create a futuristic environment that is credible and probable (even if they overestimated how long that would take). But it made the experience all the more compelling, you can't help but pay attention to the lavish set pieces, the elaborate clothing, the sleek hairstyles, and the gorgeous make up without thinking that this is what the not too far away future will look like. Even owning real animals as a sign of advanced social status appears like a trend the modern world would probably employ in such a circumstance. So on this level alone, the film was nothing short of fantastic.

Yet every additional layer is just as provoking. I found the writing to be impeccable, it didn't solely focus on action and cheesy one liners like many similar films produced in the 80s did, a possibility that could have been all too real regarding the simplicity of the basic plot. A man is instructed to hunt down and kill 4 outlaws is what the film is about at the most basic level. Yet instead of characterising the main character as infallible, and the hunted as antagonists, the film mixes it up a little by developing everyone involved to make everything they all do questionable, and not so easy to definitively define. The replicants only want to live as long as their human counterparts do and to be as developed as they are, okay they do some lurid things in order to achieve this goal, but not everyone they eliminate is undeserving of criticism either, Dr Tyrell being the most striking example to come to mind.

It also tackles many themes. At first, I thought it was just about what it means to be human, but the longer it went on, I gradually found myself believing it to be about what it is to belong. All of the characters are isolated in some way, and the ones that prevail are the ones that have something to fight for (Deckard for Rachael) and seems to raise the point that we aren't complete until we find the missing part, as reflected by Rachael's inexperience and naivety humbling the somewhat impulsive and eruptive Deckard. I admittedly could be talking out my arse here, though

Onto the acting, and this isn't as clear as other aspects of the film, because not everyone shines, but those that do, do so brightly. I loved Sean Young in this, she occupied such little time in this film, but she made the very most of every second. I felt she possessed such an alluring presence in the film, and something was missing when her character was dismissed, for example, from the Voight-Kampf test scene. The reason I loved her so much in this as well is because she provides validity to the motto of the Tyrell corporation "more human than human" and she makes this apparent due to the transitions she implements in her performance to convey Rachael's emotional development. At first, Rachael's face is extremely stiff and makes very little movement regardless of what state she is in; her voice always deploys the same monotonous, husky tone. Even when she finds out she is a replicant and she bursts into tears, her face remains almost paralytic. But then during the "love" scene her corporate and robotic image is removed as she begins untying her hair and removing her make up to reveal a far more naturalistic persona that manages to convey emotion through both her voice and mannerisms. Despite its almost rape like imagery, this has to be my favourite scene in the entire film, and I'll explain a little while later! But notably, this singular scene shows how complex the film is, because it means something far more sinister when taken out of context, and that context changes everything in regards to film to make us view certain imagery a bit more differently.

Aside from Ms Young, the other outstanding performance was delivered by the leader of the replicants, portrayed by Rutger Hauer. He was intriguing for reasons vastly different to Ms Young. He's sinister, yet always sympathetic, and I couldn't help but think that he was intended to allude to Satan from Paradise Lost, with both of them being rejected by their creators and therefore seeking vengeance on them through any means necessary. I'm not going to lie, I didn't find him anywhere near as magnetising as Ms Young, but it doesn't remove the fact that he was outstanding on his own.

Their performances were guided by Scott, who insisted on casting Young over the more popular choice of Barbara Hershey, and as usual, Scott was incredible in his work here. Coming from the same region as him, I've always had a soft spot for he and his brother, Tony. But his work was magnificent as it usually is. The lighting, the camera angles especially (that made the metallic layer in the replicants eyes visible) just made it all the more entrancing. In any film I've ever seen, I think the image of Rachael standing with her hand on her hip, with light illuminating her figure as she looks into Deckard's apartment with the hypnotic sounds of Vangelis' saxophone playing away in the background is my favourite shot in any film. I'll leave it here for you lovely people to see



Finally, to conclude all of this, there was the soundtrack! Vangelis is a genius, and his work here made many scenes haunting and impacting. It matched every scene with such precision, I'd even say it tops Goblin's work on Suspiria... but not quite However, he, like Goblin were in 1977, was robbed of an Oscar.

Negatives
There is a huge disparity regarding the intention of Deckard's character. The writer of the script intended it to be ambiguous, Scott affirmed that he was absolutely a replicant, whilst Ford believed it too was ambiguous. This lack of cohesion and clarity manifests itself into Ford's performance here. At times, Deckard is too cold to possibly be perceived to be human, but too emotional during other occasions during circumstances that are far beyond the capabilities of other replicants. There was little consistency, and therefore little authenticity to his performance. On top of this, Harrison Ford, despite his impressive list of credits, is an actor I've never been massively impressed by, and performing with the likes of Rutger Hauer and Sean Young, who delivered extremely considerate and masterful performances here, his confusion and lack of understanding becomes all the more apparent. To me, Ford was a mess in this film, and did little to contribute to the film's many merits.

I also disagree with Scott hugely on Deckard's status, and I don't like the fact that he stated that he is 100% a replicant... when he wasn't intended to be by the writer anyway. I've already said why I believe Deckard is human, it's that pivotal scene shown above. I just think Rachael and Deckard complete each other, and they develop by learning from one another. But it is open to interpretation, even though Scott doesn't want it to be.

Conclusion
He has the most screen time, yet Harrison Ford is the weakest actor in the mix. Nevertheless, this is more than made up for everyone else in every department. It's a film I just don't think I'll ever forget!




Solid review, Callum.

Blade Runner is a movie I admire more than like, but I still think it's really good just not great. There is always somethint keeping me from loving it.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Solid review, Callum.

Blade Runner is a movie I admire more than like, but I still think it's really good just not great. There is always somethint keeping me from loving it.
Why thank you!
I must admit, at times I was a little bit bored or puzzled as to what was going on, but everything always tied back to the main story and contributed to it. I've also seen just one of the seemingly 95735 cuts of the film as well, so I could probably end up agreeing with you if I'd seen another cut



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Can't they just agree on whether or not Deckard's a replicant? They keep flip-flopping back and forth.
I just don't see how he could be one, the ones he deals with are the most complex of their kind and they all act far more frigid and awkward than he ever does. It's nice that it's still being discussed almost 25 years after it was released though! Although that could stop with the upcoming sequel which will probably prove definitive.



Ridley Scott himself said Deckard is a replicant. He didn't write it of course but i'd go with what he say personally. Then again i'm not a big fan of Blade Runner so i'm not passionate or really that interested in it.

I'll read your review after the game CiCi.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
If they can get the sequel out of developmental hell.
Last I heard it was set to shoot this month, but yeah, I'm quite doubtful that it'll go ahead so soon. I'm not sure if I even like the idea of a sequel for this, I don't think I do really



So why do Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford keep flipping back and forth on the question? Scott has said that Deckard is a replicant and Ford has said he's not.

As Gaear Grimsrud would say, "You're a smooth smoothie, you know?



Brilliant review mate . I'm not a fan so i'm just impressed, all those other bros probably have tears in their eyes right now

Would love to see a similar effort negative review, you are great at bitching .



So why do Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford keep flipping back and forth on the question? Scott has said that Deckard is a replicant and Ford has said he's not.

As Gaear Grimsrud would say, "You're a smooth smoothie, you know?
Don't know. Think David Peoples is the only authority on this, not even Phillip K Dick since this is clearly something different from the source material.

This is the Ridley Scott saying Deckard is a Replicant clip i always see btw:




Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Brilliant review mate . I'm not a fan so i'm just impressed, all those other bros probably have tears in their eyes right now

Would love to see a similar effort negative review, you are great at bitching .
I'll get round to reviewing The Room then! Or a Uwe Boll film. I think my bitching is best saved for Survivor games anyway under the guise of my inspirations in life bitchy icons like Lucille Bluth.
I did once do a very negative review on The Pact, which really was 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

And I'm not sure about that, but Ms Young would probably climax if she read what I wrote about her, poor woman would probably start hunting down Tarantino and Spielberg demanding leading roles. I've read more about her, and the woman is freaking delirious, bless her.

And yeah, this is hugely different to Pip's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (one of my favourite book titles!). Although he adored the parts of this film that he did manage to see!

Thanks for popping by though, Camo!!



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Could you please review Let Me In, the American version of Let the Right One In?
Oooh, absolutely! It's been a while since I've seen it, so I'll watch it again and get round to it!
As a heads up, I remember liking it nowhere near as much as the original



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I just got excited for a new review.
I'll try to have it up by this time tomorrow! To be honest, I was kind of drifting away from this as I didn't really think anyone was too bothered, so thanks for that little boost



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Wouldn't be the first time you had me excited, CiCi, you know that.

But really I enjoy your reviews a lot. Looking forward to whatever will arise!
You're too kind!