Back to Reviews

Reviews Comments: Oh, boy, we're in trouble... Blade Runner film/book review by Kuroma

Understand that this review is based on the '92 director's cut.

I don't know why fellow nerds love this film. It drags on with its scenery, the characters barely do anything, and this film is just BORING. Seriously, I watched this in a double feature with Alone in the Dark, and I was more entertained by THAT than Blade Runner. Fellow nerds and geeks, prepare to sharpen your knives and pitchforks...

THIS MOVIE SUCKS.

(I might just be under the effect of Seinfeld Is Unfunny however...)

Comments

  • BlackWolfe
  • 17th Oct 10
A combination of Seinfeld Is Unfunny and, to be honest, sometimes the Directors Cut isn't as good as the theatrical release.

Plus, not everybody likes everything.

That having been said, what kind of monster are you, not liking Blade Runner?
  • shiro_okami
  • 17th Oct 10
The book was better.
  • nogenius
  • 20th Nov 10
As someone who liked Blade Runner before I saw the final cut, it's a lot better than the 1992 cut (not sure if I saw the earlier versions or not, but it's probably better than those, too.)
  • SeanTucker
  • 28th Nov 10
The trick is to watch it with a writer's eye, and with a filmmaker's eye, rather than just seeking to be entertained by it. It's not exactly a standard movie; it's really more of a work of art on film.

Pay attention to things like the lighting, the cinematography, the dialogue, and you'll notice that this is an extremely well-constructed movie. Even beyond its entertainment value (which I personally find to be quite high), it's worth watching for that, especially if you're interested in making films.
  • ManBearPig1000
  • 5th Feb 11
I hate you for that review, but I'll admit you got balls.
  • 150.212.50.240
  • 5th Feb 11
This movie does indeed suck.
  • McSomeguy
  • 30th Apr 11
This movie was visually impressive, had an interesting premise and was UNBELIEVABLY BORING. I forced myself to watch the whole thing just in case it gets better. It kinda did at the part where Roy, the only interesting character(well, maybe Dr. Tyrel too but he had very little screen-time), arrives at Sebastian's, but if I have to sit through two thirds of a movie for it to get interesting then it's not a very good movie. I think that if not Deckard(blandness on legs) but Roy(feels cheated by his short lifespan and the imminent death of himself and his friends, and is now grasping at straws to survive only to lose all hope eventually) was made the central character as a villain protagonist, it would have made for a superior film.
  • maninahat
  • 1st May 11
I think that part of the problem is that if you are going to have a hardboiled story with a traditional noir protagonist, its pretty much a given that he should be narrating. The whole point of hardboiled detectives, as opposed to armchair sleuths, is that their character is far more involved in the mystery plot. Narration is a vital tool tool to convey the gumshoe's thoughts and personality, especial as they work alone. You expect a detective to be wisecracking, or expressing a cynical opinion about something. We need to hear them talk.

Later editions of the Blade Runner remove the narration entirely. It wasn't particularly useful narrative and I think it stands up without it, but you lose quite a bit of Deckhard in the process.
  • HandyHandel
  • 28th Aug 11
The 1992 cut isn't that good. However, the Final Cut is awesome... the book's still better than the movie, though.
  • TheChastonMan
  • 24th Oct 11
Yo mate, your review sucks.
  • Exterminatus
  • 28th Mar 12
I disagree with your review as I found the movie intensely enjoyable to watch. But I have to say you got balls saying that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0CKk8br3Ak
  • Wackd
  • 29th Mar 12
I agree with this review. The film is wonderfully shot, sure, but that's about all it has going for it, as in spite of it's incredibly cool premise none of the characters are all that compelling.
  • tublecane
  • 29th Mar 12
The only problem I have with Blade Runner is to question why they bothered to make the robots virtually identical to humans. I mean, they couldn't put a red dot on their foreheads, or something? Just in case they rebelled before their pitifully short lives were up, which they obviously anticipated.

As for the battle of cuts, I prefer the boring one. not because I like boring movies, but because I don't think it's boring. Not that I could ever convince anyone otherwise. No one seems to listen when I tell them 2001: A Space Odyssey has no clothes and is boring as a drill.
  • tublecane
  • 29th Mar 12
"I prefer the boring one"

For clarification's sake, I don't know which boring cut I like. It could be the '92 cut. I'm pretty sure it's not the Final Cut, and it's definitely not the theatrical release (though that's a good movie, too). Whatever was the first one released on DVD, that's the one I have (I think).
  • tublecane
  • 29th Mar 12
The trick is to watch it with a writer's eye, and with a filmmaker's eye, rather than just seeking to be entertained by it. It's not exactly a standard movie; it's really more of a work of art on film.

Pay attention to things like the lighting, the cinematography, the dialogue, and you'll notice that this is an extremely well-constructed movie."

I agree that it's a well-constructedn movie, but I hate responses like this. If it's really a work of art, it ought to be entertaining, have compelling characters and performances, and above all tell a good story. Since when did lighting, cinematography, and dialogue count more than overall story? Since when did they matter more for a work of art than something people actually like to watch?

Granted, whether or not you're entertained is not sufficient. Both crappy and high art movies can be entertaining. But I'd argue it's necessary. Not that there are no obligations on the part of the viewer. You must do your part, and not write off anything that isn't served to you on a plate with all the fixins as too much work. Then again, why would you bother if it's going to be all work? N Art wouldn't be worth the time if we were all basically lab techs dissecting it for knowledge's sake, or whatever.
  • tublecane
  • 29th Mar 12
"N Art"

Whoops, I only meant to write "Art"
  • harkko
  • 5th Jun 12
I really hate lazy reviews, which basically just state Seinfeld Is Unfunny.
  • JobanGrayskull
  • 5th Jun 12
I'm a big fan of Philip K. Dick, but I never seem to like the movie adaptations/inspirations all that much. I generally agree that even if this does have great cinematography, scenery, etc. that doesn't make it interesting to me. Some people go for that, and that's cool. I just didn't. I found it to be very slow paced, and I struggled to get through the entire thing.
  • strejda
  • 11th Feb 14
So, why does it suck? Just because it's boring? That doesn't automaticly make the movie bad.
  • worldbreaker
  • 27th Mar 15
What a lousy review. You didn't even go into detail as to why the movie sucks. I would have respected your opinion more if the review didn't sound like you were just trying to infuriate those who like the movie. Which makes you come off as a troll.
  • KenKevinStriker
  • 19th Apr 17
The 1992 Director\'s Cut isn\'t really the best version of the film to be introduced to Blade Runner, being caught inbetween the flawed but excellent in its own right Theatrical Cut and the highly praised Final Cut which served to accomplish what Ridley Scott could not with The Director\'s Cut. The Director\'s Cut\'s violence is toned down, the continuity errors and revealing mistakes are still present, and the unicorn dream wasn\'t implemented as well as it was meant to be.

That being said, one man\'s boring is another man\'s deep and introspective, and if your biggest complaint is that it\'s boring, I\'m sorry you\'re missing out on such an influential and watershed film for sci-fi as a whole.

In order to post comments, you need to

Get Known
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/review_comments.php?id=1635