Review of Blade Runner (1982) by Johnny T — 03 Jan 2017

Blade Runner does a good job of showing a future utterly devoid of hope, but it is rather depressing. Undoubtedly an impressive achievement in set design and visuals, Blade Runner otherwise possesses few elements designed to effectively capture (and subsequently hold) the viewer's interest over the course of its bloated 117-minute running time. While the film is visually stunning, there are almost no characters for the audience to identify with or sympathize with. It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story. They are mostly cold and detached. The synth-heavy score by Vangelis only exacerbates the film's many problems, while the sluggish pace succeeds only in keeping the viewer at arm's length (the protracted finale is, to put it mildly, awfully anti-climactic). I have been aware of the film and its reputation for years, however I had never been that interested in seeing it, but I felt obliged to see it, I'd always get looks and utterances of mock outrage when I said I hadn't seen it. Well, now I have, and next time I can reply with 'Yes, I have seen it, and it's one of the most overrated films I have ever seen.' That Blade Runner is now considered a landmark achievement within the science fiction genre is nothing short of baffling, with the frustratingly ambiguous conclusion only cementing the film's status as a hopelessly overrated piece of work.

VERDICT: "In The Zone" - [Mixed Reaction] These kinds of movies are usually movies that had some good things, but some bad things kept it from being amazing. This rating says buy an ex-rental or a cheap price of the DVD to own. If you consider cinema, ask for people's opinion on the film. (Films that are rated 2.5 or 3 stars).