It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
A classic hard boiled thriller. Beyond being one of my favourite Mitchum films, The Yakuza is a cracking film in it's own right. It takes the subject of the Yakuza, and immerses the viewer into that world.
It isn't wall to wall action, but rather more of a slow burn with a rewarding payoff (both the attack on the Yakuza den, and the final two scenes between Harry Kilmer and Tanaka Ken. I don't ever want to see this film remade, but when School For Scoundrels was remade, I realised that nothing was sacred in the movie business. Oh..... I can see it now, the roles would be gender swapped for starters.
I will concede that BLADE RUNNER requires at least two viewings to be thoroughly enjoyed. It jumped from a "huh?!" to "brilliant!" appreciation between my first and second viewing. Incidentally, you picked the right version, as the final cut is undoubtedly the most beautiful to look at.
The point of BLADE RUNNER, as with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, is not to experience conventional filmmaking in any way whatsoever. Don't search for 'normal' situations, characters or narrative elements; you won't find any. The existential quests of the Nexus Reps and, indeed, Deckard and Rachel too, of J. F. Sebastian and Dr. Tyrell even, are the driving force behind this story, not a tight investigation like what you'd expect at first. Recall please that Deckard doesn't retire Leon or Roy; he only kills female replicants and is saved by a female replicant at one point. In many ways, Deckard isn't the typical protagonist "hero" of the detective noir stroy, nor is he the clever one who ends up having all the answers. He's tough to identify with. Right there is the first problem: we have no "in" for this story, or at least our main character isn't our "in". Films like this, which stray uncomfortably far away from conventions, tend to confuse an audience.
But BLADE RUNNER came out in a bad year for science fiction. Both this film and John Carpenter's THE THING suffered tremendously from E.T.'s overpowering success. People weren't ready for humourless, cold, cerebral and satirical science fiction. They wanted Ewoks, cuddly aliens and so forth. Even THE TERMINATOR struggled hard a few years later to earn its money back. This is just not the sort of science fiction that people "enjoy" in a cosy kind of way.
But the fact that it has earned the respect that it has, has a lot to do with the stunningly beautiful visuals, the ground-breaking production design and the meticulously put together models, the legendary Vangelis score and the performances. BLADE RUNNER inspired Japanese manga such as GHOST IN THE SHELL, which in turn inspired THE MATRIX, DARK CITY and more. This type of science fiction isn't for everyone, I agree, and when I admit that 2001 and BLADE RUNNER are my all-time favourites, people often wonder how that could possibly be. Again, it took me several viewings too. It's simply impossible to prepare for BLADE RUNNER; not even the P.K. Dick book can do that. But once I'd sat through my second viewing, I knew I was hooked. Now, I watch the entire boxset (i.e. five cuts, including the workprint) once every two years or so, and I never grow tired of the film(s). Last year, I actually watched the film six times in a single month! First the usual set of DVD's, then a surprise theatrical showing of the final cut, and let me tell you, I all but cried at the end.
BLADE RUNNER is easy to love, but difficult to love "at first sight". Still, it's a film I strongly recommend you to re-visit, but perhaps not this year or next year. Give it some time. It'll call to you... ;-)
As @DarthDimi says, returning to the film with new eyes can change everything. When I was in high school I'd catch bits and pieces on TV, sometimes a third of the film, sometimes half, sometimes more or less the whole thing, and I found it an interesting movie but not a great one. A few years later in college I sat down and watched the film (the Director's Cut) and suddenly everything resonated. I went on to watch BR probably about 10 times over the next two weeks. Perceptions change.
2001 is one film that (apart from the HAL segment) unfortunately has never resonated with me. I return to 2001 probably once every 5 years, hoping to get more out of it. I understand what others see in the film, I appreciate it for its technical greatness, I am mesmerized by the brilliance of the HAL section... I hope on one of these viewings the film finally opens up to me.
Excellent film, very atmospheric. The Grusin score is absolutely beautiful. I should rewatch it again soon.
The problem with Quentin Tarantino films is that are very crude at times which ruins an otherwise good film.
Reservoir dogs is my favourite Q film.
I find a lot of the humor is in poor taste and the violence is too over-the-top. I think even most avid film fans have one director or some acclaimed films they are not as big a fan of. That is my biggest one.
How about a Bond film in which he gets involved with the Yakuza?
@DarthDimi, I knew what I was getting into with Blade Runner, and wasn't demanding a film that felt like all the others in such a familiar way. I can enjoy all types of films, so that wasn't an issue: I just expect movies to have the very important elements of character and story which I can use as an "in" to approach the material. My major issue with the film and why I think it's shambles is just that: I don't care about anyone in the story, at all, and so no matter what happens I am immediately racing to try and find any way to avoid being indifferent to it all. On top of that it's very poor storytelling, not only from a structure and pacing standpoint, but also simply as a supposed collection of masterful motif and theme. For a film that is supposed to be so unconventional, it certainly plays out as conventionally as can be, from the ham-fisted out of nowhere love angle (and rape implications) all the way to the final fight with the cartoonishly evil villain and an ending that is not only easy but far too cheesy and cheery for what it was presenting (though the theatrical is even worse).
There are flashes of interesting stuff in this film, including parts of characters and the world. I wanted more of Sebastian but never got it, wanted the film to focus more on Roy and forget the boring and badly acted Deckard by an obviously disengaged Ford (if this isn't believed, listen to his narration track), and actually work to tell an interesting story that the opening text crawl promises. The issue is that it isn't there, in the worst form of false advertising. There's no world building beyond the actual shots of the world, nor actual context to the great lore that is teased for seconds. The most we hear about Roy's past, one of the main motivators for a character like him, is in one line of dialogue that comes too late for us to care. We are told, not shown what this world is, and never really get immersed in it in the first place. Because of this the visuals serve little beyond cool desktop wallpapers. The excuse of the movie doing the unexpected or unconventional can be waved all day, but there's ways to write character and story and Blade Runner is not it. If you end up boring your audience that's a bad mark, but even more so if you actually intended for some of that boredom to create itself in the viewer as they watched it through a pretentious creation of false humanity and on and on.
It's funny that the film gets a comparison to Kubrick's work, as I was constantly thinking that this movie is very much Ridley Scott trying to be Kubrick (even with his team from 2001) and missing every mark. It's a beautiful film, nobody could ever say otherwise convincingly, but looks do not a good film make. Kubrick had a way of packing cinematography, sound, character, story, theme and motif into his work that came together to be something, with actors who could handle it. Blade Runner fails on all the major areas of storytelling and has a very miscast Ford who can't shoulder the kind of complex material that was needed to make the film have impact. He's a very limited actor, and giving him a Bogart type role was a mistake because he just doesn't have the talent for that kind of dramatic stretching. The "Deckard is a replicant" theory is merely a pretentious and illogical last second inclusion on the part of Scott that nobody around him agreed with in the first place, but looking at Ford's robotic performance throughout you could almost believe it to be the big twist.
I may be harsh but it is a film I wish I liked, because I wanted to so very badly. It seemed like what I enjoy: a deep, cynical detective story washed in the corruption of the system with all the grays of morality and life you could hope for that didn't want to give easy answers to complex questions. I'm not caught off guard by shocking cynicism and dark endings, I would've welcomed it, as I enjoy being challenged and tested as a consumer of cinema. I just don't think the film ever really has that masterful or powerful a tone, or that it's effective in making you care about anything that is going on, story or character wise. The movie fails to play by its own rules that it sets up, where Deckard is supposedly the best hunter of replicants in the business, yet constantly gets his arse handed to him by those we see in the film and where, somehow, a unicorn ripped from unused footage from another Scott film is supposed to clue us into the deeper meaning of the detective's character that was already hollow to begin with. The logic of the film is never consistent and like most of what Ridley Scott's career has been about, he went back to a creative well that wasn't strong to begin with and only soiled it more by constantly throwing elements in George Lucas style to make it seem like he thought of it all along.
Films that succeed in what Scott couldn't meet are those like Chinatown, a film I thought of after I saw this film. A movie that is one of the most dire and hopeless I've ever seen full of shocking and unexpected developments that still had a strong core of character, story, theme and motif to match its appeal in the visual department. People call Blade Runner influential, but I feel that's only on account of its look, because outside of that it has little to offer. There aren't movies mining its core of story and character, not only because all its elements have been done better elsewhere, but also because the approach to those elements isn't anything one would wish to replicate anyway. The reports of the on set tensions between the production team, the director and cast and the actors as well as the scattered nature of the script writing are all made very evident to me as I sit down and watch it. You can see all the places where the team had no idea what they were doing or how to wrap up an idea, instead doing so sloppily or pretending to forget about it to appear smart or edgy with their deep and unanswered questions. Like an attractive ditz, it's great to look at, but don't expect multitudes and a strong and intellectual core once you take her home and dig deeper.
I too found Blade Runner disappointing when i watched 2 weeks ago.
I think it's very overrated.
Just finished this gangster biopic on the Kray brothers. Written and directed by Brian Helgeland of L.A. Confidential & Mystic River fame, it stars Tom Hardy in a dual role as both Reggie and Ron Kray, infamous London gangsters during the 50s & 60s. The film starts mid stream and focuses on the brother's rise to the top of the East End underworld. It also incorporates and tells the story of Reggie's romance with and marriage to Frances Shea (Emily Browning), who also serves as narrator for the film.
Hardy is quite outstanding in both roles. So good in fact, that one never thinks it's the same man playing both Krays. Reggie is the smoothie, dapper and charming but capable of extreme violence when necessary. Ron is the more obviously unhinged one - a psychotic who feeds off savagery. Browning is very good as Frances, but her character is not properly fleshed out and the romance isn't handled too well. Consequently it's difficult to empathize with her plight. The same goes for several subsidiary characters that come and go throughout the runtime.
This is a stylish film on many levels, but also a brutal one. Lavish and yet somewhat intimate. Unfortunately it's also a bit empty. There's little to connect to here given the nature of the brothers, and therefore little to hold onto. In that way I found it similar to The Founder, another biopic of a somewhat unsympathetic character which I watched last week. Like that film, this one rests almost entirely on the excellent performance of its central character (s). Watch it for Hardy X 2. It's not good for much else imho.
Big mistake on the pic. A hundred years ago, the Yakuza were not called Samurai. They were called Yakuza. And were looked down upon by Samurai (but the Samurai looked down upon everyone).
But yes, it's a very good movie.
I don't think I'd seen this film since high school and I was amazed by how well it held up. I think it was actually better than I'd remembered it being. The cinematography, the cast, the dialogue, the cutting, the style. This is one that has definitely improved with age.
I couldn't agree with you more. The whole film is like a VR experience of the Yakuza way, but without the goggles.
Japan is a country I have wanted to see Bond go back to, so I guess it could work, but it would depend on the story.
Really? That's the actual poster, so someone made a gaffe with the tagline.
Nice review. Mediocre film with a good performance from Hardy.
I've seen a lot of that cut too, @chrisisall, and I'm sorry but that one isn't going to be the cut to make me care either, especially since so little actually changes in the grand scheme. The only one that sounds more bored than myself as I watch parts of it is Ford in his narration. I now understand why he seemed to phone it in the entire movie!
I compare it to the Batman v Superman director's cut, an edit that was intended to make a bad film better. With Blade Runner the issue still stands that a bad foundation is a bad foundation, a bad film is a bad film, no matter what you add to it. It doesn't help that Ford apparently gave bad line readings on purpose so the studio wouldn't use his dialogue, but of course they did and now we're stuck with it.
I guess I'm just mystified now what so many have seen in this film, beyond the early critics who knew all its issues clearly. Aside from effects it does nothing at all remarkable, and certainly not in story, character and performance where it counts. The one shining light is Rutger, and thank hell they had him there because otherwise I may've shut it off mid-watch. It is sad to see him sort of morph into a cliché over time, and how the film doesn't really focus on him enough, but he easily steals every scene he's in and seems to be the only cast member who actually wanted to be there.
I'm off to continue my research on it, and may be back with future watches, but right now me and this film need a break.
Really sorry you didn't enjoy my favourite hard SF flick... :(
Same here. Saw the original theatre version first, with the narration. The other is interesting to see, but I didn t like it as much.
That's a shame to hear (though he would say that, wouldn't he, to make himself look better), and he apparently didn't play Deckard as a replicant either, which makes his acting even more strange to me. There's not many excuses left for what the issue is on my end, as I though he was pretty horrible. I like Harrison on the whole, but I just hold that this material wasn't for him. He's in his element in light roles and larger than life fun of Star Wars or Indy, but he can't shoulder material of this kind where you need an actor who can be compelling without saying a word. He's a star, not an actor, and that delineation is important I think, in this case.
I want a 1950s or 60s black and white Blade Runner with Robert Mitchum, who could do those things; now that would've been cool.
That's interesting, as my issues with it are really what you have with many films of the day. Your view of sloppy stories and character in the latest Bond films, and the hollow effects driven movies that are reigning at the box office that you are tired of. For me, that's Blade Runner in a nutshell, where the visuals trick you into thinking all this crazy stuff is going on, until the plotlessness sets in. I'd like to say that the film would do well if remade in a Michael Bay, flash bang world, but I ultimately think you'd still end up with the dullest summer movie ever.
What versions of it have you seen, @Creasy47? I'm now curious which of the one thousand available cuts offer the best experience for a new viewer to try and enjoy it more. :))
@MajorDSmythe
The Yakuza is a film I saw two summers ago based entirely on your recommendation and let me tell you, my good friend, I am still very grateful for said recommendation.