Review of Blade Runner (1982) by Do You Even Jay C — 26 Jan 2014

*THE OFFICIAL BETTER THAN JUNO SEAL*.

Ah, Ridley Scott's so-called masterpiece turns out to be not only inferior to Alien, but also not that good at all. Ridley Scott is a really accomplished director. No need to tell you that. This man has directed a wide array of genres, from historical Roman fiction (Gladiator) to Science Fiction (Aliens) to Spy Drama (Body of Lies) to semi-Horror (Hannibal). However, I find him vastly overrated. For one of the best film directors of all time, he's directed some big stinkers like Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven (though it has a small cult following), and Prometheus. I give the man respect. What I will not stand for is fanboy rage, which most of his films seem to have. If you hate this movie, you're automatically deemed retarded and idiotic just cause you are. They tell you that you should go watch some Michael Bay film instead. Maybe I would have given this film a 4/10 or 3/10 if it weren't for the buttpirate fanboys. Okay, just kidding! I still would give this a 2/10. It is a terrible films.

Blade Runner is set in a cyberistic future Earth. In this future, humans have created new technology called replicants, which are human clones of people who are used to do work on the colonies on different planets. However, they usually don't last very long due to the fact that the person who creates the replicant decides how long said replicant survives. In SoCal California 2019, a man named Deckard is a Blade Runner. Blade Runners are the cops of the future, set to find and terminate all replicants. Well, he's a retired Blade Runner ready to enjoy his regular life when something happens. Four replicants have escaped their planet and are heading toward Earth, which will lead to trouble. The film stars Harrison Ford aka Han Solo aka Indiana Jones as Deckard. Other people that appear are Rutger Hauer from Hobo With A Shotgun and Edward James Olmos from the epic show Miami Vice.

Harrison Ford is a pretty good actor without a doubt. He played a great Han Solo and he was good as Indiana Jones. However, in this film, he's only given one form of expression: to look constipated. He is depressed the entire film making it seem as if he is just a boring hollow character. Think Julian from Only God Forgives. People may say well that's the point. I'll say that the point is very stupid. Deckard is just an unlikable guy. I know someone will say he's supposed to be unlikable or something, but when a film's message is to respect life, it should have some form of a humanistic character. When the characters aren't good, it's hard to root for one side. It's a completely unengaging film. Nothing particularly interesting happens throughout the film. And when I say interesting, I don't mean that there needs to be a shootout or explosion every minute. I mean, nothing that really gathers my attention.

Blade Runner is in fact all style and no substance. The special effects look great....for the time period, though it is dated. The cinematography is pretty good with the neo-noir feel. And......that's where the positives end. Blade Runner gained it's cult following for it's many themes on life and whatnot. However, at it's core, it's nothing more than a charade. The story doesn't fully utilize the pretty original premise, making it truly disappointing. It relies more on it's technical merits rather than it's real merits. Now, don't get me wrong, this film is nowhere near as bad as let's say Only God Forgives. However, when you have been told that a film this dull and listless is one of the most humanic films ever, there is a certain point where you just can't help, but feel ultra pissed. Deckard is just a completely boring character, and it isn't Ford's fault. And then the ending was a cop-out. I'm 99% sure that you all know the big twist. Deckard might be a replicant, but that's really stupid. So he magically escaped from being killed by Blade Runners and ends up being one? Also, it's just another excuse to add to Ford's boring performance. HAHAHA!!!

Also, plotholes galore within this film. So, Bryant tells Deckard that there are six replicants that have escaped. Three are male. Three are female. The two males are Roy and Leon. The two females are Zhora and Pris. I think one died sometime trying to get into the building and whether a female or male wasn't specified. That leaves one replicant loose, which might be Deckard, although there is enough evidence to prove Deckard can't be that specific replicant. Also, and this is a very common one, why did Holden need to test out Leon if everyone knew what Leon looked like? And surely there should be some easier form of figuring out if someone's a replicant, like I don't know, put them in a position where they can be exposed. I believe replicants were very weak to the cold, so why not try that? Not only will that reveal he's a replicant, but it'll kill him as well! That way, you win and they lose! Why spend time asking questions when this will help much faster? It annoyed me, and I actually noticed these things in the middle of the film.

Overall, some will call this the greatest film to have ever existed. I disagree. It's a terribly overrated film that basks in it's own dullness. The character Deckard is in no way of the word interesting. He's a lifeless, boring, annoying, emo man. Ford, I love ya man, but this was not a good performance. It's not his fault though. It's Ridley Scott's fault for making Ford play Deckard with zero charisma. Most of the other characters are the same way. Also, the unnatural amount of praise this film is given is annoying. People will throw rocks at you if you hate this film, so I'm glad I don't live anywhere near Diego or John. Seriously, this is not the film I was lead to believe it was. I expected a great film with good visuals and characters I actually liked. Instead, I'm given a weird dull film that is completely uninteresting and pointless. Also, it turns out to be a meaning of life!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

2/10.