Possible blasphemy...

...coming today.

Making another stop on the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).   This one is wet.  VERY, VERY WET.

Thanks, sincerely, to all those who have been reading along with this series.  It means a lot.

Film 52

52.  "Blade Runner" (AFI Rank #97)

This review could be short and sweet.  It may be.  I've just begun.  I don't know where this will head.

I will say this.  I may need more time with this.  In a year, I may feel differently about this film.  I'm not writing in a year.  I'm writing now.  This is what I think of it...now.

I watched the 1992 "Director's Cut" of this film, as Netflix presented me with 3 versions on the DVD they sent me.  I chose that one.  I think I kind of violated a rule by doing that, as I was not necessarily watching the version the AFI put on the list...  It also happens to be on HBO currently, so I put it on my DVR.  That version is the original theatrical release.  For the record, I watched my version, then fast forwarded through the other one to see anything different visually.  I found something.   I found a great big steaming pile of something.   Beyond some voiceover work and one brief dream sequence, there was only one MAJOR change in my version.  The ending.  More to come.

Let me get this out of the way.  I don't like this film.   I think it is WAY WAY WAY TOO LONG on style and incredibly, indelibly and unreasonably short on substance.  The acting, mostly, is bordering on atrocious, especially from the leading man.  To top that off, the film is an hour of painfully dull set up, followed by an hour of sporadically inspiring action.  It, by its nature, seems to be asking philosophical questions.  I don't think it is.  I think it THINKS it is, though, and that may be why it has the following it does.

Here's my summary:  Los Angeles, in the future, is a vast sea of buildings.   It rains. (GET IT?  IT DOESN'T RAIN IN LOS ANGELES, GENERALLY)  There are fake people who do bad things, so they are not allowed on Earth.  It rains.  Some fake people come to Earth.  It rains.  A former fake person hunter is asked to hunt the fake people.  It rains.  A guy makes some origami.  It rains.  It's dark.  It rains.  Things are weird.  It rains.  Fake people don't want to die.  It rains.  Fake people kill their maker, because they are informed that they can't be saved.  It rains.  Fake people get killed.  It rains. Fake people ready themselves for one final futile showdown with the fake person hunter.  It rains.  A fake person makes an impassioned speech, then dies.  It rains.  The fake person hunter leaves with a fake person he...essentially...raped.  I assume it continues to rain.

Ridley Scott directed this film.  I understand why people think it's great.  It's a big, bloated spectacle, with exclusively practical special effects.  No CGI is involved here.  The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.  There is a lot to be said for that.  A LOT.  The details are not skimped on, except that occasionally they completely contradict the story.  The most egregious of these is the reflection of light in the eyes of the replicants.  Early in the film, we see a test being administered to a replicant, which includes a camera pointed at the replicant's eye.  We see that it takes a while to determine that a replicant is, indeed, a replicant.  Later in the film we are told that one particular replicant takes nearly 100 questions in this test before she is exposed.  It's amazing how real these things are.  Except...if you shine light in their eyes at a certain angle, apparently.  Seriously.  It's a great effect.  It's totally stupid, however, as it shows us who the replicants are...without all that testing.  It is a filmmaker in love with the visual, and forgetting the story.

And that is my biggest beef with this film.  The story/plot sucks.  Hard.  It's an hour before anything even remotely exciting happens.  I can take a long set up, if the payoff is worth it.  However, and I'm going to spoil the ending...this film never pays off.  The culmination of the story is a showdown between our hero, Rick Deckard, and a replicant named Roy Batty ('CAUSE HE'S A LITTLE CRAZY!  GET IT?), in which Deckard continues to shoot at an unarmed man...who never once actually tries to hurt him.  Check that.  He breaks his fingers, but that's all.  It's so he can't hold a gun.  No, he's relentless, but he never tries to harm Deckard.  This includes a ridiculous sequence where Batty bursts his head through a wall, while not, again, ACTUALLY TRYING TO HARM DECKARD.  He's just chasing him.  That's all.  Finally, we get the big rooftop showdown...and all that happens is that Batty explains why he wants to live, and Deckard listens.  And BLINKS A LOT.  Deckard tries to escape the guy not hurting him, jumps across the roof, misses, clings to the edge, starts to lose his grip, SPITS AT BATTY, who then pulls Deckard to safety.   Then, Batty dies.  I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a less satisfying chase sequence.

Look.  I get it.  The film is amazing.  Just amazing.  It really is.  It's great fun to watch.  It's mind-blowing.  It's just...it's just...the story sucks.  The acting is BRUTAL.  Watch Harrison Ford's eyes throughout the finale.  He just keeps ferociously blinking.  Constantly.  It's awful.  Rutger Hauer and the guy who played Sebastian (TV's Larry from "Newhart" - "Hi, I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and my other brother Darryl.") are the only compelling performances.  And...why?  Why?  Nothing either character does is especially earth shattering.

Bah.

I mentioned that I'd come back to the ending.  I watched the "happy ending" imposed on the original theatrical release of the film.  Good God.  I'm glad I watched the version I did, even without all the superfluous voiceover work, if only because I wasn't subjected to that ending.  I had a hard enough time with this film without that.

I don't like this film.  I understand why people think it's great.  I get it.  I support it.  I hope you understand why I think it is not.  I need a little substance.  This...this is all flash.  All sizzle.  No steak.  I cannot understand how this film winds up on the list of Top 100, and Scott's far superior "Alien" is nowhere to be found.  That film delivered.  This one...not so much.

I've been putting links to Ebert's reviews.  I see that he has one for this film in his "Great Movies" essays.  I'm guessing Roger and I are going to not agree on the film we watched.

His take is here.  He watched "The Final Cut."  Wow.  I.....wow.  I just read the opening paragraphs of Roger's take.

I guess we agree...somewhat.  He gave in.  I haven't...yet.