The Hitman's Bodyguard is like one of those post-Tarantino action flicks that came out in a huge wave after the enormous success of his Pulp Fiction, only considerably after the fact, obviously. Now, mind you, some of those flicks weren't bad, but a lot of them were.
I suppose one could write this one off as a day late and a dollar short, if it weren't for the cast, which features a few vets from the man's movies, notably go-to guy Samuel L. Jackson and erstwhile vampire vixen Salma Hayek, who appeared in the QT-scripted cult classic From Dusk till Dawn.
Both are pretty great here, foul-mouthed AF and game for anything, including a memorable bar brawl for Salma, in which she single-handedly takes on a whole pack of angry drunk guys and merrily tears her way through them like shit through a goose.
It may well be the best scene in the movie, especially with a slack-jawed Jackson looking on, falling in love with each passing moment as she flat-out kills any number of them. Of course, mass slaughter doesn't typically spell true love in the real world, but this is the movies, so here it absolutely does.
That scene is effectively contrasted with another, in which all hell breaks loose at a wedding, which is where the bodyguard of the title, Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) first lays eyes on his own lady love, Amelia (Elodie Yung, "Elektra" on Netflix's Daredevil and The Defenders), also kicking ass and taking names.
As you might have guessed by now, this is a cartoon of a movie, pitched somewhere between the over-the-top antics of the QT-scripted Natural Born Killers (minus the dark underbelly) and the free-for-all of the aforementioned FDTD's second half. It's nowhere near as good as either, but for the non-discerning viewer, it's a pleasant enough time-waster, I suppose.
The plot revolves around Bryce, who is well on his way towards the top of his game as a professional bodyguard when tragedy strikes and one of his most high-profile clients is killed, right in front of his eyes. The problem is, he only told his girlfriend, Amelia. Flash-forward a few years, and Bryce has lowered himself to working for low-end, coked-out, paranoid businessmen.
We see one, as played by noted character actor Richard E. Grant (Logan, Hudson Hawk), proving that, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. This shows that, though Bryce may be down, he's not out, and is still top-notch at his job, even if he is effectively living out of his car and has split from his GF, who has risen in the ranks in the meantime, as he has fallen from them.
Amelia's latest gig is overseeing the transport of a high-profile witness, who can help put away the genocidal Russian madman Dukhovich, played by Gary Oldman, in check-cashing mode, as the type of madman he could play in his sleep. (Hopefully, his recent Oscar win will help get him some better roles in better movies.)
Unfortunately for her, karma's a bitch, as it goes completely sideways, thanks to a leak of her own, causing her to have to go off the FBI's radar and recruit someone outside her own ranks, until she can suss out who the leak is. For that, she naturally goes to her ex, who is about as off the radar as one can get at the moment.
Unfortunately for him, the witness turns out to be the notorious Darius Kincaid (Jackson), a hitman-for-hire that has caused Bryce lots of trouble in the past. In no time, the two are at each other's throats, but whether they like it or not, they have to work together, or else Kincaid is doomed- though he is inclined to think otherwise and constantly trying to light out on his own, consequences be damned.
Naturally, in time, these two bond and learn to recognize that they need each other. Kincaid, because a virtual army is after him, and Bryce, because he needs to get his life back on track, and, unlikely as it seems, Kincaid is actually a voice of reason insofar as that sort of thing is concerned. Things go from there, with lots of oft-ridiculous action along the way.
Is it remotely believable, from the plot, to the nature of the action? Not even close. Like I said, this is a glorified old-school WB cartoon, back when cartoons didn't shy away from that sort of thing- think Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, or Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd at their most destructive. You halfway expect Bryce or Kincaid to paint a fake black tunnel on the side of a rock wall for the bad guys to crash into at one point.
That said, it is a lot of fun, if you're in the right mood, assuming that you don't mind a half-baked QT-knock-off now and again, even this late in the game. Jackson is in full-blown Jules Winnfield mode here, minus most of the moral compass- except when it comes to love (aww)- and Reynolds is in full-on wise-cracking Van Wilder mode, with a little bit of Deadpool-style action hero coolness for good measure.
To be sure, this is no Pulp Fiction, or even Deadpool. But it's no xXx or Green Lantern, either, so there's that. The game cast helps, as does the near non-stop action, and if some of the dialogue is a bit ripe, at least Jackson and Reynolds do their damnedest to sell it to the best of their abilities, and they have just enough charisma between them to pull it off.
The directing is about what you'd expect from the guy behind The Expendables 3, but he gets the job done, I suppose, so he did what he was hired for. The script is pretty cliched, but, like I said, Jackson and Reynolds are just charming enough to make you not care you've seen this sort of thing a billion times before in any number of "buddy cop"-type movies, even if technically neither one of these people are cops, much less buddies- at least until the script calls for it.
As such, it's perfect time-killing action movie fodder for cable, rental or streaming. It's not looking to win any awards, just entertain, and in that sense, it gets the job done, just like its two main protagonists.
I can't bring myself to hate on it for its shortcomings, of which there are many, but I'll just call it a day and say, if you THINK you'll like this from what I've said here or what you've seen in previews, then you probably will. You can do a lot worse, that's for sure.
Writer's Note: Here's a look back at birthday boy Vince Vaughn's The Watch. Not one of his best, maybe, but it was either this or The Dilemma, and it's at least better than that. I will say that I enjoyed this slightly more the second time around, when I wasn't assigned to review it, so there's that.
This review was originally published in UAB's Kaleidoscope on August 2nd, 2012.
The Watch is one of those films that should be a no-brainer at the box office, effortlessly raking in the cash…if this were the 80's. I don’t necessarily mean that as an insult, so much as to say that it seems imported in from that time, minus all the obvious trappings (i.e. period clothes, music, etc.).
It’s basically Ghostbusters redux with aliens instead of ghosts. Plus, lots of cursing and vulgarity in general. You can almost smell the fun, right? Or maybe you're smelling something else less favorable...
Ben Stiller, as ever, just plays a variation of himself, here a low-key suburban nebbish who manages a Costco and, as tends to be the case in movies like this, is married to an inexplicably hot wife- here played by the exceptionally-talented Rosemarie DeWitt (Mad Men), who is completely wasted in the film, naturally.
When the night watchman at the store is gruesomely murdered, Stiller announces he’s forming a neighborhood watch to catch the killer and keep the streets safe. Only a handful of people show up, essentially just guys looking for an excuse to goof off and drink and, if they happen to run into troublemakers… so be it, but it’s not exactly a prerequisite, it’s more of an added bonus.
The group is comprised of: Bob (Vince Vaughn), a frustrated dad struggling with a teen daughter who just needs to blow off steam, while hopefully keeping an eye on his daughter in the process; Jamarcus (Richard Ayoade, best known to American audiences from the surreal Brit-com The Mighty Boosh), a British bloke new to the area looking to make new friends; and Franklin (Jonah Hill), a hot-headed guy armed to the teeth who still lives with his mother and clearly has unresolved anger issues.
The crew inadvertently stumbles upon an alien, which they manage to subdue and bring home in one of the funniest scenes. Eventually, they expose a plot in which his alien brethren will soon be coming to join the aliens that are already among us to take over the planet. Naturally, it’s up to the Watch to stop their nefarious plans. Would-be hilarity ensues.
The script is from the Superbad team of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, with an assist from Jared Stern, best known for his work on kid’s movies like Mr. Popper’s Penguins. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that he probably wasn’t responsible for the orgy scene. Or maybe he is- you never know. Sometimes these people snap and go completely in the opposite direction.
In the director’s chair is Hot Rod-helmer Akiva Schaffer, of The Lonely Island and SNL fame. The Lonely Island themselves also cameo in the film in…you guessed it, the orgy scene.
While the film is competently directed and written, there’s a certain art-less-ness to the proceedings that has started to creep into all such movies nowadays. When Kevin Smith hit the scene with Clerks in the early 90's, he sort of set into motion- likely without meaning to- the use of excessive vulgarity in mainstream film, which continued with the likes of the Farrelly Brothers and Judd Apatow’s films.
The thing that set Smith’s work apart from other filmmakers wasn’t so much the cursing as the surprising well-crafted way he fashioned it into dialogue while still retaining a heart underneath all the crudity. It was almost like Woody Allen’s foul-mouthed cousin was doing the writing, and it worked like gangbusters for a while, if a bit under the radar.
The Farrellys upped the schmaltz considerably for their hit-and-miss flicks with some success, but it was Apatow and his extended group of conspirators that really cracked the code in a big way with the enormous success of The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up.
As with all people who hit it big, a slew of inevitable imitators followed, and by now, the field has become ridiculously crowded with wanna-bes, none of which come close to the original source that spawned it all, the aforementioned Mr. Smith.
(Smith, who has slowly-but-surely stepped back from film-making, is currently raising potty-mouth talk to new heights via his army of podcasts on the Smodcast network, which can be found on iTunes and are well worth a listen, with a different show with a different theme for each day of the week.)
The way Smith crafted his work seems near-Shakespearian in comparison to some of the dreck clogging up the screen these days. I hate to break it to these people, but you can’t just flood the screen with cursing for cursing’s sake and expect people to automatically laugh. It takes a certain touch to make that sort of thing funny, and it’s becoming less so in recent years, even amongst the Apatow clan.
Sadly, The Watch is a perfect example of what happens when what should be an easy slam dunk misses by a mile. There are a few funny moments here and there, but on the whole, it’s just overkill, even to the point of some of the violence being gasp-inducing for no apparent reason (think Pineapple Express).
This could have been an easy sell to a younger crowd, if they’d just toned down the cursing and violence, but all comedies seem to go one of two routes these days: cheesy romantic comedies and frat-guy friendly curse-a-thons. Guess which one this is?
I’m certainly no prude, but there has to be a better way. Or at least a road-less-traveled approach that stands out among all the same-y comedies we’ve been subjected to over the last few years.
As such, I can’t in good faith recommend The Watch as worth anything but a rental or for cable viewing at best. It’s not the worst of the worst- for that, I’d have to go with either Good Luck Chuck or The Switch- but it’s no great shakes either.
It’s too bad, as there’s a germ of a funny movie in The Watch, but for real laughs, I’m afraid you’ll need to watch... something else.
Writer's Note: In honor of the underrated actress Keira Knightley's birthday, here's a look back at the excellent The Imitation Game. This article was originally published on Facebook on June 3rd, 2015.
The Imitation Game is the true story of mathematician Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch), who led a group of code-breakers trying to decode German missives sent during WWII. Joining him is Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), who would later become his fiancee; and his boss is played by Charles Dance, of Game of Thrones fame.
Mark Strong, who's been in a lot of the movies I've watched lately, completely randomly (Welcome to the Punch, Anna, Kingsmen, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) also crops up as a secret agent that helps Turing deceive his superiors when it becomes necessary.
In the process of trying to decode things, Turing essentially creates a machine that would become the basis of the very thing I'm posting on: the computer- and he also comes up with what would eventually become known as the "Turing Test," which is used to determine a human from a computer- think that test in Blade Runner.
Also of note is that Turing was a homosexual at a time when that was a big no-no, and only fairly recently got the credit he deserved for his landmark work, having until then being essentially completely ostracized by the very government that he helped win the war and save countless lives for. Sad but true.
As such, as impressive as his achievements were, his life does end on a tragic note, which does temper things a bit in terms of the movie's overall feel. Not that I'm suggesting that the film should have whitewashed anything, mind you, just that there's no getting around what a bummer it is that a guy who essentially changed the world (and in more than one way) didn't get any credit for it until AFTER he died.
The cast is great across the board, and I'm becoming more and more impressed with Cumberbatch the more I see of his work. (Before recently, I had only seen him in the second Star Trek movie.)
I'm contemplating checking out his take on Sherlock next, having been an Elementary watcher before and not having seen his variation on the famed Sherlock Holmes character as of yet. And the more I see of Mark Strong, the more I'm convinced he's one of the all-around best actors out there at the moment.
And, as ever, Keira Knightley radiates thoughtfulness and intelligence that perfectly complements Cumberbatch and, by extension, Turing's "beautiful mind." In a way, despite her success, she's still kind of underrated as an actress- be sure to take a look at David Cronenberg's wily A Dangerous Mind, if you haven't already- she's utterly fantastic in it.
If this material interests you in the slightest, I can't imagine you'll be disappointed. It's the true-life tale of a brilliant, under-recognized man whose story deserves to be told. By all means, check it out!
Writer's Note: In honor of the lovely and talented actress Jessica Chastain's birthday, here's a look back at her ambitious, overlooked and underrated triptych of films, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby. If you haven't already, be sure to also check out her Oscar-worthy turn in the more recent Molly's Game, which you can read my thoughts on here (scroll down to #13).
This review was originally published on Facebook on August 25th, 2015.
This is a tricky one to review, as it’s technically not one, not two, but a whopping THREE movies in one, all of which were apparently given a theatrical release. Of course, the main question some of you will have is obvious: Do I really need to see all three movies to get the whole story?
And I’m not going to lie to you, having watched all three over about a week-and-a-half period; the answer is an unequivocal no. However, what I will say is that eagle-eyed viewers (and listeners) will undeniably have a different experience with all three films, and I can’t imagine one not having an opinion as to which one they like best overall.
As you might have guessed from the subtitles, each of the three films is told from a unique perspective. “Him” tells the story from the perspective of Conor, played by James McAvoy (Atonement, the last two X-Men movies), “Her” is from the perspective of Eleanor Rigby (Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty) herself. (She is, yes, named after the Beatles song of the same name, which is addressed in the movie, though the song itself is not present- probably far too expensive to secure the rights for a small independent film like this one.) Finally, “Them” is a compilation of moments from both films rolled into one.
As you might have guessed, the latter version is the result of the studio somewhat balking at the idea of releasing two different films about the same couple and plot-line. Though that’s exactly what did end up happening, the third, “Them” version had the wider release, as one might expect. To that end, I watched that one first, not sure if I wanted to watch two different versions of the same film if I didn’t even like one of them.
Though ultimately that proved to be a mistake, for reasons I’ll get into later, I don’t necessarily regret doing it that way, as the repetition of doing so allowed me to catch things I might not have otherwise. For, you see, there actually are subtle differences between each of the versions, and they almost completely change the vibe of each of the versions. For instance, Conor is entirely more sympathetic in “Him” and “Her” than he is in “Them,” and Eleanor is actually less sympathetic in “Him” than in either “Her” or “Them.”
As such, each version is its own viewing experience overall, which is kind of neat. So, to me, the actual way to go is to watch, in this order: “Him,” then “Her.” In that way, you get what I feel is the “true” story, as opposed to the “Them” version, where a lot is compromised. Further, the pacing in “Him” and “Her” is much more preferable to “Them”- which might seem weird considering that it contains material derived from both- and yet, such is the case, nonetheless.
The thing about the separate versions is that it gives both of the main characters’ stories room to breathe, whereas the “Them” story vacillates between the two, which might serve as a solid solution to people who don’t care to watch two separate films about the same essential plot-lines, but also heavily compromises the filmmakers’ intentions in the process.
Also, consider this: the story revolves around the dissolution of a relationship after a series of tragedies befalls the main couple. In “Them,” we practically wallow in that tragedy, as the filmmaker, writer/director Ned Benson, is driven by necessity to distill his premise into one film, forcing him to excise a lot of the lighter-hearted moments in the process, as well as some key moments that simply don’t have the same impact in the “Them” version as they do in the other versions.
As a direct result, “Them” is kind of mopey and dreary- and, at over two hours long, a bit of a slog. Therefore, even though watching “Him” and “Her” separately is a grand total of well over three hours long, it just plain works better that way because the story is quite simply told better in that fashion.
Let me explain a bit further, and in clearer terms what I mean. In “Him,” we get the events in question exclusively from Conor’s point-of-view. If he’s not involved in it, we don’t see it. As such, Eleanor is barely in his version, but we also get key moments that hit much harder than they would otherwise.
For instance, in the “Them” version, Eleanor really does just seem to disappear from Conor’s life without warning or explanation. We see the tragedy that leads to this, but to us, it seems like Conor has no idea whatsoever what has really happened, nor any chance to talk to his wife about why it happened and what her thought process was leading up to it. She really does just vanish.
Whereas, in “Him,” we actually don’t see the tragedy that leads to it, like we do in “Them,” right up front. Instead, we discover it through his eyes, as he rushes to the hospital and has a frank discussion with his wife- which isn’t even in the “Them” version- but which explains her motives and makes all the difference. It’s only after this post-tragic confrontation that she “disappears.”
What’s more, what she says in that conversation pays off heavily in the “Her” version in a way that is completely different- not to mention much more satisfying- than in “Them,” where the same scene is edited completely differently, changing the tone of it entirely. You don’t get that movie-to-movie pay-off if you only watch “Them” and don’t watch “Him” and then “Her”- and in that order.
Further, in “Him,” there’s a wonderful bookend scene in which we see the couple in their early days doing the “dine and dash” thing, which is later repeated by an unrelated couple in the present of the film’s timeline, with a decidedly different outcome which says a lot about Conor and where he is in his life at that moment.
The former scene is in the “Them” cut, but not the latter one, so it just plays as a “fun” couple moment that we’ve seen in a million rom-coms. In the “Him” version, that seemingly tossed-off moment has a much-bigger, richer impact that you don’t get in the “Them” version because of said pay-off.
There’s even subtle little differences in the dialogue and who does what. For instance, there’s a Han Solo/Princess Leia-type moment in which one of the characters says, “I love you,” then the other says “I know.” In “Him,” it’s delivered by one to the other, in “Her” it transfers over to the complete opposite.
It’s a wonderful moment for those paying attention because it’s like that moment in Lost Highway, where the main character says: “I like to remember things my own way…not necessarily they way that they happened.”
In “Him,” we get precisely that: Conor’s version of events, the way he experiences and remembers them, and in “Her,” we get Eleanor’s in the same way, both from their POV. As such, Eleanor is barely in “Him” and Conor is barely in “Her,” and it just works better, because first we see Conor losing her in “Him,” then we see what she’s been doing all this time, in “Her.”
Finally, we also get to spend more time with each of the supporting characters in the separate versions. In “Him,” we get more of the wonderful Ciarán Hinds (Game of Thrones) as Conor’s dad, and Bill Hader (SNL) as his best friend, in a wonderful turn that’s both funny and effectively honest and real. While in “Her,” we get more time with William Hurt (Altered States) and Isabelle Huppert (I Heart Huckabees) as Eleanor’s parents, the endearing Jess Weixler (Teeth) as her sister, and the wonderful Viola Davis as her teacher. Who doesn’t want that?
With much more room for these characters to spread their wings in, it feels far less oppressive- and depressing, I might add. Yes, the essential material is still dark, but there’s more of a balance of light and dark in the separate versions- it’s not so gloom and doom as the “Them” version, IMHO.
Not to mention, you get the makings of a way forward in the “Her” version that makes for much happier ending than the one in the “Them” version, where it seems a bit anticlimactic in a “ships passing in the night, never to meet again” sort of way.
Not that every movie should have a happy ending, mind you, but you see how much better you feel about that ending when you’ve spent three hours plus with these characters than a relatively scant two hours, only to get a bummer ending to an already bummer movie.
So, there you go. While I’ll allow that this won’t be for everyone, it’s certainly a remarkable achievement for a first-time feature- or features, as it were- from Benson. It’s also worth reiterating that the cast is fantastic across the board.
So, yeah, go on and bite the bullet and watch “Him” and “Her,” in that order, and you won’t regret it half as much as you will if you split the difference with “Them,” trust me. The plus side is, if you buy it, you get all three versions, so you can always watch them all at your own leisure, as I did. Whatever the case, this one is a keeper. Check it out!
I first saw the original Blade Runner on VHS, but I eventually saw it on a big screen at a revival theatre in Nashville, the Belcourt in the early 2000's. Some time ago, likely in the mid-to-late 90's, I also saw the "Director's Cut" on VHS or DVD, I can't recall which.
I put "Director's Cut" in parenthesis, because technically, it is the "Final Cut" version that filmmaker Ridley Scott directly oversaw to his specifications, making it the "real" Director's Cut. It was that latter version of the film I saw most recently, which is why I was more inclined to see an older cut of the film, for reasons I'll get into in a moment.
As you might guess, I was really looking forward to the sequel, but alas, I got a hold of the flu around the time it was released, and never was quite able to get over it in time to see it in theatres, and was wary of getting it again simply by going to one by the time I was. I don't think that was entirely unwarranted, giving that the latest flu going around was quite literally killing people.
Still, I probably would have braved it nonetheless, if the film had been around longer. As some of you likely know, it did not do well at the box office, and didn't last long around my neck of the woods, which is Birmingham, Alabama, so I had to wait for the inevitable home video release to see it.
Now, as I build up to finally doing just that- unfortunately, the film fell by the wayside in my scramble to see as many Oscar bait-type movies as possible, in order to both make my own list and be prepared for the Oscars and award season in general- I felt it necessary to re-watch the original so that it was fresh in my mind when I saw the sequel.
Unlike my father, with whom I watched the original for the first time, I loved Blade Runner from the moment I saw it. My father is a bit of a traditionalist, and his tastes run towards Westerns, war movies, and, of all things, Disney films and movie musicals.
Aside from Disney, of which I am also a huge fan, our tastes completely differ down the line, though I have since embraced certain classics within the aforementioned genres. (I think my father's filmic schizophrenia instead was passed along to my musical tastes, which are likewise all over the map.)
I personally adore horror movies, certain types of comedy and serious dramas- dad isn't a big fan of anything I love, as a rule, but mom is on board with everything but the horror and cult movie-type stuff, so we got along much better in that area.
Good thing for me she primarily raised me instead of my dad, I guess. Not a big shocker, regardless: we all think our parents' tastes are uncool at some point (if not always), even if we later come around.
Anyway, all of this is to say that, dad was more of a Star Wars person than I was- after all, what is that series (or the original trilogy, at least), if not a glorified Western? Actually, as I would later discover, it's kind of an Eastern-Western, as much influenced by the likes of Kurosawa as it was by movies about Cowboys and Indians. (Or Native Americans, if you prefer, PC types.)
Blade Runner is not that kind of sci-fi movie, to say the least. I'd say it was more of a hybrid of sci-fi, action and Film Noir than anything else. I'm a huge fan of Film Noir, and I think Blade Runner is the primary reason for that. After initially seeing it, I eventually went on to watch a whole bunch of the sub-genre, mostly via the movie networks AMC and TCM.
As such, I actually kind of like the voice-over narration as it is used in the original version of the film, and though I firmly respect Ridley Scott's intended vision of the film and dig it for what it is, unicorn dreams and all, I admittedly prefer the theatrical cut of the film.
Let's face it, though, it's hard to shake one's original experience of a film- or music, for that matter, as anyone who's listened to a demo version of a song can attest- though there will always be those who swear they prefer the "original" version of something, I suppose, just as there will always be those who prefer the intended "final cut" of something to something in its rawer form. To each their own.
That said, as I prepared to finally see the sequel, I opted to go for one of the alternate cuts of the film, in order to see one of the many versions I haven't seen for the first time. As fans know, there are a LOT of different versions of this film. The most readily available are the original, the "Director's Cut," the "Final Cut" and the so-called "Workprint" version.
There's also a bunch of fan-edits out there, which incorporate deleted scenes and the like and vary in terms of whether they include the voice-over narration or not, the "happy ending" or not, and/or the "unicorn dream" bit. Though I wouldn't rule out watching one of those at some point, I have yet to see any of these versions- I'm still working my way through the others.
Though I considered watching the "Workprint" version, ultimately, I went with the "International Cut," which is basically just a slightly longer, more violent cut of the original version. My main reason for this was that I assumed the new film would follow in the footsteps of the original version, and not any of the multiple other ones, which change certain things, and not always for the better.
I've avoided reading too much about the sequel, not wanting to spoil anything, so I can't be sure, but if worse comes to worse, I can always re-watch the "Final Cut" again and re-watch the sequel a second time. I don't expect it to ruin things either way, save the fact that I sadly won't be able to see the sequel in a movie theatre for the first time.
Somewhat ironically, as those who've been reading my reviews for a while are aware, I'm actually not a big proponent of voice-over narration. More often than not, I hate it and find it completely unnecessary. But whether or not it's because I saw the film before I had such prejudices or whatever, it works for me here. Sometimes it does- most of the time, it doesn't.
Here, I think it works for me because I was so young when I first saw the original, and kind of needed things spelled out for me a bit more. But not only that. Since then, as I've mentioned, I became a big fan of Film Noir, and, as many fans of that sub-genre know, there's a lot of that sort of thing in films like that, so that's probably part of it as well.
But really, even beyond that, I think I just prefer the idea of Deckard (Harrison Ford) and Rachael (Sean Young) getting their happy ending, even if it's a bit of a cheat. You'll recall that the voice-over mentions that, unlike other replicants, Rachael is "special," and thus, doesn't have a short-term life span, like most of the replicants Deckard has to deal with throughout the film.
While I get why some find that to be a bit tacked on, it's the version I grew up with, so the more open-ended later cuts didn't sit well with me, and the absence of the narration admittedly took me out of those versions somewhat, not to mention how abrupt the ending was. For once, I actually prefer the glossed-over Hollywood happy ending. Go figure.
(I have similar feelings about David Lynch's version of the book Wild at Heart, which also opts to forgo the more open-ended, sadder ending of the book for a happy one, which is interesting, because I tend to prefer my Lynch more open-to-interpretation. But I saw the movie before I read the book, so... you know the drill.)
Whatever the case, and whatever version you prefer, there's no denying that this film is a bona fide masterpiece, and near perfect in execution. Yes, I'm aware that the film didn't exactly set the box office on fire when it was originally released, and critical reception was mixed, to say the least, but you could say that about a lot of films that are now regarded as classics, so who cares?
My point is, everything about this film feels right to me, including the dream-like pacing, which I can understand how some people- like my father- would find slow and sleep-inducing. That's not always a bad thing, IMHO, though, as I have a number of films I actually like falling asleep to, as they serve as sort of a creature comfort in helping me relax. Maybe that's just me, but I don't always see something being trance-inducing as a negative.
I also get why Ford fans who prefer him in action hero-mode, a la Han Solo or Indiana Jones, wouldn't care for it, given that Deckard basically has his ass handed to him almost every step of the way in the movie, even if he eventually comes out on top- albeit barely, and not without some help from Batty.
One could also make a case for his being kind of a vicious killer, given that he shoots a lot of his prey in cold blood, including one in the back- and a woman, at that. I mean, technically, it is a robot, so "killing" isn't exactly the right word, really- any more than calling one a "woman" is completely accurate. It may look like a human and act like a human, but is it?
Of course, it's precisely these sorts of questions that make a film like this so fascinating. Should a robot taught to feel, taught to think of itself as human- who, in fact, may not even know they aren't human- be treated cruelly? Does it matter if we mistreat them, or make them into slaves, when they're technically just machines, after all, and intended for just such a purpose?
Of course, dozens, if not hundreds of sci-fi films have explored precisely such quandaries, perhaps most notably, as of late, the HBO series Westworld, which takes such things to a whole 'nother level. It's a fascinating thing to think about, especially as android-type robots become closer and closer to being a reality.
Though I do have one quibble: the film is set in, heart be still, 2019, which is, of course, next year, as I write this. As such, where the hell are our flying cars? We were promised flying cars! Hell, they haven't even figured out the hover-board quite yet, lol. Sci-fi movies, you lie! 😃
That said, it's a minor quibble, obviously. (Though I do laugh every time I see the Atari logo- it would be more accurate if Deckard slid and fell on a pile of unused E.T. video-game cartridges, given how south that company went shortly thereafter.) This film, even by today's CGI-heavy standards, looks amazing. Everything looks so real, save maybe the somewhat primitive computer-related stuff. (Speaking of Atari, lol.)
Though, even there, the movie totally called picture-enhancing software and being able to zoom in on specific things in a photo and print them out, which would become a reality not too long after that. So, points for being on the money about some things, at least.
The atmosphere of the film is amazing, and feels so real, so lived-in. A lot of that is helped by the real-life location-shooting, which includes scenes shot at, fittingly enough, the Bradbury Building in L.A. Though not named for Ray- and if you don't know the name Ray Bradbury, you really need to brush up on your sci-fi, stat- it's still a cool coincidence.
Another thing I love is the music. The score, by Vangelis, of Chariots of Fire fame, is top-notch, and so good that, even the loads of music that wasn't used is just as good as anything in the movie. Talk about an aural, mood-setting experience. If ever there were better chill-out music released, I have yet to hear it, save maybe some of Tangerine Dream's stellar work, which also includes plenty of film scoring.
The cast is, of course, also pretty stellar throughout. If anything, as much as I love Ford, he may well be the least interesting actor here, which is saying something. The supporting cast is fascinating and involving from top to bottom, from the one-offs, like James Hong (of the still-underrated Big Trouble in Little China fame) and Morgan Paull (The Swarm, the criminally under-seen Fade to Black), to the main attractions, like Daryl Hannah (Splash, Kill Bill), as the sexy, sinewy Pris, and an arguably never-better Rutger Hauer, as lead replicant Roy Batty.
Hauer is, by turns, scary, charismatic, alluring, intimidating, philosophical and near-feral- often all at once. It's a mesmerizing performance, to be sure, never more so than in his final, rain-drenched scene on the roof, where he delivers one of the more memorable monologues in sci-fi history.
I don't want to sell him short, as an actor, so if you haven't seen his work in other movies, be sure to check him out in Lady Hawke, Flesh + Blood, Nighthawks and plenty more where that came from- he's pretty great, and while he may have had more expansive roles in other movies, I will probably always think of this one first, and I certainly don't mean that as an insult, in spite of his limited screen time here. Sometimes the best performances are the ones that do a lot with only a little, you know?
I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the solid work by several others, including M. Emmet Walsh, as the cantankerous Harry Bryant, who brow-beats and threatens Deckard out of his self-imposed retirement to work for him again. Walsh went onto to even greater heights, acting-wise, in another modern Noir, the Coen Brothers' excellent Blood Simple.
There's also Edward James Olmos as the mysterious, origami-happy Gaff- he went onto to even more sci-fi with the TV reboot of Battlestar Galatica and Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.- as well as roles in genre-friendly fare like Wolfen and The Green Hornet.
Shout-outs are also due to Joe Turkel (The Killing, The Shining), as the mad genius Dr. Tyrell; William Sanderson (The Rocketeer, TV's Newhart, Deadwood and True Blood) as the gentle robot-maker J. F. Sebastian; the intense Brion James (48 Hours, The Fifth Element, lots of TV, circa the late 70's-90's) as the murderous Leon Kowalski; and the sultry, snake-handling Joanna Cassidy (Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Vampire in Brooklyn, Ghosts of Mars).
Finally, there's the inimitable Sean Young, who should have been a bigger star, but never quite was, thanks to some iffy choices along the way. She's just perfection as Rachael, the replicant that captures Deckard's heart and challenges everything he knew- or thought he did- about androids.
You can check her out in the Bill Murray vehicle Stripes, the underrated Lynch adaptation of Frank Herbert's epic Dune, and several Noir-ish flicks like No Way Out, The Boost, A Kiss Before Dying and Love Crimes. More recently, she appeared in some decent horror flicks, including Parasomnia, Jug Face and the Western-Horror hybrid Bone Tomahawk.
Though she never quite got the success she deserved, in part due to an alcohol addiction (Young was in and out of rehab several times in the 2000's) and erratic behavior (she famously showed up at WB studios unannounced in a home-made Catwoman outfit to lobby Tim Burton for the part), she's worked steadily from the moment she entered the business on both TV and the movies from the early 80's onward.
That's more than some can say, even if a lot of her movies were of the straight-to-video type. She couldn't be more gorgeous and alluring than she is here, that's for sure, and I just love her costuming- and the costuming in the movie in general, really. Cool hair, too.
All of the aforementioned elements come together, under the visionary direction of Ridley Scott, then-hot off of yet another sci-fi classic, Alien; as well as the sumptuous cinematography of Jordan Cronenweth, also hot off another sci-fi classic, Altered States, which I covered previously, and you can read about here.
The latter won several awards for his cinematography in this film, in fact, including a BAFTA. Cronenweth also did the honors for another sci-fi fave of mine, the criminally underrated Buckaroo Banzai, as well as one of the all-time great concert films, the Talking Heads flick Stop Making Sense.
Scott, of course, went onto to lots of successful films, notably Legend, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, American Gangster and The Martian. He also re-visited Alien territory with Prometheus and Alien: Covenant and served as an executive producer on the recent sequel to this film, Blade Runner 2049.
In short- though I've admittedly gone on a bit long here- this is flat-out one of my all-time favorite films in any genre, which I do believe I said about Altered States as well. I'm not a huge sci-fi person, but when done right, as it obviously is here, I really appreciate it.
I know stuff like the Star Wars franchise is more celebrated and "fun"- just ask my dad- but I'll take more cerebral material like this any day of the week, no matter what version of Blade Runner I watch, even if I do prefer the original incarnations. Something about Deckard being implied to be a replicant doesn't sit well with me, and, respectfully, you can save the unicorns for Legend, Mr. Scott.
That said, Blade Runner is a spell-binder in any form, and justly deserves its classic status, "cult" or otherwise. If you haven't seen it, then you owe it to yourself to watch it at least once- but I personally recommend this version, which retains the elements I like about the original with more gritty action and violence that makes it feel that much more "real." It's a keeper.
