Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Blade Runner (1982) Reaction! (Patreon)

Published:
2024-03-27 17:00:08
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Files

Blade Runner (1982) - Sesskasays

Download Edit (2.8 GB) Edited Reaction Alongside the regular multi-part full, you now have the option of watching an edited version of the full movie reaction with 10-15mins

Comments

Ryan

This movie had a lot riding on it as Ridley Scott's follow-up to his monster hit Alien (and even before that movie's sequel showed the true greatness the franchise could achieve), and actually pulled it off. And it's especially impressive that it happened in a severely compromised form, as the studio was very antsy about the public's willingness to go to such a heady, esoteric movie and forced some significant edits, most damagingly a film-long narration from Deckard to explain plot points they worried people would be too dumb to get (and honestly, given some of the idiots I've seen talking about movies like this lately and getting confused about stuff that was made perfectly clear, they might have been on to something). Ford hated the idea and deliberately recorded the whole thing with an irritatingly high-pitched monotone that even the movie's biggest fans at the time admitted was a serious obstacle to getting into it. And thankfully, that original version is now a lot harder to find than the Director's Cut that Scott was eventually able to put out. I just talked on the latest Bad Batch about those times when different crew members have conflicting ideas about the story, and this movie has maybe the ur-example with whether Deckard himself is a Replicant with false memories just like Rachel. Ford says he's human and Scott says he's not, and the really interesting thing is that the biggest evidence for the latter is only in the Director's Cut, with Deckard's dream about a unicorn that ties into how Gaff, presumably his handler, leaves an origami one for him. I'm writing this before watching the reaction so I'm very interested to see if you pick up on any of that (I sure didn't on my first viewing), and also if you noticed how Daryl Hannah's (maybe) death scene in Kill Bill is a deliberate copy of the one here with the way she flails around. But regardless of any of that, this is a seminal classic of the genre and a big part of the single greatest year that sci-fi and fantasy have ever had. Seriously, in 1982 you have Blade Runner, The Thing, The Secret of NIMH, The Wrath of Khan, ET, Creepshow, Tron, The Dark Crystal, Conan the Barbarian, The Last Unicorn, Beastmaster, and Halloween 3. Oh, and Megaforce, I guess.

Thomas Corp

Fair enough that you say that this is just one of those must-see films that you simply never got around to seeing for whatever reason. I do recall seeing a comment on an Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D reaction, now you mention it. Similarly, it is fair that you say you wish the film could have elaborated more on certain aspects of the film. This is my favorite film of 1982 and one of my favorite Ridley Scott pictures. It has had quite a cultural impact, despite it initially being a critical and commercial failure. Siskel and Ebert gave two thumbs down, though they both admired the visuals; Gene Siskel making a point of saying it was pretty to look at. Though Roger Ebert eventually came around on the film giving a four-star rating to the final cut which was included in his great movies list. Harrison Ford was often reluctant to talk about it for years due to he didn’t have the best time with it. Though with the subsequent cuts, he’s since warmed to the film and its impact on pop culture. It is often commented across all three versions of the film that the main plot/mystery of the film is not necessarily the strong suit of the film. About three years ago now, Turner Classic Movies had a month of Friday neo-noir, hosted by Ben Mankiewicz and Eddie Muller, and they commented much the same. It is, to some degree, fitting. In that as was discussed that month on Turner Classic Movies, the fundamental difference between a murder mystery/detective drama versus a film noir. A murder mystery’s focus is on the murder, the mystery. Noir is about the detective/chief protagonist of the film, and the journey they go through in the story. As you observed, the selling point is less the plot, but more the style and setting, which I like that you liked. A fantastic cast with great character actors such as Joe Turkel, the great James Hong, and the great M. Emmet Walsh, who recently died, sadly. I was sorry to hear about that as I love his work, Blood Simple being perhaps my favorite of his work. I knew you’d love Edward James Olmos as the enigmatic Gaff, who had impressive fashion. Don’t know the significance of “So say we all.” quote, nor the name, I think you said, “Adama”, but I know enough to gather that’s related to Battlestar Galactica, presumably. The love story is viewed less than favorably, and I anticipated your reaction to the “love” scene. Your comment, “What... in the HELL are you doing?” sums it up well. If it helps, Ridley Scott accepts blame for how that scene turned out. And to your point, you weren’t averse to the acting and plot, you took greater exception to the writing. I did quite enjoy your commentary on Rachael’s impressive coat collection. Likewise, I got a laugh over your observations about her up-do, which, though I’m no hairstyle expert, I concur that I seriously doubt she only had one bobby pin keeping it up. To the surprise of no one who knows you well, Zhora’s your least favorite character. Credit to Joanna Cassidy who yes, did indeed bring “the drama mama” as you described. Just a damn shame about those fucking snakes. Why’d it have to be snakes? And since this is my first viewing of the film since acquiring your fear of snakes, Jess, I was suffering right there with ya. Particularly, I shared the greatest discomfort when the snake started making noises, to the point I felt food starting to back up on me, leading me to note, “Why did I eat before I watched this?” I forgot about the earlier snake appearance, which gave me a start just as it did you. It’s been too long since I’ve seen the film, I guess. Because of that, I got terrified there was further snake appearance that I forgot about causing both you and I more distress, but as you saw, following Zhora’s death, the film was done with the snakiness, mercifully. Daryl Hannah is great as Pris and her scenes with Sebastion were unsettling, like his toys were. The reaction you had to Sebastian’s toys was fantastic. You’re not wrong, those things are creepy as sin. Naturally, this means I like them. The best character is Roy. Rutger Hauer was magnificent in the role. I loved hearing your thoughts on having the sympathy for him and the other replicants of wanting more life. All culminating in the climactic showdown in the Bradbury Building. And the famous “Tears in rain” monologue, which I was most appreciative of your reaction to that.

Thomas Corp

Now to address an aspect of the film that you said you wish you got more of: The idea that people might be replicants and might not even know it. Which brings us to the central debate of whether Deckard is a replicant. This has been arguably the film’s most enduring legacy in the over forty years following its release. There are differing opinions across the board. Ridley Scott has always said yes, hence the stronger hints in both the director’s cut and the final cut, the latter is my preferred version of the film, by the way. Harrison, Rutger, and the screenwriters have firmly said no, although apparently, Harrison has somewhat come around to the idea that Deckard is a replicant. The film critic Mark Kermode is a strong supporter of the idea in the affirmative. The previously mentioned hosts of Turner Classic Movies said they liked the conflicting interpretations, both from the filmmakers and audiences. And as has been noted by so many, the overarching theme of the film is to question the idea of existence; the theme of identity. Which is why I ultimately prefer the ambiguity, the uncertainty. Going back to Roger Ebert, his once wrote that, “all we can say for sure is that director Ridley Scott has left clues in various versions of his film that can be used to prove that Deckard is a human... or a replicant.” My own thoughts are the idea that Deckard doesn’t even know, but throughout the film, humanity is awakened or reawakened within him. And it begs observations: Is he a replicant whose humanity is awakened; he does not know, nor do we. Is he a human whose humanity is reawakened; he does not know, nor do we. We will never know, perhaps Deckard will never fully know, not with complete certainty anyway, and the opaqueness of the truth is fantastic. And indeed, we end with Deckard pondering that as he and Rachael, who yes, as you note, her actions could be interpreted as she has fallen for Deckard, or simply feels that he is her best shot at survival, head off into the uncertain future as we hear the echo of Gaff’s famous line, “It’s too bad she won’t live! But then again, who does?” Or... at least that would have been the ending in the theatrical cut were it not for the studio mandating the ending that you saw, which, though I don’t agree, I do like that you liked the theatrical ending. This tends not to be a popular opinion, hence its absence in the director’s and final cuts of the film. So, if nothing else, Jess, I found it refreshing that you had no overt issue with the ending of the theatrical cut. I feel I should tell you that if you plan on putting on the poll the Blade Runner sequel, I’m fully supportive of that if you did, you might want to watch the director’s and/or final cut before watching the second film, whether it wins on the poll or you simply view it in your own time as the sequel was made as a sequel to the latter cuts not the theatrical version. In any event, I am happy to see you enjoyed the film, and it was a lovely reaction, Jess, thank you.

Ryan
>>133532343

For another great perspective on the film, I highly recommend William Sanderson's memoir, the perfectly titled Yes, I'm That Guy. He puts an incredible amount of thought and work into even his smallest roles, and his take on Blade Runner is especially deep and interesting.

Saltire

Which version is this? The standard voice-over one, or the Directors Cut? Not seen Bladerunner in a while though the one made the other year was a decent follow-up, though Zimmer is no Vangelis when it comes to the music!

Thomas Corp
>>133544936

It was the theatrical cut with the voice-over that Jess watched. Before I rewatched it again to prepare for the reaction, I think the last time I saw Blade Runner, that is, the final cut, was three years ago. So, it was some time.