Fairness guaranteed

Rating: 5/10 (19 August 2006)

I want this review to be as fair as possible, citing the philosophical and ethical questions this movie raises while also noting its blatant shortcomings. First i am appalled by the reviews i read saying that this movie looked visually stunning even in today's CGI era. To all those that believe this to be true i beg you to go to your doctor and get your cataracts examined as i am fearful to drive the same roads as you. Every scene involving a visual effect was so clearly fake that it is hard to give this world of the "future" much credibility as a real living and breathing entity. This highlights one of the first major mistakes Scott made in directing this movie. It is impossible to have a movie that is timeless when it is so clearly a casualty of the post Kubrick sci fi era of the early 80's. Why is it that the future world so resembles the 80's with its harsh lighting, big hair, punk rocker leather, and neon signs? Wouldn't the people of the future learn from the appalling aesthetic mistakes of the long forgotten 80's? Apparently not. Although it's clear Ridley Scott wanted to make the world dystopian and harsh it is so forced and so touched by 80's influences that it loses traction in the modern era. The good scenes, the ones that highlight the timeless nature of this film, are those that are inside and devoid of special effects. These scenes call a striking resemblance to the re noir movies of old with the long shadows that are cast and the gritty appeal they lend to the lonesome detective Harrison Ford portrays. So enough with the setting and abysmal effects and on to the story. Now overall the questions raised by this movie are not in the least original (read Frankenstein by Mary Shelly) nor mind blowing but they are none the less important. I praise any director who creates a movie in search of a higher meaning, a more important purpose than sheer entertainment, but i cannot laud a film that is completely devoid of believable action or a large enough explanation of its narrative. Many positive reviewers cite the film's ambiguity as its strength but i find this most foolish as the best of movies are able to spur debate while not being lost in their own vagueness. We know very little about Harrison Ford's character and the endless debates that follow around him are not in my opinion an extension of Scott's brilliance but rather a display of his contempt for his simple minded audience. The actors, with exception of Ford, are seemingly confused and out of place and so serious and so apathetic that it is impossible to care about them just as the world they live in cares little for their existence. They are all also so clearly displaced from the 1980's into 2017 culture which, as noted earlier, obviously has gained little in the way of advances. The Chemistry between Ford and his "replicant" lover is so inexistent that it makes me question whether or not this was Scott's intention. Perhaps it is just another buried metaphor about the nature of love in a sociopathic future, who knows. I believe that Scott's examination of what it is to be human and to what extent our apathy for human emotions exist, is poignant and very worthy of the praise he has received from many reviewers, however, the futuristic median by which he expresses it folds under the pressure of its own outdated style. It is disheartening to so a movie that has such good intentions be muddled by its sci fi median. Something that is so often the case with 80's era sci fi filmaking. Only movies such as the original Star Wars or Star Trek series have been able to so far stand the test of time without scrutiny, despite lacking the deep philosophical questions raised by a movie such as Blade Runner. As such i'm left deeply conflicted by this movie. I am assured that this movie will not stand as a timeless classic as the next generation of movie goers will find it slow and worthlessly outdated. And yet i hope more movies such as this will be made, ones that examine human complexities and bring them to light but i pray such films are able to do such without relying on technical visual style. Sci Fi is an almost impossible median by which such movies can be made since it seems technology moves so exponentially that things are outdated the second they come into existence. This is the, above all, major problem i have with Scott's movie. Any person under the age of 30 will find it laughably unbelievable and will therefore be less impressed by its message. The movies that are greatest transcend such scrutiny because they let their IDEAS exist at the forefront, not technology. As such i believe that if i were older, or seeing Blade Runner when it was initially released i would be much more impressed with it. But given that i cannot cling to nostalgia to alter my views of an obviously flawed movie i am left with a muddled, over the top, 80's style sci fi film, that has the greatest of messages wrapped in the most absurd of packaging. If you are under 30, no matter how mature or intellectual you are, i'd steer completely clear of this movie, it will bore you and make you apathetic to its complexities.