h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One of the most over looked sci/fi movies is Blade Runner. The movie is about Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a Blade Runner in 21st century Los Angelas, assigned to hunt down replicants. Released in 1982 and directed by Ridley Scott, he does an excellent job of making the future look cold and lonely, not polished looking at all. The original version with Ford’s voice over adds to that feeling. Although there are a few special effects created ahead of there time. In one scene, Deckard is printing out a photograph on his home computer, something we’ve only been doing recently. The flying cars look very realistic. This is one of Sean Youngs best character performances, she looks great as Rachel. Rutger Hauer’s scene at the end when he is dieing is the most beatifully shot death scene in a movie... ever. If your reading this Ridley, great job!
I prefer the original version over the director’s cut (which omit’s the voice over) but either version is worth a look.
This movie has quite a cult following. If you do a search on the net, you’ll see what I mean.
I could go on for ever, but I’d rather you go and watch the movie than have me tell you all about it....enjoy!

I'd agree that Blade Runner is a great film (I prefer the "Director's Cut" myself. I can't stand that awful awful upbeat ending the studio tagged on) but I'd disagree that it's currently overlooked. It's widely regarded as a classic of the sci-fi genre and is notably influential as far as design goes.

However, it is true that it was largely neglected during the 1980s and up until 1992 when the "Director's Cut" (which basically edited-out the voiceover (which Harrison Ford had assumed was only for preview audiences and so did badly) and tacked-on happy-ending, neither of which Ridley Scott wanted in the original film) was shown (apparently accidentally), enjoyed and subsequently properly released as the "restored" Blade Runner. It is this version which has lead to the film's resurrection as sci-fi classic and saved it from it's earlier reputation as a cult-curio which flopped on release.

My favourite film. Period. And yes, I know that the "love scene" is an uncomfortable one to watch as a woman, as are the deaths of Pris and Zhora, but it still affects me in the same way over and over. Apparently there are SEVERAL versions of the same movie; and if Ridley Scott ever pulls his thumb out of his whatsit to release a DVD package, then we might se all of them.

Bladerunner is wonderful. Sadly no-one has ever made a perfect SF film (for some reason, all the perfect films are about criminals:- 'Goodfellas', 'Taxi Driver', 'Pulp Fiction'), but Bladerunner comes closest.

I'd say "Twelve Monkeys" comes pretty close to being the perfect sf film. I don't feel the need to justify that statement beyond saying just watch it.

H.

Blade Runner is a visually spectacular film, but I must admit I think the rest of it is a load of cobblers. Harrison Ford gives a zombie-like performance. The voice-over insults the intelligence, and it's only the Director's Cut that elevates the film to anywhere near an interesting story. A mastery of style over content throughout: 'Ooooh, look, there's a flying car!'

By the way, I was told that the title was 'lifted' from a very good sci-fi novel that has *nothing* to do with the original story (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), set in a society where one could only have a surgical operation *if* one had been sterilised. Hence, Blade Runners went about doing backstreet medical care. Now that would have made a *much* more interesting film

Suffice it to say that I disagree with everything that TM says about Bladerunner, which in it's directors cut is as close to perfect as any movie has a right to be. Other brave attempts and genuinely good Sf would be 12 Monkeys, The shape of Things to Come, (The Original) Solaris and Stalker - all of which are strangely overlooked, mostly because well made Sf makes mainstream critics really uncomforable.

(Oh, and if that sounds like a fascinating premise, TM, then you should go back to the original source for the idea, which was qlmost certainly Osama Tezuka's massively successful 'BlackJack' manga. There's a film version released by manga video.)

But Bladerunner certainly isn't overlooked or under-rated. It remains robably the most influential film of the last three decades in terms of design.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, BS. I don't think it's anywhere close to perfect: I can think of far better films, not just SF. It's certainly visually arresting and has a lot of style, but left me with little lasting impression and is not very affecting. Besides, I thought that the original source was Philip K Dick's novel?

I suppose my problem is that I think a much more appropriate voice-over would have been along the lines of 'Heh heh heh! Be vewy vewy quiet, evewybody. I'm hunting WEPLICANTS!'

By the way, I agree with three of your other choices of good SF film. The fourth I have not seen. Also, 2001 and The Andromeda Strain deserve a mention.

Do you mean the original or remake of Solaris, BS?

I haven't managed to see Clooney's version yet but am told it's not half bad...

It's really a different adapatation of the original story, not a version of the Tarkovsky film. And when you see this film you wonder why the Tarkovsky adaptation had to be so bloody long and ponderous.

It did go on a bit, didn't it?

>And when you see this film you wonder why the Tarkovsky adaptation had to be so bloody long and ponderous<

How good is your knowledge of Russian film making? Most of the answers to that question lie in the history and traditions of Russian Cinema. As the man once (didn't) say 'It's the way they tell 'em'. 'Stalker' is, by the way, another Tarkovsky film, this time based on the novel 'Roadside Picnic' by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky.

And when I was talking about 'Blackjack', it was in reference to Alan Norton's 'Bladerunner' novel, not the film of Phil Dick's 'Do Androids Dream...'

Don't get me wrong, Tarkovsky's Solaris is still very enjoyable I've watched a lot of world cinema and it's fascintating to watch how each country, although varied by the director's vision, has its own way of telling a story.

Oh come on, this is too much. WHO would really call Blade Runner 'forgotten'? Really now...

Quite agree Whatever its merits are or aren't.

I know that I'm moving away from "BR", but two sf films that I'd like to namecheck are "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "The Day the Earth Caught Fire". The second one in particular is a marvellous film, being made for next to nothing, and yet managing to convey very effectively Earth's temperatures eising and rising as it heads on a collision with the sun. What I liked even as a kid when I first saw it was the grit and humour with which all the characters seem to face the inevitable.

The first of those two is certainly not forgotten - it's quite well recognised as a top notch early 50s sci-fi classic... "Klaatu barada nikto!"

But the other one is rather more overlooked, and has a very early sighting of Michael Caine in a bit part

'How good is your knowledge of Russian film making? Most of the answers to that question lie in the history and traditions of Russian Cinema. '

Well, obviously not as good as yours. But, when I watch a film, I don't tend to think I need an in-depth knowledge of the history and an ability to indulge in detailed cultural analysis in order to appreciate it. I tend to judge it on its own merits: either it works as a self-contained entity or doesn't. Besides, I find watching a film while wearing an anorak rather uncomfortable.

As for 'near perfect', well, all I can say is that when I left the cinema after BR I thought 'ooh, what a nice looking film'. Whereas, after Schindler's List, I left the cinema in tears. 'Nuff said.

>when I watch a film, I don't tend to think I need an in-depth knowledge of the history and an ability to indulge in detailed cultural analysis in order to appreciate it. I tend to judge it on its own merits: either it works as a self-contained entity or doesn't. Besides, I find watching a film while wearing an anorak rather uncomfortable.<

You *asked* why it was long and ponderous. To western eyes, *all* Russian cinema is long and ponderous. whether otr not that is a refreshing change of pace from hper-active US cinema or a bore is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm still in two minds about Schindlers List. Bits of it verge on brilliance. The ending however, is emotionally manipulative claptrap.