There's no underestimating the impact Ridley Scott's film version of Philip K. Dick's novel (original title, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep?) has had on pop culture, movies, music, society. I'm loving how the opening titles of AMC's Mad Men TV series is Saul Bass-style figures against a kind of Dove soap version of Blade Runner city imagery. As Scott says:
“Here we are 25 years on,” Mr. Scott said, “and we’re seriously discussing the possibility of the end of this world by the end of the century. This is no longer science fiction.”I predict solid box office for this specialty release. It's one to see on the big screen, even if for the third, fourth, or fifth time.
6 comments:
I'm worried about the new footage, especially Zora's snake dance -- that's one I thought was always best left to the imagination. Still, I'm jazzed to see the movie yet again on the big screen and on a HD disc. Have you seen that awesome box set?
Good post! I, too, am dying to see it.
I've taken a look at the description on Amazon, and it's insane! I'm personally not interested in much beyond the two directors cuts and maybe the documentary (if it isn't lame), but let someone convince me that my life will be enhanced by watching the workprint...
The one version I'll never miss is the dreadfully butchered original release, which is not in and of itself a very good movie. The 1992 first director's cut was, to me, a revelation, and I got to see it at the Mann's Chinese Theater here in L.A. (And again at the Castro in SF half a dozen or so years later.)
If you look at the director's cut as being definitive, then the sci-fi crown goes from Kubrick's 2001 to Scott's Blade Runner as most monumental sci-fi. Brazil may be next, or maybe something I haven't seen yet, or can't remember. But for seamless, original, compelling visions of the future, what can match these two?
I am perhaps the last person in America who has never seen this movie in any form. Of course, I've encountered pieces of it while flipping around on cable and not been very drawn in by it. But this time I'm going to see it on the big screen and finally see what all you folks have been on about all these years.
And you can't argue with a young Rutger Hauer. Super fine!
I'm of the mind that that the original cut, though a bastardization to be sure, is vital in most people's appreciation of the director's cut. There's just so much communicated in the tacked on voice over that I can't really separate the two films. I can't honestly say that I'd adore the directors cut as much, if I hadn't already seen and digested everything from my dozen or so viewings of the first cut.
The workprint WAS the original directors cut. That was what screened in SF and LA originally....and got such amazing buzz that it was pullled and Ridley Scott re-edited it to become what was nationally released as the Directors Cut. I saw the workprint 'directors cut' at the Castro and went back at 10 am the next day to see it again. The officially released Directors Cut was a disspointment to me - maybe it was the temp music or the even less dialougue, but the workprint seemed like the grimest version of all....The workprint IS the reason I am buying the box set thank you very much!
Post a Comment