Search
Search results
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 24, 2019
Sci Fi Film Noir Masterpiece
When film scholars debate whether Alien or Blade Runner is director Ridley Scott's best film it is hard to make an argument against each as both are masterpieces It's funny that although they are both science fiction films, they are completely different in tone, style and action.
The art direction and cinematography are almost unmatched even under today's standards and then consider this movie is from 1982 and it is just astonishing. I won't argue with someone who says the film is slow developing or style or substance; however, I do not consider that a negative whatsoever. Consider it just another way to tell a story. Why do movies always have to follow the same formula to be considered a acceptable?
It is hard to believe the film only managed US box office of $27 million upon its original theatrical release. It's cult status was almost immediate along with the rise of home video and eventually DVD. The various cuts of the film and the vast and minor differences between them can make the meaning of the film quite different depending on how you interpret it.
The argument whether or not Deckard is a replicant could really depend on which version of the film you have seen or what you choose to believe.
Nevertheless, the film still stands the test of time as a sci fi classic and one of the most visually stunning films ever made!
The art direction and cinematography are almost unmatched even under today's standards and then consider this movie is from 1982 and it is just astonishing. I won't argue with someone who says the film is slow developing or style or substance; however, I do not consider that a negative whatsoever. Consider it just another way to tell a story. Why do movies always have to follow the same formula to be considered a acceptable?
It is hard to believe the film only managed US box office of $27 million upon its original theatrical release. It's cult status was almost immediate along with the rise of home video and eventually DVD. The various cuts of the film and the vast and minor differences between them can make the meaning of the film quite different depending on how you interpret it.
The argument whether or not Deckard is a replicant could really depend on which version of the film you have seen or what you choose to believe.
Nevertheless, the film still stands the test of time as a sci fi classic and one of the most visually stunning films ever made!
Kaz (232 KP) rated Shadows of the Wind in Books
Jul 28, 2019 (Updated Jul 28, 2019)
A fantastic Novel
I was recommended this book by a friend who has read this book, and its follow up books, many times.
When I first started reading this, I thought that it was going to be a fantasy novel. It's a lot more than that.
Firstly, I thought that the writing was fantastic. This novel was originally written in Spanish, but the English version I read was very well translated. It was poetic and beautiful. This story is a brilliant mixture of suspense, humour and intrigue, which has vivid, almost noir depictions of Barcelona which I loved. I loved how the plot weaved, twisted and turned and still remained understandable. Occasionally the plot slowed a little, but actually, I liked that, because it meant that you could really take in the atmosphere, the writer was creating. In fact, I slowed down whilst reading this, so that it wouldn't end.
I loved the characters in this novel. Even though Daniel is the main protagonist in this novel, for me Fermin, was better. I loved his humour and, even though he is a homeless person, he was still portrayed as incredibly intelligent.
I've read a lot of books in my time, but by far, I think this is the best book I've ever read. I think this is going to be a book that I'll read again and again. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the novels in this series.
When I first started reading this, I thought that it was going to be a fantasy novel. It's a lot more than that.
Firstly, I thought that the writing was fantastic. This novel was originally written in Spanish, but the English version I read was very well translated. It was poetic and beautiful. This story is a brilliant mixture of suspense, humour and intrigue, which has vivid, almost noir depictions of Barcelona which I loved. I loved how the plot weaved, twisted and turned and still remained understandable. Occasionally the plot slowed a little, but actually, I liked that, because it meant that you could really take in the atmosphere, the writer was creating. In fact, I slowed down whilst reading this, so that it wouldn't end.
I loved the characters in this novel. Even though Daniel is the main protagonist in this novel, for me Fermin, was better. I loved his humour and, even though he is a homeless person, he was still portrayed as incredibly intelligent.
I've read a lot of books in my time, but by far, I think this is the best book I've ever read. I think this is going to be a book that I'll read again and again. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the novels in this series.
Sunburn: A Novel
Book
"Lippman is a natural storyteller at the height of her powers." - Lee Child, #1 New York Times...
The Blue Horse
Book
Recently bereaved, George Newhouse, is an art historian and newly appointed curator at the National...
The Teleportation Accident
Book
LONGLISTED FOR THE 2012 MAN BOOKER PRIZE AN OBSERVER BOOK OF THE YEAR A DAILY TELEGRAPH BOOK OF THE...
Inherent Vice
Book
Read the cult classic behind the major new film starring Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon and Josh...
Wolf Winter
Book
'Like a silent fall of snow; suddenly, the reader is enveloped...visually acute, skilfully...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2019 (Updated Sep 20, 2019)
The crown jewel in Fox's X-Men saga
Logan is easily one of the best comic book movies out there.
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .
Nestlé Dessert
Food & Drink and Entertainment
App
Encore plus de services et d’idées gourmandes grâce à l’application Nestlé Dessert : une...