 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
162.232.81.100
Reduxed this last night on NF and was surprised how little I remembered about the film. First, it just wasn't as good as I recalled but at the time of release (1983), I (everyone) was wowed by the effects and atmosphere it created. Second, Ford was NOT ready for the role. I guess in '83 he was bankable from 'Star Wars' and on a roll from that but he had not grown. He mugged in the same silly ways he did in SW. I was let down. Third, the supporting cast was from the B-Leagues. I wonder if it was not to detract from the film and/or Ford's limited range?
Joke's on us: the film took place in 2019. (World Fair letdown: folks still not flying around in their cars.)
Follow Ups:
in ANY recut or newer version. The recent sequel was almost 3 hours of sheer torture!
There were interesting implications that the original lacked, assuming you ignore the sequel.
Jack
Bladerunner is on any shortlist of films to be seen in a SciFi academic setting. Philip K. Dick, simply LOVED Hauer and his death soliloquy is perhaps the best or certainly short list.
Film was nominated for a total of 23 or more awards, up to 25 years after release. No Oscars, though.
Bladerunner is #5 on the AFI Top100 SciFi Films list.
Complaints about weak casting and such? YOU try to do better. Me? I would have cast Bob Hope and Phyllis Diller in the 2 main roles.
Too much is never enough
are a wonder. Hauer is magnificent and Harrison plays a tortured replicant very well.
.
Perhaps too much time lapsed from the original to its sequel?
How could you tell?
Like Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher. Only about 80lb and 10 inches lacking from the way the author wrote the character.
Could I have cast it better? Yes, from some aspects, but the producers were going for some box office MoJo.
Too much is never enough
Keanu Reeves. He just seems stoned all the time. Keanu's ego, though, is the defining thing about him. He actually demanded to play Hamlet. No, not a (conscious) parody, mind you.
Edits: 04/27/20
I find him as an actor to be very wooden. How did he ever reach the heights he has? And don't get me started about the John Wick series.
Personally, from everything that I have read Reeves is a decent human being... as opposed to Cruise who lives life as a closet queen instead of admitting his preference...that coupled with his cult following for Scientology makes him fall into the category of bizarre... I thought the first John Wick movie was pretty decent.... the rest have been a HUGE mistake...
You can have an ultra-violent movie that is nonetheless entertaining. For example, see the Jason Bourne movies or something with Bruce Lee. Some even like Quentin Tarantino. But if it's just one gun massacre after another--which Wick seems to me to be--count me out.
and has basically based a career off writing one screenplay with his BFF Affleck....He is a terrible actor and not very talented IMO... If a movie has him in it, I pass... I LOVED the Bruce Lee series The Green Hornet! I never saw any of his movies... Up until recently, I had not seen a Tarantino movie that I liked, BUT I did enjoy Once Upon A Time.... I am STILL not fan, but I did enjoy that movie....
It's funny how everyone has their own opinion on who the worst actors are. In my case, I cannot stand Nicolas Cage, Matthew McConaughey, and Richard Gere. I think they're all one-note and nowhere near as cool as they seem to think they are. Sad to say, my opinion of Robert De Niro has slipped as well. It just seems like he's always playing himself, particularly with that clownish face of his.
Cage is an interesting study in self-destruction.
After his initial performance (to rave reviews, BTW) in Raising Arizona, starring opposite Hollie Hunter, he went off on a binge. Prior to that you could see his potential in Moonstruck....which I think earned Cher an Oscar....terrific bit of film.
Cage apparently at one time owned multiple houses and had a motorcycle AND auto collection as well as simply blowing a huge sum on nonsense.
As a result, his career suffered. He was in substantial TAX TROUBLE and ended up doing many films simply for the payday. When an actor does THAT, you can bet they are 'on the ropes'. Some of his works during this phase were AWFUL. Like that movie where he was on a motorcycle? I thought Lord Of War was OK, not up to snuff.
Too much is never enough
Cage grew up as well...Known to the locals as "Nicky" he was a bit of a juvenile delinquent always in trouble at school and basically anywhere he went. As I said below, he only got where he got because of his connections.... As you mentioned, he displayed some talent early on, but pissed it away on bad decisions in a professional life. It would seem that he didn't learn much in his youth.... My Brother-in-law just shakes his head and laughs when you mention his name....
any success were he not related to F.F. Coppola... DeNiro is a more complicated case. He has had some great parts and roles through the years. I've always liked him best in roles that went basically unnoticed... Ever seen Falling In Love? You should check it out if not...he is very good in it. There are other s of course. Matt Mc and Rich Gere same thing SOME effective roles...
That's just ... wrong.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
His "Tears in the Rain" monologue made that movie indelible in memory. One reviewer said it was the most moving death soliloquy in cinematic history. After filming it the entire movie crew gave him an onset ovation. His entire performance as an enhanced being was perfect. He was supposed to be superior in physical and mental aspects, but short in emotional development. All of the synthetics had that simple childlike aspect.I thought it was very good. The problem with revisiting these classics after awhile is that we do it with a more critical eye. We start dissecting.
Edits: 04/22/20
I have said for many years that is very difficult for older films to hold up with a modern eye. The reality is that we have advanced (most of us) and the films have not.
Take the horror movie "Halloween" When that came out it was one of the scariest films made - it was the first of it's kind - sort of - in that it was a modern Psycho. It inspired all the lesser slasher films that followed. There is no blood in Halloween either - which is a side issue.
But Carpenter liked the lengthy shots. There is a scene where the main protagonist Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) walks up to a house that goes for several minutes - just her walking up the street to a house where the killer resides. The audience knows Michael is in there and in the late 1970s audiences were yelling at the screen - don't go in the house - Micheal is there etc.
Scary stuff.
But today - it is "slow and boring" because audiences have moved on and that scene would be 8 seconds not several minutes.
Go back further to pretty much everything before 1960 and the acting is so comical - they just had no modern acting ability and no one talked like the way they talked in movies. I can't remember the term - "realism" but in today's films people talk like people talk in the real world not "frankly my dear I don't give a damn" or "STELLLLLLLLAAAAAAA" - I mean for a modern audience the characters - even in classic movies - have about as much depth as a cartoon. And even then a modern cartoon (animated feature) comes off more real.
So we have to try and watch these films with the lens of the time period it was made in and not by modern standards.
Science Fiction suffers largely because they usually rely on special effects - and what was GREAT in 1980 is basically beaten by every episode of Star Trek Picard - a TV show.
With Blade Runner - there are apparently 8 different edits of this movie and depending which one you saw - it may influence your entire take of the film. I remember seeing a non narrated version - a narrated version by Harrison Ford and an extended cut. Ridley Scott and Ford do not agree on whether Deckard is a a replicant. Ford says he is human.
"Being a Blade Runner means to slaughter replicants, which are physically indistinguishable from humans. Naturally, it's a job which quickly desensitizes one to human suffering, making the Blade Runners gradually lose their capacity for empathy, but technically, remaining human. It's the whole "he who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster," thing. From that perspective, no, Deckard is not a replicant. But it doesn't really matter. He might as well be."
I have not seen Blade Runner in many years but I suspect that pacing will be an issue for a modern audience and while I like Harrison Ford he more or less plays himself - that's not a bad thing - There are movie stars and then there are actors. Ford is a movie star.
Kevin Costner once noted that he had to choose movies that were good because he wasn't talented enough to carry (elevate) mediocre movies like a Jack Nicholson. An actor and a star can elevate mediocre material to some degree but Costner and arguably Harrison Ford can't.
I do remember I liked the little scientist guy in Blade Runner played by William Sanderson - he was memorable as Larry from Larry, Darryl and Darryl on the Bob Newhart Show (second series). I liked his small performance.
gotta disagree on Marlon Brando as Stanley in A Streetcar Named Desire. He chewed up the screen. James Dean gave a similar performance in East of Eden which had some terrific shots as well. Speaking of Kazan flicks, "Baby Doll" is a fun one.
For an interesting and somewhat creepy little film from back in the day, check out Todd Browning's "Freaks".
Not sure how many "graveside service" scenes appear in film, but the very best is in Russ Meyer's "Mudhoney". It's a cringe-worthy scene and a hoot to boot! (The rest of the film is not so great.)
Another hootenanny of a film is "God's Little Acre" with a steamy performance from Tina Louise.
You can't dismiss Sunset Blvd or Fellini, Kurosawa and Bergman films just because they were made in the 50s and 60s. Welles' Touch of Evil has one of the best opening scenes in film history (even with Heston as a Mexican).
a
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
