Total Recall offical trailer -- looks like Bourne meets ShootEmUp

[Darren Dirt]

Somebody gonna get a hurt.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Why+I+hate+Blade+Runner

Jus' sayin'.

[Mr. Analog]

But no, you aren't, 'cos that's a question.

Why does Darren hate Bladerunner?

[Darren Dirt]

In a word -- boring. It's like it's trying to hard to be hip ... and imo it really hasn't aged well (ditto for the origianl Total Recall, but at least it's multi-rewatchable).


http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=132645
"In a poll of the members of the 1992 World Science Fiction Convention, Blade Runner was voted the third best sci-fi film of all time behind Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey. What it shares with those films ? and it's sexier than the former, and deeper than the latter ? is influence. Blade Runner rewrote the rulebook and altered the way sci-fi movies looked forever."

^ I basically agree with the sentiment listed above -- which by the way was said in 1992, 20 years ago, a lot of time has passed since then and that sometimes gets people questioning the status quo re. opinions on "classics" -- but even to this day I don't mind re-watching those other 2 films again and again and again (i.e. no difficulty staying awake / "caring" about the characters and the events they are experiencing).

It seems that since in the last couple of decade $ has really affected mainstream "art". The Suits seem to now be so hesitant in greenlighting a Big Release that isn't a sequel or reboot or remake or adaptation of a successful novel (an obvious reality that was satirized wonderfully in "The Player") ... so as a result nostalgia is amplified when it comes to old stuff that pioneered some aspect of the movie experience/industry... even if it wasn't universally considered a "good" moving-picture telling of a story.

"Influential" does not automatically mean "good" imo. Citizen Kane woulda been good even if it didn't introduce/improveupon a TON of film-making and storytelling techniques.

Personally I think folks are afraid to question whether BR is "deep", I think it tries to hard to pretend it's deep -- then again maybe it was the first Big Release that touched on potential dramatic changes in technology and how it might affect society. But if that's true it was either too subtle (and thus less powerful in whatever message it was trying to suggest people consider) or else it made the rest of the storytelling suffer (i.e. just surface exploration of some coulda-been-really-interesting characters like the toymaker guy who later was "Larry" on Newhart). I guess maybe "boring" isn't the best one-word response -- maybe more like "unbalanced" or something. 




edit:
http://www.therpf.com/f47/what-fascination-blade-runner-124653/#post1831919

Re: What is the facination with Blade Runner?
I have watched it a couple of times and while I don't outright hate it, I don't see the genius that a lot of people see. It is a bit dull and boring for me and just weird. There are some really interesting themes about life and death, but aside from that, as an overall movie, I wasn't very entertained.

this got me thinking -- I enjoyed "Adaptation" and especially "Synecdoche, New York", both of them dealing with "really interesting themes about life and death", and although towards the end SNY has pretty psychadelic visuals etc. I think that neither one of them was pioneering anything, it was the character-driven storytelling. Maybe as an ever-growing-old fart I just ain't wowed by shiny stuff as much any more, I need a Human Experience (i.e. ST:TOS or TNG and maybe DS9 over just about any V or E, not that that is a contrary position )

Keep in mind, I will sit through almost any "dystopian" sci fi, even from the 1970s or 1960s ... and I gave BR a try on a weekend, even read some heavy analysis of its themes to see if it would help me "get it". Didn't.

[Mr. Analog]

Holy poo an opinion! Good

I disagree with the comment regarding pacing, I think it's a very well paced film there is a steady build to the climax which gains power from that determined steadiness. The sense of loneliness in a crowded world is portrayed perfectly as scenes involving large crowds tend to have the slower pace where more intimate scenes are fast moving with sharp dialogue. As the film progresses you realize that the main character has the same questions about himself that the audience does, which drives home the ending even further.

The set design and cinematography also appeals as there is a sense of scale to things with few establishing shots, most of the scale is presented through closeups which is very odd but works.

There is a disconnect between the model work and the street level stuff for some scenes but it is still very well done and I think it stands the test of time. If anything it still creates the atmosphere that sets the scene.

The film is disguised as a sci-fi/noir thriller but indirectly poses some interesting questions about life/death and what it might mean to create new life, far more powerful than a fantasy romp like Star Wars but also a lot less "fun" I guess.

[Mr. Analog]

Ahhh the late 60s / 70s, home of nihilistic pessimism... 25 years worth of Cold War anxiety took its toll on the psyche that's for sure, there's a good history of apocalypse/dystopian films that popped up after 1945 some of them actually have some interesting and tight-gripping dramatic moments ("Five", "On the Beach", "The Creation of the Humanoids"), oddly enough I watched "INVASION U.S.A." and "Panic in the Year Zero!" last night. The former a classic Red Scare film which is unintentionally hilarious and the latter a semi-serious look at Armageddon and the aftermath (shares MUCH with modern zombie fiction [there are no zombies though] all about survival of the fittest, what it means to be civilized, etc).

I do love me some Trek, I recently re-watched Enterprise and realized how good it was after the first season. Season 3&4 were brilliant.

I also actually bought the HD remastered versions of ToS, I keep watching it over and over...

[Darren Dirt]

update: after reading a few more pros (and the occasional) cons on this thread -- http://www.therpf.com/f47/what-fascination-blade-runner-124653/index3.html -- I gotta point out, I chose to see the narration-free version, which apparently has improved editing, but no narration. So the "film noir" feel is reduced, and it's a lot less spoon-feeding of the meaning of certain events and/or dialog.

Funny thing is, a majority of the "pros" in that thead had originally seen the narration version, multiple times, usually when it first came out ... so even when today they watch the DC it's like they still hear Mr. Ford's voice in certain places ... explaining things. Things they might not otherwise know (and a few even said they WISH they could do a brain wipe and watch the narration-free version first, just to see if they would appreciate it in a different way). In a way they are honest that they are a kind of "biased" in terms of their experience (see http://www.therpf.com/f47/what-fascination-blade-runner-124653/index4.html#post1834902 )


So... not sure if that helps you get where I'm coming from. (and I chose to finally watch it on a weekend around June of 2012 ... way after I've seen PLENTY of films that were clearly influenced by BR in terms of visuals, storytelling tone, pacing, etc.)


PS:

As the film progresses you realize that the main character has the same questions about himself that the audience does, which drives home the ending even further.

I get the feeling that some of that "realization" comes from narration, n'est pas?

[Darren Dirt]

I do love me some Trek, I recently re-watched Enterprise and realized how good it was after the first season. Season 3&4 were brilliant.

I also actually bought the HD remastered versions of ToS, I keep watching it over and over...

ST:E = yes it started focusing on actual CHARACTERS and telling interesting STORIES instead of just being about gadgets and shiny stuff and attempting to merge/modify Canon.

ST:TOS = yes it's like what you said about BR, spread over a few dozen hours ... what it means to be human, the balancing of subjective emotions and objective logic, indpendent lone wolf captain decision making vs. leaning on the team and considering community needs and interests of the crew and even humanity at large, etc.

[Mr. Analog]

It's impossible for me to say as the first version I saw was the narrated version, plus I've had 20 years of watching/re-watching to absorb it all.

All I know is that 1982 was a great year for Sci-Fi (Khan, ET, Tron, The Thing... so many good flicks)

[Darren Dirt]

The Thing... so many good flicks)

DAMMIT #anotheronehaven'tseenyet #andicallmyselfadarkscififan

[Mr. Analog]

!!!!

How could you have NOT seen this one???

Now that's a movie for a cold, scary night.

In fact I like both versions, they are both gripping (though the '82 version is a LOT scarier thanks to mind-blowing SFX)

[Darren Dirt]

http://screenrant.com/total-recall-2012-vs-1990/

Total Recall films (2012, 1990) vs the original 1966 story.

It would appear that the pre-release claim that it would be "more faithful to the original source material than the Ahnold film" = bull$h1t. #shock

[Mr. Analog]

Here's my working theory:

The film was actually called "Tunnel Freefall" but there was a typo on the first draft of the script.

I mean how else could it have been made?

Furthermore GEDD YOAHR AHSS TOOH LOHNDON!

I have this horrible feeling like, they're going to remake The Running Man except it will be a gritty sci-fi action-noir murder mystery about a professional sports fan who can't stop adding numbers, and instead of a game show he will have to navigate the towering labyrinthine corridors of power in a world populated by throwaway mono-dimensional characters and a story whose main plot point involves a tricky situation over a Pound note (and a Sausage named Baldrick).

Of course there will be a 3 second cameo of a gladiator wearing armor festooned with blinky LEDs, y'know, to appeas fans of the original goofy 80s film.