- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 14,989
- Liked Posts:
- 14,787
Are you guys talking about Blade Runner (1982), or Blade Runner 2049?
Im assuming, Bearsombie, you're talking about the 1982 version, right?
The original '82 film is a feast for the eyes and brain with its shot selection and lighting. I've only seen it 3 times. But I enjoyed it more the older I got.
Blade Runner 2049 is 2h 44m long. Honestly, for a film like this you have to commit to spending 2h 44m to see it. And it's a shame you can't see it in the theatre anymore, as that's the place to see it. It sets up its environment/world, which takes time. I'm not saying it isn't slow. Slow doesn't mean bad. It's the type of film it is.
This might just not be the type of film you like. I didn't like 2049 near as much as 1982, but I was still entertained.
The original was a very good movie with a great story... but the studio ruined it.
The voice over and the ending pretty much shit all over what was being told by the movie itself.
The second one was entertaining but pointless.
In a perfect cut of the movie, they would spend far less time on the identification methods for replicants and the creepy buildup to the love story and spent more time establishing the replicant "family ".
They spent a criminally short time on Roy, and his arc.
Him going from murderous replicant to ultimately forgiving Deckard and saving his life should have been more of a focus.
They show him fighting the physical shutdown of his body but don't really dig in to how he became "human" and placed a value on all life, no matter who it is.