Yeah. Blade Runner is definitely one of those classics I'm rather 'meh' about it. I was also similarly underwhelmed with Trainspotting (don't get me wrong, its a wonderful film, but I just expected something way more. I guess it didn't help that I saw it right after Requiem for a Dream) and Wild Strawberries (despite Ingmar Bergman still being one of my favorite directors of all time).

Quote from Not_Nish

Yeah. Blade Runner is definitely one of those classics I'm rather 'meh' about it. I was also similarly underwhelmed with Trainspotting (don't get me wrong, its a wonderful film, but I just expected something way more. I guess it didn't help that I saw it right after Requiem for a Dream) and Wild Strawberries (despite Ingmar Bergman still being one of my favorite directors of all time).

I'm actually planning to watch Requiem for a Dream alongside Shutter Island, Se7en, Leon the Professional, and Godfather Part II. I haven't met a lot of people irl that have actually watched Requiem (or remember it), so I really only have the IMDB page to rely on.

I have a feeling you'd love it. Out of your list, Godfather Part II would easily be my favourite.

requiem for a dream is a decent comedy film

Quote from Index

requiem for a dream is a decent comedy film

Yes, hilarious.

Quote from Not_Nish

I have a feeling you'd love it. Out of your list, Godfather Part II would easily be my favourite.

Did you like the first or second better? I liked the first, but I didn't think it was the masterpiece everyone told me it would be.

Personally, 2 was an overall better experience. While the first one is definitely a beautiful and no doubt influential mafia movie, just the story of Michael in the second one (as foreshadowed by the very last scene of the first movie) makes it better for me. But then there's the added flavor Vito's story, which is also very compelling.

Yeah I personally prefer 2 too. Although 1 has a lot of sentimental value to me, and I like 1's personal touches more. But 2 is a far more ambitious and cleverly constructed story.

I saw Shutter Island recently. I actually enjoyed it a lot because it's one of those thriller movies that's not convoluted to all hell. There's a clear direction and interpretation that the director wants you to understand, and the movie is designed with enough subtlety where you don't realize the first time but can the second time. It's refreshing because it doesn't have to be interpreted in a billion different ways and as a result isn't as intimidating and tiring as a movie like Donnie Darko. It's simple yet complex at the same time, and I really like that.


Also watched Finding Dory. Maybe it's because I'm still 19 and I watched it with my parents, but I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. It's not really as enjoyable as the original Nemo, but it was still kind of charming and there were a few scenes that I thought were really funny. Then again I wasn't really expecting much to begin with so maybe that helped. The octopus definitely made most of the movie.

Now You See Me 2 was mostly disappointing. Like the last one, it probably isn't worth spending money on, though I have to admit they had one really cool scene in the middle, sort of like Days of the Future Past. Good plane movie I guess.

Gonna watch the Japanese release of The Ring next. Never watched either version before.

I finally watched Blade Runner after it sat in my hard drive for two years and I really don't get how it became a classic. Was it the first to explore morality in robots? Was it because of the visual effects? The futuristic world? The unicorn symbolism (which I still don't get btw if anyone wants to explain lol)?

I'm not as crazy about scifi as others are so this might also be it.

Quote from Smile

I finally watched Blade Runner after it sat in my hard drive for two years and I really don't get how it became a classic. Was it the first to explore morality in robots? Was it because of the visual effects? The futuristic world? The unicorn symbolism (which I still don't get btw if anyone wants to explain lol)?

It wasn't the first film, but it was definitely one of the earliest films to really flesh out a sci-fi setting. In particular, it was one of the first films to really properly encapsulate a futuristic dystopia. Plus, it was also based on a fairly famous science fiction novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" which probably bolstered a bit of its appeal at the time. According to my Dad, he said it was a take on the future that he had never seen before on the widescreen up until that point, especially in that level of detail, which became a huge reason why it was his favorite sci-fi movie for a long time. Plus the main villain was also really interesting and bad-ass, especially his last words before death. Plus, people just like Harrison Ford.

The unicorn symbolism doesn't have a defined meaning since the director never divulged it entirely. Some say it represents fragility, purity, virginity, contrast etc etc to represent Rachel as an android among humans.

That being said, rather than the unicorn individually, the dream itself as a whole probably holds a more literal meaning relative to the script.

But yeah, the unicorn symbolism probably has nothing to do with why it's famous considering it's version clusterfuck during it's initial release.

In this day and age, unless you really really like sci-fi, you probably won't like Blade Runner that much cause the script isn't anything to write home about.

Quote from Raptor

Spoilers (Click to Show)

This depends on which version you watch since the ending and the unicorn symbolism is the main thing that changes between each of the eight versions, but I'm just gonna assume you watched the Final/Director's Cut.

The most immediate thing you get out of the dream outside of the unicorn symbolism becomes apparent at the end of the movie, where Deckard finds the silver unicorn on the ground that Gaff (the policeman that accompanies Deckard throughout the movie) made and left there. Since the unicorn is only otherwise referenced in Deckard's dream and nowhere else and the fact that Gaff has constantly made silver figures throughout the movie to taunt/reference Deckard, this means that Gaff most likely knew about Deckard's dream, which in turn suggests that Deckard is a replicant. This is strongly suggested, but this interpretation changes between versions of the story as some versions lack parts of these edits.

this actually makes a lot more sense. I watched the Director's Cut I think.



Also I don't particularly find the main antagonist that interesting or his last speech compelling. It probably has something to do with the fact that it was all basically "I saw some shit and now these moments will disappear like tears in rain" to me. I mean, I couldn't even understand what he was saying after the orion part, and googling the speech didn't help because I don't know what C-Beams are or what the Tannhauser Gate is. It's all just made up sci-fi shit that I can't relate to, so it's all basically "I saw some shit" rather than "I experienced some pretty spectacular things and it's kind of sad that I won't be remembering them anymore", and that cheapens the whole thing for me. If somewhere in the film these things were shown, like for example while he was saying it there was some flashback to him looking at burning attack ships, then that would've tied what he was saying to something that I can associate to and would help be get more emotionally invested in the whole thing.

Quote from Smile

this actually makes a lot more sense. I watched the Director's Cut I think.

"" (Click to Show)

I thought the paper unicorn was just there to say that Gaff was in his apartment and saw Rachel sleeping in Deckard's bed, which means that Gaff knew what Deckard did but Gaff didn't do anything about it. Because a little before that Gaff said something about Rachel being beautiful or something.

That is another popular theory which is actually backed up by one of the eight versions, but it is also the version that is deemed the least accurate to the director's vision since it was edited to appeal to a more casual audience for a more "Hollywood ending." That being said, it isn't debunked in any of the other seven movies and is probably the most simplistic explanation. Or you could interpret in a more negative way in that he knows and will come after them. The director purposely wanted to make the movie as open to interpretation as possible from what I've read.

Blade Runner (Click to Show)

I was thinking about how Deckard should have been a replicant, so thanks for explaining that. It would have made a lot of sense for his character, and also how he reacts to Rachel and just a bunch of other things in the film that suggests this (the numerous pictures that he has around him, how Rachel's question of whether Deckard ever took the test himself was presented, etc) and I was kind of disappointed by the end how this wasn't the case. I'm glad this is cleared up and I guess the movie is kind of deep in that regard but I think there shouldn't be an need to be so damned cryptic about such an important detail. I mean, even just the mention of how the dreams of replicants are made up or something at some point in the movie would have made this easier to understand (or maybe it was actually mentioned I don't know I didn't have a subtitle when I watched so I probably misheard/completely didn't hear some parts of the dialog).

Probably, but I do think they gave enough detail to make it seem like a believable enough interpretation. Personally though, I would've rather they had been slightly more straightforward about it. When you disregard this interpretation of the folded unicorn, it makes the movie seem a lot more generic.

Also I don't particularly find the main antagonist that interesting or his last speech compelling. It probably has something to do with the fact that it was all basically "I saw some shit and now these moments will disappear like tears in rain" to me. I mean, I couldn't even understand what he was saying after the orion part, and googling the speech didn't help because I don't know what C-Beams are or what the Tannhauser Gate is. It's all just made up sci-fi shit that I can't relate to, so it's all basically "I saw some shit" rather than "I experienced some pretty spectacular things and it's kind of sad that I won't be remembering them anymore", and that cheapens the whole thing for me. If somewhere in the film these things were shown, like for example while he was saying it there was some flashback to him looking at burning attack ships, then that would've tied what he was saying to something that I can associate to and would help be get more emotionally invested in the whole thing.

Yeah maybe they could've had progressive flashbacks or at least something else to make us sympathize with the androids more, but there's something strangely captivating about Hauer's voice and speech that made it seem hopeful with a subtle amount of despair which for me made the scene more sentimental.

Intercutting the speech with actual shots of burning spaceships and all that would have cheapened the movie for me, its a very modern sci-fi blockbuster thing to do. The very fact that we don't know exactly what he is talking about (and the lack of association) added a lot to my enjoyment of it, because that strangeness is exactly what the situation embodies. We (and Deckard) have absolutely NO CLUE what these replicants have actually been through. They have seen and experienced things that are mere words to us, and Deckard is just as bewildered by it. The true difference in how a replicant views life and how we view life is one of the major themes of the film.

Of course, as I stated before, that last segment is the only part of the film I really enjoyed. I still maintain that the movie is overrated as an "OMGLEGENDARYEPIC".