The Official Movie Thread

Like A Short Film About Love, it's been released and edited in different formats, with differences, or at least I imagine with differences. I saw it in the longest format, the multi part series, but I think a singular film exists as well.
 
Videodrome
The Night Porter
The 39 Steps
Mulholland Drive
They Live
Hardware
Dust Devil
Stupendous taste! You know there's a documentary making the festival rounds about the disaster that became of what was intended to be Richard Stanley's Island of Dr. Moreau? Its too bad he got fucked like so many talents too by the studio system because it looked like he was going to be the next big cult auteur. I revisited both Hardware and Dust Devil not too long ago and both still hold up (although there's that scene in Hardware where GWAR is seen on the TV while Ministry is on the soundtrack, what's up with that?) Anyway yeah. Amazing films.
 
I haven't seen the documentary or the Island of Dr. Moreau film itself. I like Stanley but I wouldn't say either of those two films of his that I've seen would ever reach a top 5 or 10 if I were to rank that list in order. They lack a certain level of emotion and depth.
 
I'll have to disagree with Dust Devil lacking emotion. I felt there was plenty, the most obvious being Ben's struggle with the death of his son and his wife leaving with him. Wendy's storyline had plenty too, her needing to escape and all. Very metaphysical film if you were to really break it down. Technically of course its astounding. I swear one day I'm going to Namibia and visiting all the locations.
 
^

From Mental Floss:

Blade Runner has actually gone through many iterations. There was the theatrical cut released in 1982 with a “happy ending” shoehorned in by the studio. Both director Ridley Scott and star Harrison Ford hated it, and Ford has even confessed that he wasn’t giving it his all when recording a voiceover that he called “not an organic part of the film.” Then came the “directors cut” in 1992 that Scott also disowned.

Finally, Warner Brothers worked with Scott in 2007 to release the Final Cut of Blade Runner, the only version which Scott had complete control over. It contained several changes (particularly to the score) and new scenes, but perhaps the most significant was the confirmation (or close to it) that Ford’s character Deckard actually was a replicant. Instead of the “happy ending” that shows Deckard and Rachel driving through a beautiful landscape, Scott’s ending is more ambiguous and simply shows them leaving Deckard's apartment. Plus the appearance of an origami unicorn in front of Deckard’s door hints that he is, in fact, a replicant (a similar calling card had been used earlier in the film to denote replicants). In interviews about the new release, Scott confirmed that Deckard was a replicant in his version, although Ford said he believed the character was human.

also - https://ardfilmjournal.wordpress.co...nner-and-the-postmodern-use-of-mise-en-scene/
 
The Vanishing (1988) - a chilling look into a sociopath as he practices and ultimately perfects his routine

Messiah of Evil (1973) - cool low budget surreal cult zombie film. the acting is pretty terrible so if you can get past that and/or like italian horror check it out. it's not italian but there are similarities to the use of color in this film that is not unlike what you'd expect from an Argento film
 
Blade Runner, in all its instantiations, is a masterpiece of SF filmmaking. Its genius derives from its refusal to cater to popular tastes, which is a natural symptom of adapting the original Philip K. Dick novel, which every fan of the film should read.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is perhaps the first work of literature to explicitly challenge our tendency to humanize everything around us. Dick's novel, and Scott's film adaptation, pose the following dilemma: when we can no longer tell machines from humans, what marks the difference between us?

This dilemma offers two potential solutions: either we humanize machines (the nearly universal solution), or we acknowledge that we ourselves are nothing more than machines (the less popular solution).

The scene with the mall and the mannequins in Blade Runner is just a genius complement to this theme.
 
The Vanishing (1988) - a chilling look into a sociopath as he practices and ultimately perfects his routine

Messiah of Evil (1973) - cool low budget surreal cult zombie film. the acting is pretty terrible so if you can get past that and/or like italian horror check it out. it's not italian but there are similarities to the use of color in this film that is not unlike what you'd expect from an Argento film

Spoorloos/OG Vanishing is so good. So much bettah than the Sutherland remake. Have you caught the Norwegian(Maybe Swedish?) original of Insomnia? Also better than Pacino/Williams one

Blade Runner, in all its instantiations, is a masterpiece of SF filmmaking. Its genius derives from its refusal to cater to popular tastes, which is a natural symptom of adapting the original Philip K. Dick novel, which every fan of the film should read.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is perhaps the first work of literature to explicitly challenge our tendency to humanize everything around us. Dick's novel, and Scott's film adaptation, pose the following dilemma: when we can no longer tell machines from humans, what marks the difference between us?

This dilemma offers two potential solutions: either we humanize machines (the nearly universal solution), or we acknowledge that we ourselves are nothing more than machines (the less popular solution).

The scene with the mall and the mannequins in Blade Runner is just a genius complement to this theme.

Had to buy that book the other day for my upcoming film class. Survey sadly, but hopefully we have some good discussion. My high school one was a good foot in the door.

The theme is pretty obvious, but maybe i'll watch it again. I don't think i've seen it in a year or two.

But I hope you aren't asserting that my inability to enjoy Blade Runner is because I enjoy popular film
 
I don't think you're unable to enjoy the film; I'm only commenting on my own position.

Blade Runner is an example of popular film, even though it bucks the conventions of popular film.
 
Spoorloos/OG Vanishing is so good. So much bettah than the Sutherland remake. Have you caught the Norwegian(Maybe Swedish?) original of Insomnia? Also better than Pacino/Williams one

no but it's funny that you mention that as i watched Nolan's Insomnia on netflix a few day ago. it's easily his worst film. is the original on hulu plus? i know it's a criterion release but i don't feel like paying $20-25 for the blu-ray of a film i have not seen.
 
Jage what aspect of Blade Runner makes it a top20 film all time for you? Watched it again last night, read some opinions on it and curious for yours
 
well that list has 28 films in it, so i don't know if it is or not, haven't ordered it in my mind. I'd have to watch it again to say for sure. I like the way kind of felt more like a book than a typical film somehow. The visuals and the audio are stellar and the story is very cool. Other factors I'd have to check again, I just remember it being "that good".
 
Spoilers I guess, on a 30 year old film.



I think the story is the weakest part. It's not a crime drama, it's not a quest or realization of humanity, nor is it a story about love. It is an awkwardly made drama of an old tired human blade runner who is just tasked out. I think the point about questioning humanity is really irrelevant. This society is not believable, in my opinion, that there would be no differentiation between humans and replicants. It simply doesn't make sense, especially in the context that they are only used as sex objects, war machines and slaves. The only time that I can think of in the film where a replicant is used as part of day to day life is with Tyrell and his prototype, Rachael.

Her storyline is interesting, but the film doesn't explore it enough to make it a significant part of the film. Scott does not delve into her doubts about questioning her whole life, nor what's it liked to know yourself as a replicant among humans. Apparently there is a number that is incredibly small remaining on Earth. The love angle is incredibly weird in its own right. Why does Deckard get knowingly attached to a person who has a 4 year life span? Is his love blind and doesn't really matter because he had sex once and ruined her life? I dunno, it doesn't really make sense to me nor is a good direction of the film.

Now i've read countless opinions that Gaff's character is some sort of master searcher of replicants and his origami usage is a clear indication of who are replicants, according to the same people who probably believe everything about Room 237. If you believe that Deckard is a replicant, I would really love to hear your reasoning, because the only thing that anyone seems to use as evidence is Scott's opinion 20 years after the film was made and this origami aspect. Even if he is a replicant, the film doesn't delve into his doubts at all and only brings it up once, when he is asleep and Rachel asks him. I do not think the film makes you/me critically analyze his human-ness nor does that mean anything to humanity.

I guess the last aspect is the actual story itself. Somehow, 6 replicants abducted a spaceship and killed 23 people and flew that back into Earth where apparently there are no radar systems nor Air Forces that would allow a ship full of known violent replicants back onto Earth. But, let's just skip that and accept that it's now Deckard's mission to kill these evil replicants and save the human race. Here are the 6 replicants he's chasing. Two are written off in the film for whatever reason, and Leon, Roy and Pris all seem to be looking for the same answer. "How do I live longer?" I just took a dumb sociology class about society's denial of death so this probably goes right with the study of thanatology and how even androids can be like "hey man I can beat death too!" But ok, we have setup the two opposing stories. One to kill replicants and the poor replicants who want to live forever, or at least more than 4 years. Zhora's storyline is nonexistant other than showcasing Deckard's great skill at finding replicants and his first instance of him getting whooped on throughout the entire film, by replicants. Leon obviously dies shortly after by Rachael which fuels their insatiable love and then we follow Pris and Roy the rest of the film.

Pris' character is weak in that she like Zhora flaunts her sexuality to get by on Earth and try and go up the hierarchy of the Tyrell corp. Her weird gymnastic routine that leads to her death is weird to say the least(how human like is that or her death?) and then we move to Roy. Supposedly a military replicant who leads this group, but for some odd reason he toys with Deckard instead of killing him, even though he somehow knows this is last hours alive(how cheesy is the dove scene?). Why doesn't Roy fit his caricature? Who knows, but it doesn't really make sense.

All in all, this is what I see in the film and i'm curious to your Blade Runner supporters in what you think. I have read some articles that call this one of the most overrated films, but I don't think it's that bad. Just not worthy of any kind of great praise.
 
Why isn't it believable that a society would craft replicants that are indistinguishable from humans?

The film is making a point. If what people want are replicants of human beings, then the logical end result is that you want a replica that is indistinguishable from the real thing. You're using your replicant for sex? How effective would it be if you could easily tell that you were fucking a replicant? The urgency of technological development moves toward total simulacrum - a perfect simulation of the "real" thing.

The problem is, when you reach this hypothetical point, what actual difference is there between a human and a machine? This is far more powerful in the novel: not that we humanize machines, but that human beings might be nothing more than machines. It's a figurative movement, to be sure; the film acknowledges humanity's advanced state of technological development and asks "How, when we have so many various technologies mediating our experience with reality, can we call ourselves 'human' anymore, in the sense it once meant?"

If you're using a replicant to get off, are you actually have sex? Would you call using a fake vagina "having sex"? We want perfect simulations of the real things, so as to avoid the messiness that comes along with reality; but if technology continues to develop increasingly perfected models, the line between reality and artificiality begins to blur.

Furthermore, the symbolic utility of these androids is that they are treated like nothing more than slaves - thus what their primary uses are. They manipulate people through sexuality and other means because this is all they have, unless they engage in physical violence. The whole entire symbol of the "android" is bound up with all kinds of uneasy questions about sexuality, identity, etc., which is what makes them uncanny. Pris's athletic routine is a kind of embodiment of human motion and grace that makes us uneasy because she isn't human.

Earth is a wasteland in the narrative - relegated to a third-world colony and polluted with nuclear waste. It's reasonable to suspend our disbelief for a moment and entertain the idea that their radar systems aren't all operational.

Don't sadistic human killers "toy" with their prey? The basic ontological problem faced by the androids in the film is that they actually do feel human, but they know they're not.

The question goes deeper than the human/nonhuman divide, and how do we tell the difference. It penetrates the core of human existential crisis, which is: "How do I know that what I think is 'me' is actually 'me'?"
 
106ykn4.gif