The Philadelphia Story. Yes, Katherine Hepburn’s character is a bit of an “ice queen,” a “goddess” – but I see that as the natural reaction to her turbulent family history (Father had walked out on Mother & children many years back, tsk, tsk). And just when she’s about to marry a decent guy (dependable, rich, and morally upstanding, but conservative and a bit dull, tsk, tsk), her Father and her ex waltz back into her life and take her to task endlessly for the great crime of being herself. She should’ve kicked her father squarely in his backside and into the swimming pool!
OK guys, there’s a lot of people criticizing a lot of good movies here without understanding them terribly well.
I won’t even get into 2001. That movie has been defended sufficiently in addition to having shown an imperviousness to the shallow kind of criticism thus far posted in this thread.
What I’m going to complain about here is the bitching that the Unicorn Scene in Blade Runner gets: that scene was crucial!!! If you think it was unnecessary, you have completely failed to understand the film, something that is evident from comments such as those by “I read books when I want to do that much work” Phlip and others.
The final answer to the question posed by the Unicorn Scene was a secret until a couple of years ago, and provided years of debate among film critics and science fiction experts alike, not to mention the movie’s huge fan base. Why does Deckard dream/visualize a Unicorn? Why does the enigmatic Gaff (Edward James Olmos) leave an origami unicorn on Deckard’s door step at the end of the movie? (early in the movie, when Deckard is accused of being scared of a job, Gaff makes an origami chicken). In fact, why does Gaff seem to be hovering above Deckard most of the time?
Consider the story of the spider outside Rachel’s window (implanted memory), and how other people apart from Rachel knew about the spider.
Consider Gaff’s words to Deckard: “You’ve done a man’s job sir!”
Consider Gaff’s final words to Deckard: “It’s too bad she won’t live! But then again, who does?”
The Unicorn Scene is important indeed, as is just about every shot in Blade Runner. If you don’t understand the movie, that’s fine, no one will hold it against you. If such a curious reworking of film noir is not your cup of tea, that’s fine too. But these are hardly excuses to blast a movie as important and interesting as Blade Runner. “I don’t understand it” does not equal “this movie sucks”.
Dear Abe, I agree with much of what you say. A lack of comprehension is not a sound basis for criticism; BR is certainly a very fine film and much of the commentary has been based on rather superficial observation. However, your tone is patronizing and your pretentious posing of unanswered questions is both grating and unhelpful.
Rather than throw such questions up as though the answers to all all of them should be like the sun, obvious to everyone who is not blind, could you possibly join the rest of us down here on the common ground and share your ideas? It would be much more friendly and enjoyable to hear your perspective, rather than be beaten about the head and neck with them.
Abe, this is a discussion for another thread, and has been many times before, but there are plenty of people who “get” that stupid crap about Deckard being a replicant without accepting it. Me, for one. I like Blade Runner - I don’t think it’s overrated at all, but I do thing directors coming back after 15 years to tell me what’s “really” going on in their movies IS overrated. For me the unicorn scene is worthless because it only exists to prop up a theoretical plot point that isn’t supported by logic or much of the rest of the movie.
In addition, the two quotes you posted are ambivilant at best. The could both easily be the kind of thing a soldier or cop would say to someone who did a good job.
It’s been said before, and I’m simply paraphrasing here, but if a major plot point of a movie isn’t obvious from watching the movie ALONE, then it’s not deep, it’s just annoying. The unicorn scene may or may not have meant what you mean, but if a large number of the viewing audience didn’t “get it”, then the fault lies with the movie, not the viewer.
Hey Abe, I got the Unicorn Scene!
And I don’t think anyone who didn’t like this film was stupid or wrong. They have their opinions which we may not agree with.
I still honestly thought the scene wasn’t very necessary.
In fact I saw it as a hammering of a point rather than a subtle image. It reminded me of the imagry of Oliver Stone.
I prefer much more subtle hints:
The mention of the replicants photos followed by a scene with Deckard at his piano with tons of photos seemed to me as a giveaway.
His lack of emotion for most of the film until he begins to feel the fear of his own mortality that makes him appear to be the same as the replicants in the film.
Why didn’t Roy Batty drop Deckard? In my opinion he wanted to awaken Deckard’s realization of his short time on this earth maybe even his emotions.
Yondan I believe you are correct and if My previous posts came across as insulting as that post I have to say Shame on myself. My bad.
You have quite a future as a marriage counselor, Homebrew!
To pick up on the Princess Bride bashing, particularly the comment about it’s apparant cheapness, my impression was that it was trying to recall old films and a stage look. In this way, the movie is building on its tongue-in-cheek flair. Further, it is doing so in a much more lighthearted and optimistc way than Goldberg’s book, which I found to be tedious and cynical.
This is a strange way to go about experiencing narrative art. I could present you with an interpretation on a silver platter, but part of the joy of narrative (whether it be literary or cinematic) is the process of discovery. The questions I posed (and there are many more to pose, those were just a starter) ask you to consider certain elements in the film that will then lead you to other elements and/or help you build up a “final solution” theory.
Of course, this only works if watching films or reading books is approached actively as opposed to passively. I’ll be glad to discuss this if you want to narrow down the field a little bit. I was referring to the relevance of the Unicorn Scene. To my previous questions you may add:
How do we know what is real?
How do we know we exist?
Are we capable of understanding our individual natures?
Rather than think of them as simple questions, think of these as explorations into themes; it’s not so much the answer that counts but the process of investigating the matter, which almost inevitably leads you to a deeper understanding of the film than the answer to the questions alone could. Of course, the answers do in fact count, and if you don’t have the film handy or do not feel like watching it again I have no problem discussing it with you (but I am hesitant for fear of spoiling a work of art for you).
Then why say the Unicorn Scene was meaningless, which is what I posted about? I’m not asking you to accept the implications of the Unicorn Scene, but to recognize them (something that not everyone has done). As for the “discussion for another thread” part, I don’t think so, since the Unicorn Scene was provided as an example of how Blade Runner is over-rated, and which I challenged.
I don’t know why the director came back to reveal the truth about the film. In my opinion he could have left the matter open and the film would have continued to generate discussion and interest for decades. Maybe he thought the debate had gone on long enough. Anyway, your assertion that we are dealing with a theoretical plot point has little meaning as an objection (narrative rarely resides on a single level, theoretical or non, and good narrative resides as much in the reader/viewer’s mind as it does on paper or film); I also challenge the assertion that the plot point in question is not supported by logic or the rest of the movie (it is, and quite cleverly, albeit sometimes ambiguously).
In the bigger context of the film, and especially considering Deckard’s experiences, those words resonate with a deeper meaning (see Kingpengvin’s post for more seemingly meaningless clues). And it’s not as if I am building my case based on two quotations alone. The confusion of reality with artificiality is deeply ingrained in Blade Runner, see my other examples. Consider also that the dancer/replicant Zhora asks Deckard “Are you for real?” Like the other two quotes these words seem ordinary enough, but they may very well be a signal to the viewer to remain alert for this kind of thing. Is Deckard for real? That’s the whole question, isn’t it?
Have you ever tried reading William Blake’s The Sick Rose without knowledge of the subject matter? Doesn’t make much sense if you insist on examining its plot points based on the poem alone, but things become much clearer once you have some background information and re-read the poem a few times. Of course, this is a process that involves thinking and effort, two things that the average moviegoer is not too interested in. The same applies to Blade Runner: the information is there, but it will not be available unless you make the effort to examine it and accept such established standard practices in narrative arts as symbolism, foreshadowing, etc.
Good narrative does not simply tell a story, but builds an entire world in our imagination. Those who see a movie like Blade Runner as a linear plot consisting simply of action and dialogue overtly related to the overt plot are missing out on 90% of the movie (like the rich and deatiled symbolism, for example, or the impressive film noir-sci-fi world that is home to the narrative). If a viewer is not interested in making an effort to investigate difficult and at first obscure concepts, then the fault lies with the viewer, not with the movie.
Of course. I never implied that those who disagree are stupid or wrong. I merely complained of people not understanding the movie and resorting to shallow criticisms that are wholly undeserved. As I said, “I do not understand this” does not equal “this sucks”. I thought the movie K-Pax sucked, but I only decided that once I felt I had put enough effort into the film and investigated its themes.
Fair enough! The Unicorn Scene is by no means the only suggestion of its kind, but it is perhaps the most evident one, and it does provide the kind of support for the Replicant Theory that the other clues lack. It still seems to go over the majority of people’s heads in spite of being one of the most significant clues.
These are all excellent and valid considerations. It’s also interesting to note that Deckard’s lack of emotion is contrasted sharply by the poignant (but cruel) Replicant characters, all of whom are fugitives and nearing the end of their life-span. It is, as you say, the fear of mortality that makes Deckard into a slightly more human figure that the audience can finally empathize with.
Without getting into the debate about any specifics of Blade Runner, Abe seems to me to have the essential point right, namely that a film does not “suck huge balls” (to quote the OP) simple because some people don’t like it, or because the film has undoubted attributes, but they are attributes that some people don’t like.
Does this debate have any substance, or is it, in the end, simply a chance to slag off what does not suit certain people’s particular tastes?
Or to be more pointed about it, there would appear to be certain people involved in this thread who would define “insanely overrated” synonymously with “not to my personal taste in films”.
Ah, the fine art of debate tempered by the spirit of artistic inquiry! Your assertions are empty and worthless. Try supporting them with arguments, and even your simplistic and inadequate thesis will be taken seriously.
Personally, I am sick of the summer ‘mega-blockbusters’ that get hyped up for nearly a year before they are realeased. I’m talking about movies like Armageddon, Independence Day, or Godzilla that everyone anxiously anticipates for a year and then stays in the theaters for a couple of weeks. I won’t even go see Spider Man or The Scorpion King. Name one of these movies that someone will remember 2 years from now, much less 20 years like Blade Runner, Raiders of the Lost Ark or E.T. And I LIKE action films.
Some people don’t like movies like Blade Runner Saving Private Ryan and others because they are ‘slow’. Translation: “My attention span wanes unless I am stimulated by a constant flow of explosions and CGI wizardry.” Unfortunately, many movies today have used CGI effects to replace not just the background sceanery but the plot and character development as well. What do I care if a character is eaten by an animatronic dinosaur if I can’t stand the character?
Princess Bride looked cheap? Sword fights should have been better? It’s not a friggin Jet Li movie! It wasn’t supposed to be Crouching Tiger Hidden Dred Pirate Roberts. It’s supposed to be a fun campy movie.
I would like to know why some people don’t like particular movies. For example: I don’t like most Kevin Smith movies (Clerks, Mall Rats, Chasing Amy, etc) because the acting is horrible, the timing of the jokes is off and the films are otherwise amateurish. Not because “duh…they suck”.
If you are unable to articulate an opionion, it leads me to believe that perhaps you think certain movies suck because you are the type of person who is waiting for the ‘Ernest Goes to Camp’ special edition DVD.
I don’t mind trashing movies that strike me as overhyped, excessively praised by critics, or showered with undeserved awards. Heck, I trash such movies regularly.
Moreover, while I liked “Blade Runner” a lot, it doesn’t bother me a whit if some people hate it, and want to ridicule it.
But on what possible grounds can the OP call “Blade Runner” over-rated? Over-rated by whom? Was it a critical favorite when it was first released? Not at all. Reviews were, at best, mixed.
Well then, did it sweep the Oscars? Again, no. The only nominations it received were in technical categories.
So… was it an overhyped blockbuster, with massive fast-food tie-ins, round-the-clock media promotions, music videos, and constant plugs by “Entertainment Tonight”? Again, no. The hype for “Blade Runner” was minimal, and it performed rather weakly at the box office.
“Blade Runner” DID find a small, highly appreciative audience. It didn’t have many admirers, but the admirers it DID have were ardent. It’s really a cult film. The cult is a good deal bigger than that for, say, Ed Wood movies, but it’s still just a small percentage of the population.
So, while the OP has every right to dislike “Blade Runner,” i don’t see how it can be called “overrated.” That’s like saying “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” (which I loathed) is overrated. Again, overrated by WHOM? It wasn’t critically acclaimed, it wasn’t a box office hit, it didn’t win any awards. It’s simply a film with a small, devoted group of fans.
Firstly, given that no one is suggesting that three out of the four films you mention are rated, overrated or underrated (by me least of all) why you think I or anyone else has anything to “deal with” in that respect I am not sure.
Secondly, your ability to insult films without any rationale or explanation is acknowledged. We are all very very impressed, I assure you. None of us, I am positive, have ever thought of this technique before. We are all looking forward to your scintillating, insightful and original contributions to this board in future
I’m a Blade Runner fan and I can’t say I find the unicorn scene necessary or interesting. Actually, I was one of the first in Montreal to see the director’s cut when it was released theatrically and came away with the feeling I’d been ripped off because the changes were trivial and they didn’t fix that damn 6-replicant problem.
If Deckard is a replicant, the movie is ruined, in my opinion. It’s a much more interesting story if Deckard is just burnt out and depressed. If Ridley Scott wanted to hint at it, fine, but the story is solid enough as a statement on how we can build machines that can make a claim to humanity even as we lose our own.
Besides, who the hell would make a replicant like Deckard, all burnt-out and depressed and alcoholic? Talk about a product-liability suit waiting to happen, yeesh.
Bryan, you know that Ridley Scott has said straight out that Deckard is a replicant, don’t you?
Not that I’m suggesting that to be definitive, necessarily, I suppose. Just because he had a certain idea in mind when he made the film doesn’t mean there isn’t another way to think about it and enjoy it.
If Scott said that “straight out”, it was to renew interest in Blade Runner around the time of its director’s cut release. He certainly wasn’t so determined when he was shooting the movie or shortly afterward. At that time, he’d considered having Deckard turn out to be a replicant and dropped some clues to that effect, but chose (correctly) not to force the point.
From a 1984 interview of Scott by Danny Peary, editor of OMNI’s Screen Flights, Screen Fantasies
(emphasis added) Two years after the movie’s release, Scott had no definite ideas about Deckard’s background. Deckard certainly sounds more like a burnt-out human than any the emotionally-immature replicants.
(emphasis added). Now the big point:
(emphasis his). Scott is (or at least was) pretty ambivalent about the subject. He may have believed that Deckard being a replicant was the “only reasonable solution” but all the elements that point to Deckard’s emotional state contradict this, unless you want to assume Deckard is a Nexus-6 on the verge of developing his own “emotional responses” (and therefore nearing the end of his 4-year lifespan). Of course, if Deckard was a replicant built for policework, one assumes he wouldn’t get his ass kicked so routinely by the other replicants. Overall, I conclude that Scott was considering it, but never got around to stating it explicitly in the movie because it wouldn’t have added anything to the story (in fact, it would have raised more questions than it answered) and only been a distraction.
Scott may be insisting now that his plan was always to make Deckard a replicant, but this should have no more weight than George Lucas trying to make Han Solo look like less of a rogue by going back and altering Star Wars so Greedo shoots first.
