tgarrett007

I don't know why everybody rips this movie. The special effects are very realistic, down to the pink-tinted Martian sky. The plot is plausible (for science fiction), paying attention to many small details that often make these kinds of movies farcical. Most important, it's very existential; humans simply trying to survive against almost insurmountable odds. As the struggle builds, the relationships begin to gel nicely. This IS a movie about human relationships, not Star Wars style hype. I know, there are some weak spots. The opening and closing dialog, Val Kilmer whispering all the way through, some of the dialog, etc. But overall, this movie doesn't try to do too much (unlike the abysmal Mission To Mars), and that's what makes it a success.

I was forced to watch this by my girlfriend, and i promised to keep an open mind. By the end of this film i was beside myself, and even she was nodding off. I liked Hugh Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral. But then, he had a tight script and a great supporting cast. Since then, he has played a variety of "reluctant bachelor" roles, each and every one the same. Has anyone realised yet that this guy has exactly one act to play? He's as predictable as a Van Damme movie. Coupled with Hugh is the equally predictable Sandra Bullock. Now, she can act a bit but has been typcast as the "tough masculine woman" too many times now (Miss Congeniality was funny only because Shatner stole the show). You put these two together and you get the totally predictable yawner that i vehemently warned about before we rented it. Unfortunately, Hollywood churns these turds out by the hundred every year, which is probably why the independent film business is growing exponentially. If you like Hugh and his "watch my eyebrows gyrate when i talk" then fine. Otherwise, stand tall and don't let your better half convince you to waste two hours of your life on this drivel.

This has been my all-time favorite film for 6 or 7 years now; there have been few challenges (like Tiger Wood's reign, I suppose). I am still in awe every time i sit down to watch this film (every six months or so). To me, what makes Blade Runner so effective is the way Ridley Scott juxtaposes his technological vision of the future, as seen through the architecture, flying cars, and replicants, with the vulnerable and fragile human condition of today, as seen through Deckard and J.F.Sebastian. Harrison Ford is at his best here, playing a lonely and introspective character that is a far cry from the banal roles he played in Star Wars and Air Force One (among others). The tone of the entire film is somber (it is always raining), and this is what allow us to be so thoroughly absorbed by the fascinating characters (my favorite is Tyrell) and subtle plot development. The visuals are stunning. I can't stand today's computer-generated stuff because most of it looks fake. Ok, if you look closely you can see the models here, but when sitting back and absorbing the movie as a whole one doesn't really notice. I can't imagine that this film would do well today given its deliberate pace, but i think that this is what sets it apart from from your standard explosion-laced sci-fi fare. I like the slow pace, just as i did with the original "Alien" film; it gives you time to absorb the characters and study the visual component. The Vangelis score is superb. For any true BR fans, you need to get your hands on the score released abroad by Gongo Records (check ebay periodically). It has the full score: 17 tracks and 70 minutes, unedited Vangelis. Now, time to...