| Overall Grade: |
A- |
|
| Story: |
B+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
B+ |
|
|
| Direction: |
B |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B+ |
|
|
The Blade Is Sharp But Doesn't Gleam...
by Yahoo! Movies User (movies profile)
Apr 9, 2008
11
of
19 people found this review helpful
Director Ridley Scott's follow-up of
"Alien," "Blade Runner" is a film that may satisfy the major critics at a high level, but it may be confusing for the audience who anticipates a pure sci-fi action/thriller such as James Cameron's "The Terminator."
Inspired and adapted from the story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick (Whom also wrote the story of "The Minority Report", also adapted into a feature-length film), set in Los Angeles - 2019 A.D., it is the story of a dim former cop, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), in the elite Blade Runner unit. The Blade Runners are assigned to "retire" (kill) artificial, genetically-engineered humanoids called Replicants that are convicted of breaking one law: becoming human. The Replicants are widely used in slave labor on colonized planets elsewhere, but some are becoming self-aware and try to be human and escaping to Earth where many become criminals. Rick is tired of his job and wants out, but before he is let go, he is assigned one more mission, to retire 4 suspected Replicants who have brutally murdered people. He will find that this assignment will be the most difficult to handle, not because of the task he is given, but by his psychological reactions to the brutal, inhumane system that is falling apart and his guilt is taking its toll on his life as a futuristic detective.
The film is more like a detective drama than a sci-fi/thriller, centering most of the events taking place from Deckard's perspective and his life in the field and at his lonely home. (Much like Ridley Scott's later films, "Someone To Watch Over Me" and "Black Rain") The reason I couldn't quite catch some moments of the film very well was because the Director's Cut removed the voice narration of the original. For the time, the brief special-effects presented are dazzling. But the consistent foggy effect takes too much away from the atmosphere of some scenes, there is never a scene where we see everything clearly. (Even if that is a theme of the film, it would heighten the action and drama of many situations if we could see the brilliantly crafted sets and the characters themselves rather) The set of Los Angeles is bland, clustered, and dark despite the brilliantly lit skyscrapers and colorful forums. The costume design is from almost normal attire to extremely exoctic and strange and it provides a theme for us, there is something wrong with the human society and there always will be. Vangelis' eerie score heightened the atmosphere and dialogue of the film, but could have been more intense in some of the more serious moments of the film. (Such as the ending titles, which had some really awesome music to sit and listen to) Although Harrison Ford is much more known for Indiana Jones and Tom Clancy style films, his role is very subtle and stark, which is unusual to see him play but performs with grace and honesty without trying to hard. Rutger Hauer is enthralling as the leader of the Replicant group as both very terrifying and very sensitive. Darryl Hannah makes a small appearance as well who finds much in common with him and the Replicants. The acting isn't very outloud but the performances present an honest truth to us that helps the boldness of the films morality. The screenplay, as with most Ridley Scott films, is understated with eulogies in a perpetual manner. (In the same way his previous films The Duellists and Alien did) But Ridley's directing can be questionable. If he didn't want a voice-over in the film, why couldn't he have tightened up some of the scenes of the film to keep our attention and interest focused? (Not that he has to disrupt the mood of the film and the subtlety of the characters, but as you all know, some moments in the film lagged and you start to wander) But I believe that the movie was subject to production executives' tampering which was what created the only problems of the film. Despite the flaws, it is very ambitiously crafted by Scott.
I look at this film as though it gets better as the film progresses. Like said, the blade runs sharp but doesn't gleam. Sharp being of able to cut deep with artistic value. Gleam being of a shining, attractive appeal. The unneccessary slow pace of the film is what keeps it from reaching it's greatest success, but it is no doubt bold and ambitious for its time and like all Ridley Scott films, awesome visuals. Like most honestly played out films, it does not have a very happy ending, but it is one that will play back in your mind over and over with a great amount of emotion and dignity.
The best virtue in the film is it's thematic issues and it's overwhelming digity which creates its ability to make you raise many questions... Do humans that are created by humans have a soul? Can a human fall in love with a humanoid? Should replicants be treated equal to humans? Is slavery the only reason why the replicants are becoming self-aware? Do androids dream of electric sheep? Is Rick Heckard a replicant himself? Does fear drive you to embrace life or despise life?
The most intriguing moment of the film, for me, was the mournful, yet optimistic conclusion, "Too bad she won't live, but then again, who will?"
My Rating: .::B::. Good
Recommended: 1984, Dark City, Dune, 2001: A Space Odyssey
-Jerry Johnston |
My Public Profile 
