Blade Runner Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: An elite police officer must hunt down a group of criminal androids which are prohibited from use on Earth.

Review: I've always viewed "Blade Runner" as a flawed masterpiece. You have spectacular visuals with an, almost whimsical, soundtrack to properly enhance the tone. However, the pacing is slow, the action is light, and we don't gain a true insight into this universe despite the director, Ridley Scott, accomplishing the scope. The film is based on a book by Philip K. Dick, called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" yet the film deviates heavily from the source material; the book serves more as a foundation than an adaptation. Then we must deal with the numerous edits of "Blade Runner" which further complicates things. I guess just stick to whatever version has a damn unicorn prancing around in it! Hmm, maybe there is a connection to "Legend" there. What if "Legend" is actually the distant future of "Blade Runner" and they're all replicants?! I think I'm on to something here...

A quick rundown of the story: Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a former cop who was also a Blade Runner. Blade Runners hunt down androids, called replicants, that are used for commercial use off Earth but are outlawed on the planet itself. In this instance, four replicants are trying to figure out a way to extend their life since they have been designed to die after four years. As Deckard tracks their movements, he becomes connected to the company that manufactures the replicants, the Tyrell Corporation. There, he meets a replicant so advanced she doesn't even realize she is a replicant; her name is Rachael, and, of course, there is a romance subplot between her and Deckard. Eventually Deckard kills all of the replicants (or at least they all die one way or another), but, in the process, begins questioning whether it's right to do this while simultaneously hinting that he may also be a replicant. The film ends with Deckard and Rachael running away together to go dream of electric sheep I suppose--maybe electric unicorns.

The Good: The cinematography and special effects are utterly amazing. From a visual perspective, "Blade Runner" is in a sci-fi league of its own with special effects that hold up better today than most films from the last 10 years can. Furthermore, the designs to everything, from the clothing to the basic look of Los Angeles, are so visionary and awe-inspiring. Sure, they didn't set the future far enough along--mindlessly only jumping to 2019--but one can not help but to appreciate the powerful usage of camera trickery, unique styles, and attention to detail right down to the extras and background buildings. Honestly, whether you enjoy "Blade Runner" or not, it's worth a view just to see how much better special effects could be without CGI. Now...to properly set the tone of these visuals we have a kick-ass soundtrack that only the '80s could produce. When you combine these two elements together it's no wonder that "Blade Runner" became the kind of inspiration it did to other filmmakers. Essentially, you can still feel this film's influence on sci-fi to this day which is saying something tremendous considering this was, by no means, a success in the way of "Star Wars." To put things succinctly: "Blade Runner" succeeds on all technical fronts in a way few other films could dream.

As for the acting...most turn in commendable performances with Rutger Hauer being the most memorable I'd say; Harrison Ford is a bit underutilized, but this is more of a nitpick than anything. The themes are some next level existential shit, however, I think casual audiences will still appreciate the philosophical debate about whether the replicants are human or not especially if they have been given fake memories. The usage of the noir genre works well, making use of a narration from Deckard to boot. Assuming you are watching the director's cut or whatever, the ending does leave you guessing about Deckard being a replicant which is a nice touch. The theatrical ending makes things feel a tad more abrupt since you have no final thoughts about the characters really. Personally, I always thought the debate was kind of cut and dry--Deckard's eyes glowed in at least one scene which means he must be a replicant. Forget anything about the unicorn...human eyes don't fucking glow! Unfortunately, the sequel coming out kind of leaves us with no other alternative but to accept Deckard was human since old man Harrison Ford is still playing the character. I guess they will be using the theatrical cut as the basis for the story then.

The Bad: While I certainly appreciate everything this film has to offer, I won't pretend like I wasn't a bit disappointed the first time I saw this. Yes, blame the studio for setting this up as an action movie--I get that--BUT, come the fuck on, son, the movie's name is "BLADE RUNNER!" Nobody even has a sword! Deckard is said to be the best and yet he gets obliterated in every...single...fight. Yeaaaah, okaaay. Let's see...Zhora: could have killed Deckard but ran away until shot. Leon: about to kill Deckard and he's saved by Rachael. Pris: again, could have killed Deckard but fucks around until getting shot. Finally, Roy: could have killed Deckard, fucks around until his time alive runs out. This is our hero...the best Blade Runner?! Seriously, Deckard should have been shown as a badass in at least the first fight to establish the character's skills. Realistically, Zhora and Pris should have been depicted as dying easily, maybe make Leon only start to win because of a sneak attack, and then only have Roy as trouble since he's a combat unit. The action, as shown, demonstrates to the audience that the Blade Runners are nothing special which is a failure in storytelling. Meanwhile, these action scenes are short and spread thin across the running time. I'm not advocating for Michael Bay shit, but you can't honestly tell me Deckard's credentials are ever established as a Blade Runner let alone the fucking best! And don't even get me started on the plot holes if Deckard really is a replicant! A replicant made to hunt other replicants should have turned into some "Mega Man" shit! Anyway...much of the problems with the lack of action boil down to slow pacing which will bore casual audiences or even fans who came into this for the first time with certain expectations. Lastly, we don't get a thorough exploration of the characters, motivations, or backstory. There is this lingering hollowness to the story that shouldn't be there. The epic scope feels so rich yet we don't get enough tidbits to satiate the urge to know more about this world and how it operates.

Overall, the film is a visual wonder that revolutionized how many filmmakers looked at sci-fi. The style, the sets, the special effects--you name it--are topnotch and can go toe to toe with any big budget film of today. The music is simply awesome and enhances the emotional rush you feel when considering the greater themes at work in the story. The down side is that the pacing can be infuriatingly slow at times and not adequately make use of the action when it comes. Due to this lack of execution in the action, the potential of the greater story at hand feels wasted--as if we are only seeing a small glimpse at a grander idea. Nevertheless, "Blade Runner" is still essential viewing for the sci-fi genre and it still remains an '80s masterpiece. I highly recommend checking this out if you've been on the fence for years, however, understand the kind of story this film is really trying to tell.

Notable Moment: The opening scene is simply so iconic. We have our first view of this future coupled with that awesome soundtrack from Vangelis. Through one shot alone, the filmmakers have told the audience almost everything they need to know and effectively established the tone. That's an impressive feat.

Final Rating: 7.5/10