RSS

3. Blade Runner (1982)

17 Apr
blade
Roger’s Original Rating :

Should be :

As I read over Roger’s reviews of this movie I am thinking that I will eventually have to move this to number 1, making it his worst review. Roger has links to his original review, his review of the Director’s Cut and his Final Cut in which he finally, although reluctantly, admits it into his list of Great Movies. In his first two reviews in 1982 and in 1992 he gave it just 3 stars.
Roger says a lot of silly things in his original review. He said. “The movie’s weakness, however, is that it allows the special effects technology to overwhelm its story. Ford is tough and low-key in the central role, and Rutger Hauer and Sean Young are effective as two of the replicants, but the movie isn’t really interested in these people — or creatures.” He couldn’t have been more wrong. The movie is all about these people and what makes them or doesn’t make them human.
He finishes by saying, “The obligatory love affair is pro forma, the villains are standard issue, and the climax is yet one more of those cliffhangers, with Ford dangling over an abyss by his fingertips. The movie has the same trouble as the replicants: Instead of flesh and blood, its dreams are of mechanical men.”
Here is a link to his ‘At The Movies’ review of the Director’s Cut. Roger didn’t like this version too much as you can see.
Roger, you missed a great movie here. I’m glad you gave this great movie another look (even if it took you 25 years).

At the Movies Review of Director’s Cut

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on 3. Blade Runner (1982)

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in Roger Ebert's worst reviews

 

Tags:

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: