Blade Runner (1982)
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
THE SUMMARY: Ex-cop Rick Deckard is assigned to execute (or ‘retire’) four illegal artificial humans roaming future Los Angeles, completing the task and supposedly learning profound lessons about human nature along the way. Full disclosure: I watched this movie twice. First, the 2007 ‘final cut’ and then the 1982 original. Why did I watch it twice? Because I hated the first watch so much I thought I was crazy and had to be missing something. But the second watch confirmed my initial reaction: this movie is one of the most boring, overrated, and over-analyzed movies ever.
THE BEST:
I attentively watched twice and scoured my brain and my notes for anything to appreciate about the movie, but there’s nothing I can honestly praise. Harrison Ford said the N word in the original narration, and that was kinda funny:
… and that’s it. That moment made me chuckle, and throughout the rest, I was hoping my eyes would get thumb-crushed just like Tyrell’s. It would be less torturous and surely it would be quicker.
Ironically, exactly how it feels to watch Blade Runner.
THE WORST: Actually everything.
A snail’s sprint is better paced: The movie drags forever with dialogue-and-action free scenes that aren’t impressive and don’t advance the plot. If you simply cut out all the scenes of the movie admiring its own set, you’d probably save a half hour. Deckard’s photo investigation scene could take 15 seconds. Instead it’s several minutes of him just sitting by himself. Even the final fight scene, supposedly the action climax, is painfully slow, as though Deckard and Batty are in some poorly choreographed dance routine instead of a fight to the death.
Harrison Ford’s worst performance (at least that I’ve ever seen): Granted, I’ve not seen every Harrison Ford movie, but his hallmark is charm, sarcasm, coolness under pressure, etc. - in other words, a unique charisma. In this movie, he could have been anybody - he’s completely boring, he has few if any memorable quips - he’s just a dull, monotone shell of himself. And yes, I know - there may be a reason for that, as discussed below, but even if your movie has reasons for making characters boring and forgettable, that doesn’t mean it’s good writing or performance.
All other characters are terrible too: In defense on Harrison Ford, it may not be his fault as an actor. Every character in this movie is boring and forgettable, as though they were directed to be. I understand the whole point of the movie is that replicants are emotionally stunted, and their yearning for genuine human emotion is what we’re supposed to appreciate, but when that concept creates an entire cast of characters lacking any… well, character - why is that good? Two emotionless robots can play chess against each other, but I wouldn’t call it entertaining or deep.
The ‘depth’ of this movie is overanalyzed: On first watch, this movie is hard to follow. Often I didn’t understand what was happening, so I had to rewind to figure it out, consult the internet, and indeed, watch it again to do my due diligence. The movie of course leaves many questions intentionally unanswered, which is supposed to make it some profound deep thinker, but there is one answer that was universally applicable to me: who gives a shit?
What it means to be human: ‘More human than human’ - that’s Tyrell’s motto for creating and developing replicants, which ultimately kill him in a violent quest to get what we as humans take for granted: emotional experience, memories, interpersonal bond, the ingredients of a complete life. I get it - that sort of emotional component to life is a vital piece of it and something that probably can’t ever be truly replicated. It’s a gift of life we should recognize. But is it really what makes humans ‘human?’ Animals experience emotion. Animals experience bonding. Animals experience memory. What separates humans is a capacity to reason, so I don’t find this premise of the movie meaningful or interesting.
Is Deckard a replicant?: The biggest lingering question is whether Deckard himself is a human or a replicant, but in my opinion, no matter what he is, the story is unsatisfying:
If he’s a replicant, he’s the lamest of them all. If Deckard is a replicant, he’s arguably the weakest of the bunch in the movie. Each replicant he fights initially bests him, but Deckard gets bailed out by some intervening factor. Maybe Deckard is an early model, upon which later models improved?
If he’s human, he just sucks at his job. If Deckard is a human, he’s godawful at retiring replicants, which leads you to wonder how he was possibly the best guy for the job. Zhora has Deckard strangled and just takes off running for some reason. Leon is about to give Deckard the thumb-eye treatment when Rachel intervenes with gunfire. Pris could have skull-crushed Deckard with her leg grip, but opts for some bizarre dance trot before she gets shot. Batty wins the final fight outright, before saving Deckard in his last act before death. There is no fight that Deckard wins on his own, so why exactly is he some famous replicant-retirement expert?
Deckard’s ‘replicant sympathy’ explanation makes no sense: The movie suggests Deckard has a hard time retiring replicants because he’s developing sympathy for them, but sympathy is never the reason why he fails to kill them. He never has the fight won before hesitation to finish it - he always loses and something else saves him. And if he is sympathetic for replicants, what explains the bizarre quasi-rape scene with Rachel?
THE RATING: 1/5 Wickies. I really tried to find things to appreciate here, but when I realized I had much more fun watching Tremors, I knew it was time to finally drop the hammer of shame.
YOUR RATING: Vote here ⬇
NEXT WEEK: Pee-wee’s Big Adventure (1985)
AFTER THAT? YOU PICK - VOTE!