Blade Runner: Was It Really That Good?

Blade Runner is an unbearably overrated movie. It’s slow, pretentious, and self-indulgent. It’s not as deep as people say, nor is it as moving. It is, in fact, monumentally boring.

Scott wasted a bunch of great ideas on a go-nowhere-fast disappointment. Or maybe I’m wrong. Red Letter Media debates!

3 thoughts on “Blade Runner: Was It Really That Good?”

  1. I have been a Phillip K. Dick fan from childhood and loved ‘Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep’. Remember, this was before Hollywood started mining Dick’s work in a major way and although ‘Blade Runner’ wasn’t entirely faithful to the themes of the book (a book is a book and a movie is a movie), the visuals, overall production values and the caliber of acting were (in my view) extraordinary for the time, when most science fiction movies and television shows–‘Star Wars’ included–were mostly infantile and outright idiotic. I thought it was–and still is–a remarkable film. Rutger Hauer’s performance was exceptional.

  2. You are right that the script and depth are overrated, but I think the reason people overrate it is because it is a truly great atmospheric film. People make it out to be deeper than it really is because the acting is good and the visuals so evocative.

  3. It was a solid movie. Probably not as amazing as a lot of people made it out to be. But still. I can’t wait to see 2049. Nice review.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.