Blade Runner (1982) 6 of 10. (US cut)

-I had never seen this film before or any of its variants. I think because it was an R-rated film in 1982 that's why I couldn't see it (I was 13 then; I didn't see an R-rated film theatrically until the following year when I saw "Blue Thunder") and subsequently I just never had the inkling to check it out though I have always been aware of the central controversy between the original theatrical cut and the subsequent cuts and the "Is Harrison Ford a replicant?" debate. So as a result I went into this film with fresh eyes about the story but aware about this controversy (I still have a copy of Laurent Bouzereau's early 90s book "Cutting Room Floor" which has a chapter on this and all the re-edits). As for the film itself......I guess because it's taken me 40 years to finally see it, I'm just not capable of being overwhelmed by it the way longtime fans are, though I get how its visual style is considered a trendsetter for a lot of things we associate with the 80s. I may have also been held back somewhat because of an unfortunate coincidence about this film to something from two decades later, namely the reimagined "Battlestar Galactica" and the presence of Edward James Olmos in both. I now get completely how Olmos got recruited to that project because he was basically given a show that borrows a good chunk of its central conceit from "Blade Runner" (basically all the humanoid Cylons of that version can be said to be "replicants" and as the show went on we were getting silly games of which long-time character is really a Cylon etc. So honestly, my biggest takeaway from seeing "Blade Runner" for the first time ended up being a validation of what a cheap plagiarist Ron Moore was in his overrated version of Galactica).

-The story itself I didn't think was particularly grabbing or profound. Maybe what I never got was the sense of just why is the existence of replicants so dangerous to human society as a whole that requires their termination? We are told via narration that conceivably innocent humans could be at risk but where are the examples that really show this threat? Why is the company still allowed to keep a replicant like Sean Young around and why hasn't the government (assuming one still exists!) shut the company that makes them down? I think that too stopped me from being impressed because I had too many "first guess" questions as this was unfolding that maybe I wouldn't have had if I'd seen this on the big screen when it first came out but seeing it for the first time as an adult all these decades later and in the context of what's been out since and what I'd already read, I wasn't going to be bowled over like an early 80s first-time viewer I'm sure was.

-The Vangelis score I have to admit worked. In fact the visuals and the score did strike a chord with me in reminding me of all the 80s visuals I associated with all the Disney/EPCOT attractions of the 80s I took in so I can see the visual influence of "Blade Runner" on a lot of things. And when I heard the end credits music, I recognized something I had heard cover versions of in sports broadcasts in the 80s and never until this minute realized was the "Blade Runner" music so that was an interesting revelation too.

Some films I think that become classics for a lot of people can't be fully appreciated if they're seen by people who have already learned too much about them prior to their first viewing. Similarly, I don't think there are many people out there who see "Psycho" today without knowing what's coming or who haven't already ready about it beforehand so I'm willing to write off my lower rating of this film to waiting too long to see it. Maybe if I'd seen it a few decades before I would have given it an extra point or point and a half.

I got a used BR of the five disc set with all the cuts of the film. I wanted to start with the original theatrical cut. Re-reading the Bouzereau book, the "International" Theatrical cut just has more gore which I don't want to see so I think I'll take a look at the "workprint" version for the heck of it and not bother with Scott's preferred version of Ford as replicant.

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 10:50 am
The film stars Jason Statham (you know what you're in for right there) as a reclusive beekeeper with (of course) a "mysterious past", who sets about avenging a friend who has been robbed of her entire life savings by phone scammers. The premise is basically cribbed from The Equalizer, but the script is actually decent (and with a little re-writing might well have made a decent Equalizer sequel).

I thought that too afterwards -- this was basically EQUALIZER lite, but even though it was violent, the violence was somehow less "sadistic" than THE EQUALIZER and the tone itself was more appealing. The ridiculousness of it all eschewed the harsh body count.

Predictably there's no end of graphic violence in this movie, which is frequently ridiculous, but that just adds to the charm. One scene in particular, where Statham does away with one of the lower-level baddies -- by trying him to an unoccupied truck which he sends careening into a river -- is one of the funniest things I've seen in over a decade! Kudos also to cinematographer Gabriel Beristain, who bathes the film in gorgeous lighting, resulting in a satiating visual style.

He shot DOLORES CLAIBORNE and did a phenomenal job with that movie, too.

The Beekeeper is set (again, like The Equalizer) in Massachusetts -- but the occasional establishing shots of the Berkshires or Boston can't hide that all the scenes with the actual actors are obviously filmed in England.

The funniest element there was that climax in a coastal castle which, really, doesn't resemble anything in the US. Between that, those flags, and the hilariously colorful get-up that tattooed assassin guy had on, I was like, this ain't the USA. Or any kind of party the President of the United States would be at.

Interesting though, the director and writer were both American, so however the money came together, they got an infusion from multiple places.

On a more personal note, I appreciated that this film centered on the punishment of phone scammers -- my dad got taken to one of those "You're computer is infected with a virus" websites last year, and promptly called the number and started giving them his information. Fortunately I was there and saw what he doing and put a stop to it. I doubt The Beekeeper will go down as "a cautionary tale" about the dangers of phishing scams -- but I did enjoy seeing those people eviscerated and burned alive.

When you look at all the crime, squatters, protestors, drug addicts, etc. going on all around the nation, now is the time to remake something like DEATH WISH -- a reactionary film to what's happening would make MAJOR dollars. And THE BEEKEEPER did so well for what it was because it was topical (though in reality aren't these call centers mostly in India?).

Alas, Hollywood is too far up woke river and DEI to make that kind of thing -- even if it would be a surefire hit speaking to the world around us right now.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 11:55 am When you look at all the crime, squatters, protestors, drug addicts, etc. going on all around the nation, now is the time to remake something like DEATH WISH -- a reactionary film to what's happening would make MAJOR dollars. And THE BEEKEEPER did so well for what it was because it was topical (though in reality aren't these call centers mostly in India?).

Alas, Hollywood is too far up woke river and DEI to make that kind of thing -- even if it would be a surefire hit speaking to the world around us right now.

The woke dam is cracking even now, and when it breaks, movies are going to become SO violent, profane, sexually-charged and ruthlessly reactionary to today's societal woes that it'll make the last decade seem even more sheepish and toothless than it seems right now. We want violence, sex, satisfying "Frontier Justice", and a blissful lack of They/Them pronouns. The fact that something like The Beekeeper made only about $50 million less than the last MCU movie is proof that tastes are shifting away from glossy greenscreen F/X nonsense and back towards old-school fisticuffs, car chases and explosions, and I'm all for it.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 11:42 pm -The story itself I didn't think was particularly grabbing or profound. Maybe what I never got was the sense of just why is the existence of replicants so dangerous to human society as a whole that requires their termination? We are told via narration that conceivably innocent humans could be at risk but where are the examples that really show this threat?

For me the opening scroll made this pretty clear: "After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-world colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth". Bryant later fills-in Deckard on the fugitive replicants: "They slaughtered twenty-three people and jumped a shuttle." There is also the scene where they taunt Chew in his lab (and the inference is that they murder him). That's seem pretty dangerous to me!

As for the story...yeah, the film has the aesthetic trappings of a detective thriller -- but admittedly, there isn't a mystery to solve. Harrison Ford complained of the film "I was a detective with nothing to detect". But I see Blade Runner as more of a character study, the story of a burnt-out man who has lost his humanity -- who ironically learns what it means to be human from the artificial humans he has been sent to "retire". (Scott's insistence that "Deckard is replicant" of course destroys this character arc -- which is why I ignore Scott's interpretation.)

Why is the company still allowed to keep a replicant like Sean Young around and why hasn't the government (assuming one still exists!) shut the company that makes them down?

As replicants are vital to the Off World economy, I'd imagine Tyrell would be allowed to store their products on-site. Defense contractors in our age have all sorts of things in their factories which are illegal for ordinary citizens to own. Also, Rachel was an experimental model -- presumably more benign and physically weaker than the labor / combat models Deckard is hunting.

Allowing Rachel to believe she is "real" and an employee of the company, with her own home, etc. might be a technical "no-no", but one to which the authorities turn a blind eye, given Dr. Tyrell's importance to the economy (much in the way Steve Jobs used to park in handicapped spaces -- yet never received a ticket).

-The Vangelis score I have to admit worked. In fact the visuals and the score did strike a chord with me in reminding me of all the 80s visuals I associated with all the Disney/EPCOT attractions of the 80s I took in so I can see the visual influence of "Blade Runner" on a lot of things.

Blade Runner was certainly a huge trend-setter. The aesthetic of 1980s media design and photography owes a great debt to that film. It's influence is all over music videos, ads, and things like Brazil, Max Headroom, the Batman movies, etc. and even nightclubs.

As far as Vangelis, I was very disappointed when I learned he would be scoring the film. I was assuming (or at least hoping) Ridley Scott would re-team with Jerry Goldsmith. However I couldn't imagine anyone other than Vangelis scoring Blade Runner. His music is a particularly distinctive element in the film's overall aesthetic identity.

Some films I think that become classics for a lot of people can't be fully appreciated if they're seen by people who have already learned too much about them prior to their first viewing. Similarly, I don't think there are many people out there who see "Psycho" today without knowing what's coming or who haven't already ready about it beforehand so I'm willing to write off my lower rating of this film to waiting too long to see it.

That was my experience sadly. Psycho's twist was ruined by mom long before I saw it. My brother also ruined the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service for me, while Mike Rhonemus (who used to post here) spoiled both Yoda's Death and Vader's last-minute rescue of Luke in Jedi.

I wanted to start with the original theatrical cut. Re-reading the Bouzereau book, the "International" Theatrical cut just has more gore which I don't want to see so I think I'll take a look at the "workprint" version for the heck of it and not bother with Scott's preferred version of Ford as replicant.

There's nothing special about the international cut. It just shows blood gushing from Tyrell's eye sockets when Roy murders him, and later has a close-up of Roy's hand as he pierces with the nail. Otherwise I never noticed any difference. The international cut was also the only version originally released on VHS / Beta home video in the US.

The "Final Cut" does not contain any narration, so it would probably be confusing to anyone who hadn't seen the narrated version. I think the theatrical version is the best one. The narration might border on corny in places, but it helps to clarify things.

The "Workprint" is nothing more than a curiosity. The final half hour of the Workprint also contains temp music from Planet of the Apes and Humanoids from the Deep!

One thing that is interesting about the Workprint is that it opens not with the other cuts' scrolling "info dump" (which explains the film's scenario), but with a simple title card that displays the dictionary definition of "Replicant" -- which I thought was very clever. Tarantino later cribbed this idea for the opening of Pulp Fiction.

In any case, I consider Blade Runner a classic myself. I don't think any film before or since is as visually-imaginative or arresting. I also still consider it the greatest science fiction film ever made.

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 6:50 pm
For me the opening scroll made this pretty clear: "After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-world colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth". Bryant later fills-in Deckard on the fugitive replicants: "They slaughtered twenty-three people and jumped a shuttle." There is also the scene where they taunt Chew in his lab (and the inference is that they murder him). That's seem pretty dangerous to me!

That is a fair point and yes, I do remember those points but the problem is, I think we need to then *see* the replicants do something horrible to an innocent bystander on Earth to give us a reminder of why Ford has no choice but to do this job. Okay, he kills the other cop Holden at the beginning but that isn't the same thing as seeing a replicant on the loose and then doing something to an innocent. Something like that would have provided the necessary context that I think was absent in the film and which an on-screen or dialogue exposition couldn't completely cover for us in a film that is so caught up in its sense of visual style.

As for the story...yeah, the film has the aesthetic trappings of a detective thriller -- but admittedly, there isn't a mystery to solve. Harrison Ford complained of the film "I was a detective with nothing to detect". But I see Blade Runner as more of a character study, the story of a burnt-out man who has lost his humanity -- who ironically learns what it means to be human from the artificial humans he has been sent to "retire". (Scott's insistence that "Deckard is replicant" of course destroys this character arc -- which is why I ignore Scott's interpretation.)

I'm in 100% agreement on this. The idea of Deckard as a replicant makes no sense whatsoever from a storytelling standpoint and seems more like some kind of shock gimmick Scott wanted to impose without any regard for whether it fits into the narrative. Since the idea has no basis in the original literary source, this makes Scott's idea even more suspect.

The "Final Cut" does not contain any narration, so it would probably be confusing to anyone who hadn't seen the narrated version. I think the theatrical version is the best one. The narration might border on corny in places, but it helps to clarify things.

I have to agree with that. When I watched the "Workprint" later I realized how these scenes at the beginning would have had me going "Huh?" without the exposition. And yes, I did notice the POTA temp track.

I'm glad I finally saw it, but I'm never going to be able to view it as a classic because the timing didn't work out for me with this.

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 6:50 pm I don't think any film before or since is as visually-imaginative or arresting.

There's not a more influential film from a visual standpoint than this one. Not in my lifetime, and perhaps not ever. Even watching this film today is like stepping into its own aesthetic. It's not a film from 1982, it's BLADE RUNNER. Scott's visual language makes so many of his films "current" (up until SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME pretty much), ALIEN functions precisely the same way, but with BLADE RUNNER, it was so massively influential and compelling in its production design, art direction, cinematography, effects and score that it's a singular work existing on its own terms. It's a living, breathing, fascinating world to visit, and that mix of '40s detective noir and sci-fi is irresistible for me.

As I've always felt, the theatrical cut remains the best version, and the Deckard is a Replicant messaging has never worked for me. Scott has gone from "that's not the point" to "maybe that's the point" to "that IS the point" with multiple iterations of the film, each one weaker than the last. And the movie was also built for the voice-over. Heavy handed as some of the lines may be, that was needed for plot clarification and without it, the film feels like it's missing something (and it is!).

A true film classic, one that I've rewatched more times than any other movie in the last 20 years at least.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 1:15 am I think we need to then *see* the replicants do something horrible to an innocent bystander on Earth to give us a reminder of why Ford has no choice but to do this job. Okay, he kills the other cop Holden at the beginning but that isn't the same thing as seeing a replicant on the loose and then doing something to an innocent.

A movie should of course "show" rather than "tell", I agree.

But for me at least, it works that the replicants are depicted throughout the film as ruthless. Like the way Pris acts innocent and helpless when she meets J.F. Sebastian -- but as soon as he turns his back on her, Pris' expression (and Vangelis' music) tells us all we need to know about just how "innocent" she is. Later, the way Roy and Pris toy with Sebastian -- her seductively wrapping her legs around him, and their cajoling him to get them access to Tyrell -- again bespeaks their opportunism. They clearly have no care or empathy for "mere humans" -- which makes Roy's act of mercy at the end of the film all the more compelling.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 9:56 am A true film classic, one that I've rewatched more times than any other movie in the last 20 years at least.

I was fortunate that Cornell University (which sat right next to the neighborhood I grew up in) had a movie theater that used to show older films. They would screen Blade Runner annually, showing it on both a Friday and Saturday night. I went every year -- one year I caught both the Friday and Saturday screenings! In those days the "big screen" was the only way to truly experience this movie.

That reminds me, the fact they didn't show Roy killing Sebastien was another thing that left me confused at first. They only communicated that in a police voiceover and I missed that at first. For goodness sake if he's in the room, then show Roy doing the same thing to him (and don't waste extra time showing a too graphic killing of Tyrell).

Fortunately I did not let the fact that William Sanderson is someone I think should begin every sentence with, "Hi, I'm Larry......" distract me when watching the film.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 11:26 am That reminds me, the fact they didn't show Roy killing Sebastien was another thing that left me confused at first. They only communicated that in a police voiceover and I missed that at first. For goodness sake if he's in the room, then show Roy doing the same thing to him (and don't waste extra time showing a too graphic killing of Tyrell).

The Final Cut (and the workprint too if I recall right) include Roy saying "I'm sorry Sebastian" as he walks toward him.

Fortunately I did not let the fact that William Sanderson is someone I think should begin every sentence with, "Hi, I'm Larry......" distract me when watching the film.

It can't rain all the time...

-The Crow (1994): 9/10



Thirty years(!) later, and Alex Proyas' dazzling adaptation of the James O'Barr graphic novel remains an exemplary example of comic book cinema, and an aching tribute to its late star, Brandon Lee, tragically felled in a set accident. The story is your basic masochistic revenge-from-the-grave pulp stuff (Lee's soulful musician Eric Draven is resurrected to avenge the deaths of himself and his fiance, Shelly, one year to the day of their senseless murders on the eve of Halloween), but this is the kind of movie that oasts on style, emotion and visuals, and Proyas (aided immeasurably by cinematographer Dariusz Wolski and production designer Alex McDowell) drenches the violent proceedings in a gorgeously moody atmosphere that perfectly evokes the art style of O'Barr's stark, insanely-detailed panels. It's Lee's emphatic performance that really gives the movie its soul, however, his eyes welling up with soul-sick melancholy whenever they're not burning with coiled fury at the motley crew of scuzzy criminals who did him wrong (lorded over by a charismatically corroded Michael Wincott). Aided by Graeme Revell's excellent score (supplemented by a rockin' early-90s grunge soundtrack), it's a movie that's weathered the past three decades beautifully, and compared to the glossy, hollow and flippant tone and look of modern-day megabudget superhero cinema, seems all the more the work of a singular, distinct vision. Paramount's new 4K UHD release is a stunner, giving the movie a spit-spine that it's needed for years and preserving Proyas' radiantly gloomy visuals with no modern-day tinkering or attempts to smooth out the rough pre-digital edges.

Jaws 3 (1983) 6 of 10

-I think I've only watched this film once before in the past but today I looked at in on the soon to be displaced Blu-Ray. The FX look awful and since I'll never have a 3D TV set I'll never be able to see it that way anyway. I found though to my surprise that if you don't treat it as an extension of the first two films (despite the adult Brody brothers and the reference to Sean's traumatic experience in "Jaws 2") and treat it more like watching an 80s TV-movie it tends to work as a decent B-movie disaster fare and the threat of a shark on the loose in Sea World doesn't play as silly as I used to think (in fact the footage of Sea World in the 80s before it went really uber-PC improves the film). It's only the final scene with the attack on the control center that the film gets silly since we have to hear a barely audible voiceover to explain that Louis Gossett did survive (did he deserve to?) and the final freeze was a bit too abrupt. But unlike "Jaws: The Revenge" you can relax and have fun with the film.

Lea Thompson sure made an impressive debut! Thankfully her character survived.

Unbreakable
8/10

It's been at least 15 years since I'd seen Unbreakable, and it was much better than I remembered. Things that stuck out to me were the abundance of long shots- refreshing to see in these hyper edited modern days. The fantastic framing of shots too! The camera slowly going up and down as Bruce Willis pumps iron, the camera shooting through a park bench or a fluttering curtain. Very "artsy", but not in a annoying way. Wish you saw this sort of thing more often.

In the theater, the "twist" shocked me- I did not see it coming...but watching it last night, it was completely telegraphed and laid out ahead of time. My wife, who had never seen it before, was surprised, so the movie still works!

James Newton Howard's score is great (although a little less drum machine would help), and all the actors are wonderful- even the kid!

My one complaint is that the movie just kinda....stops at the end. I know they return in the movie "Glass" years later, but I haven't seen it, and I doubt it is very good.

GLASS stinks. Shyamalan's great tease of something exciting happening and then pulls the rug out from under you. Willis must have been in the early stages of dementia (or worse) because he looks totally uninterested also.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 10:52 am GLASS stinks. Shyamalan's great tease of something exciting happening and then pulls the rug out from under you. Willis must have been in the early stages of dementia (or worse) because he looks totally uninterested also.

Which one was Glass? I saw one in which Willis and Samuel Jackson were in a kind of prison / mental institute. Was that it? (I don't even remember!)

Legend (1985) (Director's Cut)

-This was the first time I'd ever seen any version of this film. I only wanted to see a version with Goldsmith's score. But that said, this was a chore to get through because it just gave me a reminder that this kind of fantasy movie with elves. goblins etc. is just not my cup of tea. Maybe I should try it again at some point now that I know how it unfolds. I will say that this "Director's cut" ending which is apparently different from both the US and original European theatrical cuts seems a bit contrived and sounds like Scott was trying to do another type of "Blade Runner" less happy ending once again.

Too bad the European version can't be seen as well since I get that's a different rights holder.