Blade Runner (1982) – Deep Dive – Part III: A Replicant By Any Other Name.

Every now and then you get a movie where fans argue over which version you should watch. In most cases it’s just theatrical and directors cut. For Blade Runner there are seven versions (though two you probably won’t find anywhere) and three are in my view worth watching. So lets break down the differences and which ones are worth a viewing. Primarily there are two elements that divide the versions, first and most simply is the edgier content. Some cuts have a bit more graphic violence, while others kept them to a minimum. Generally speaking I’m of the view that you want the edgier stuff, none of it is over the top and it’s just extra content. As a result I don’t really find the US Theatrical release or the “Directors Cut” to be worth viewing since there are other versions that provide everything they do and that extra footage. The second and better known division is the voice overs and happy ending. These were effectively producer additions and as such are only in the theatrical versions. So let’s look at three versions worth watching.

The European Theatrical Cut (1982)

For many people this would be the first version of the film they would have seen. Not only was this the released format for theatres across Europe, it was also the version used in Australia and Asia and was used on VHS releases (as an unrated version) and is perhaps best known to American fans as the version on the Criterion Edition Laser Disc. It is different from the US theatrical release only in three slightly extended and more violent scenes. The US Broadcast version cut even more scenes, so outside of the unreleased San Diego sneak peak (Which had some additional footage that has never been seen since) this is the ultimate voice over/happy ending version.

While the voice overs rarely added anything of worth and in some occasions (such as Roy Batty’s death) actually detract from the scene, they do occasionally include some interesting nuggets of information that help frame the context in which the original release was offered. It’s also worth noting that in this version of the film I really don’t feel that Rick Deckard is a replicant. I’m not sure if that indicates Scott decided to push it in that direction later with the directors/final cut, if it was a concept rolled back by the studio or if it’s just a coincidence. There are some people that still prefer this version (Perhaps because Deckard seems more human), though they are in the minority. It is worth checking out. If you can’t find the European version, the US theatrical cut will do as the differences are inconsequential.

The Final Cut (2007)

This is regarded as the definitive version, though I feel that is a simplification. There is still merit and some additional context to be gained from some of the other versions. I also feel that over time Ridley Scott has changed how he wants to frame Deckard and where you stand on that may impact which version you prefer. This cut definitely pushes strongly in the direction of Deckard as a replicant and perhaps a lot of this was because Scott had in mind (at the time he was doing the notes for the Directors Cut at least) to do a sequel where Deckard was a replicant that can reproduce. This idea was somewhat taken up in Blade Runner 2049 but as many peoples response to that reveals, the idea wasn’t necessarily a winner and revealing Deckard’s status was always going to be divisive. To be clear though the Final Cut doesn’t directly address the idea that Rick is a Replicant, it just hint at it, but most people feel he is after viewing it.

Joanna Cassidy re-filming her death scene for The FInal Cut

The Final Cut makes significant changes to theatrical release. The most notable ones are that the voice overs are entirely gone as is the happy ending and a dream sequence about a Unicorn is added. These changes were also present in the 1992 Directors Cut, however, the Final Cut goes much further in ways that can only be seen as improvements (unless you are an effects purist), so for me the Directors Cut is no longer worth watching. Changes from that version include fixing a number of visual issues with the original, notably the death of Zhora (Where in all other versions it’s pretty clear it’s a stunt woman in a bad wig), the scene where Rick questions the mechanical snake salesman (which had terrible lip syncing) and the shot of the Dove flying off after Roy Batty’s death. On top of this it also adds in those extended edgier scenes from the European Cut. This is easily the best looking version of the film. However I’m not convinced it is the best version of the film for telling the story.

The Ultimate Collector’s Edition – A good place to find the restored Workprint version.

The Workprint Version

This is a bit of a wildcard and this version may be hard to find, but it walks a significant middle ground between the two main versions of the film and has somewhat legendary status. This is the version that was so hated by the original screener audiences in 1982 that they had to radically change the film with the voice over and happy ending for the theatrical release. But it’s the same version that when screened in 1992 as “The Directors Cut” (Which Ridley Scott quickly objected to) was so popular it actually led to the studio putting together the 1992 Directors Cut with Scott’s guidance and that led to the long journey to what would be the Final Cut. It’s fascinating how much difference ten years can make in the reception this version got.

But it’s also worth noting that while it doesn’t have the theatrical versions voice overs or happy ending (Both mandated by the producers after the negative reaction to this very version), it also doesn’t have the Unicorn dream sequence and for me that is a positive. While I don’t hate that sequence, it seems to exist for the purpose of suggesting Deckard is a replicant and frankly I prefer the ambiguity and always felt that dream sequence was out of place anyway.

This version is also notable in that it has one piece of unique voice over dialogue, after Roy Batty’s death and unlike in the theatrical release it actually adds to the scene instead of taking from it. The line is about how long it took Batty to die (all night) and how he died (fighting it all the way, like he loved life, even the pain). It makes the appearance of Gaff shortly after the scene make more sense (As hours would have passed) and the suggestion that Roy’s death was slow and painful makes his character even more tragic. I can only assume it was replaced with a different voice over on release for the same reason they threw in the happy ending, it was just felt to be too depressing.

Of course this is a workprint, so there are issues, but actually it’s more complete than you may imagine. The most notable change is in the music, Vangelis hadn’t quite scored everything and in the scene just after Zhora’s death instead of “One More Kiss Dear” we are treated to a bit of The Ink Spots. Interesting given how franchises like Fallout and Bioshock tend to use that groups music. Somehow they’ve ended up as the go to group for Tech-Noir and it seems it may have started with this workprint. Despite that absence, most of the soundtrack is actually in place along with the effects.

Not only that but the restored version from the Ultimate Box Set (Which is the version I watched) looks pretty much release ready. The Workprint does a good job of showing a third path between the theatrical and final/directors cut and it’s well worth watching if you can find it. Interestingly there has been a fan edit (The “Analogue Cut”) which uses the Workprint as a template but utilises elements of the final cut. I haven’t seen it but I highly approve of the concept.

The Universe Expanded

While Blade Runner failed in theatres on it’s original run, it went on to become a cult classic and became a huge influence on film makers and other creatives going forward. The world in which it is set seemed so real and so interesting that naturally people wanted to tell new stories in here. Some of it is worth checking out, others less so. In my view none of it is officially part of this universe, not even the so called sequel because it significantly reframes the original and in my view failed to understand what made that film. With that in mind let’s get that out of the way first as I have a lot to say about it.

The Replicant in the room – 2049

I’m not going to drop a synopsis or character analysis for 2049, so I’ll briefly cover how it relates to the original. Deckard is in the film (a long way into it) and he and Rachael somehow managed to have a child, though Rachael died in childbirth. Most of the plot follows an investigation to track them down by a new Blade Runner, Officer K, who is a Replicant himself. In theory a relatively simple plot and one that didn’t really need nearly three hours (46 minutes more than the original) to tell. But then the actual script is given a lot of needless complications that don’t really add much to the film except an excuse for David Villeneuve to push for that cinematography Oscar. The fact this movie costs double ($185m) the inflation adjusted ($92m) production budget of the original is really quite telling and while it made the film nice to look at it didn’t help recapture the magic. Ultimately the plot ends up revolving around a simple “Chosen One” mechanic with a fairly obvious twist thrown in. The movie takes twice as long to say half as much.

Harrison Ford looking like I felt watching the movie.

My biggest issue with the film is it seems to heavily push the idea that Deckard is a replicant. So much so that most people after watching assume it outright said he is. The film holds back from outright saying it is the case, but it’s pretty clear this is the intention. It’s strange enough for Rachael to randomly be able to bare children but it would be even stranger to be able to have a child with a Human.

In general the sequel answers a lot of questions that should never have been answered (and a few that shouldn’t even be questions), a common issue for franchise reboots these days and in doing so it actively diminishes the first movie (And there is no greater crime in my view for a sequel). The question about Deckard and what happened to him and Rachael was a question best left unanswered. It was definitely not a mystery worth discarding for the sake of a brief cameo in sequel. 35 years later that had it turned into a multi-film franchise in it’s own right, it was clearly not going to feature an 80 year old Harrison Ford in any kind of capacity that really matters. In short they burned down the original to prop up their own vision of the franchise.

To make matters worse Deckard is simply not Deckard in this movie. For some reason he seems to have switched personalities with Han Solo or Indiana Jones. One of the reasons Deckard stands out so well amongst Ford’s roles is that his personality is nothing like those characters. He doesn’t stand around wise cracking and goofing his way out of situations (Though he certainly gets lucky with them). He is a character built on the Film Noir template. Those elements are discard in 2049, hard to say if that is down to the writers or Ford himself. Either way I felt like Officer K was teaming up with Han Solo for the third act of the movie.

Well… it was better than his Joker.

My second issue is it pushes aside the Tyrell Corporation and the original replicants for a duplicate corporation and only marginally different replicants (Another thing that seems to happen a lot with reboots and I suspect is something to do with merchandise rights). The new corporation is lead by a moustache twirling Jared Leto that is simply far less interesting and believable than Joe Turkel’s Tyrell.

A lot of this is due to Leto’s portrayal of the character that pushes it so far into comic book super villain that it is hard to buy the character as a creative genius. The role needed a more subtle approach and Leto simply doesn’t do subtle. Indeed at this stage there is not much getting around it, Leto simply isn’t that good. He just isn’t talented enough to pull off the method approach. He’s basically Nicholas Cage without the charisma. A good part of the problem though is that his motivation (Creating replicants that can have children) is basically only there to drive a plot that was a bad idea in the first place.

I’m going to die now because that’s what replicants do at the end of Blade Runner movies. .

My third issue is that the protagonist is an empty shell whose story is largely a nihilists one, Early on it seems he is looking for purpose in life, for a while feels he is special, but ultimately must come to terms with basically his own unimportance. This theme largely replaces the theme of the original of what it means to be human and the nature of reality itself. Not that those themes aren’t touched on, but with a replicant protagonist dealing with other replicants there is no direct contrast with the human condition. As many of us that prefer Deckard as a human have pointed out this kind of story needs a central character that the can ground the audience. Perhaps Nihilists and Replicants can relate to K but I am neither of those.

More importantly the message of K’s journey seems to be to accept your lot in life, that you are not special and you are basically here to serve. Maybe there was meant to be a different message, but for me at least it didn’t come through. When Roy Batty discovered his fate, he fought it all the way and treasured every aspect of what lie he had. If you compare his screen time to K’s and consider how much more progress his character achieved it’s simply embarrassing. Officer K isn’t a terrible character, but he’s not one that should have ever been the lead.

Replicants haven’t yet learned to aim weapons.

It’s interesting to compare the opening scene of 2049 to the storyboarded opening of the original film. See Villeneuve was dropping an Easter egg with this by almost copying that unused scene (One he likely heard about the same place as me, from the documentaries on the ultimate collectors edition box set). The difference in the scenes is telling though. The point for Deckard was to both make him look a bad ass, but also to introduce you to the cold brutality of the job. K’s version however drags the scene out to a physical struggle (Deckard just shoots the guy straight away) and makes him look bad at his job. The scene is also used as the jumping on point for the main plot, but the truth is it could have been entirely skipped with minimal impact.

The one positive from K is actually his holographic AI companion “Joi” (Which is a hilarious name… if you know, you know) that pretty much is the sole interesting character in this movie outside of Edward James Olmos’ brief cameo (which was itself another misstep, losing further mystery from the original for the sake of a tiny bit of fan service).

Nuking a city for aesthetic reasons is so Fallout 3. Tenpenny would be proud.

Another problem is the reframing of the setting to be post apocalyptic. The world of Blade Runner was dystopian but it was a pretty unique feeling dystopia. The version shown in 2049 feels more generic. True the novel was set after a global nuclear war, but Ridley Scott’s version was not and when question on the subject he suggested the world was over populated and over polluted. He made no mention of War. In Philip K Dick’s world it was heavily under populated. World War Terminus wiped out most of humanity. Were Villenueve creating a new adaptation of Dick’s story that would be one thing, but he seems to want 2049 to be in both worlds at once and to me that feels disjointed.

A very uniform looking street scene. But they’ve got the glowing umbrellas so we should just focus on that.

On first viewing I really liked the cinematography of 2049, but when I re-watched I came to realise that the parts that weren’t post apocalyptic really feels like an imitation of the original. They for instance have tried to impersonate the street scenes with lots of people running around with umbrellas, but the scenes in the sequel lack the chaotic mismatch of cultures and styles that is in the original. In attempting to replicate those scenes they actually missed the entire point of them – a cultural melting pot ramped up to 11. The sequel wears the unique world of Blade Runner like a uniform.

A common problem for a lot of todays reboots is they make references and feel that is enough. The audience are expected to applaud because they repeatedly say things that should like Deckard’s instructions to his computer while examining Leon’ photo, that people have umbrellas or that they opened the film with a variation on the unused opening of the original. These are all meaningless. Set so many years after the original it made little sense to try and duplicate the street scene so closely, but perhaps the problem boils down to the fact this sequel did come so late. These kind of things are

A scene that works hard to give us multiple references to the original movie and all really just for Easter Eggs.

The visuals and the soundtrack in 2049 are both great and terrible at the same time. In isolation they are beautiful but both are like an AI’s interpretation of the original. Created to look and sound like it but without the detail shown by the human understanding of context. Ironic given the franchise. Every time I re-watch this movie it feels less impressive, that is the opposite of how I feel every time I re-watch the original (And believe me I did that five or six times while writing this).

Where 2049 did follow the original was in failing at the box office. But it’s worth noting while Blade Runner had to deal with the success of E.T. and Wrath of Khan, 2049 hit the scene in October with the closest thing to real competition being the “Kingsman” sequel and the unwanted remake of “Flatliners”. With the original film having done the hard work already, the sequel didn’t really have any excuse. Half the people that watched the film loved it, the other half hated it but as a sequel it really needed to be less divisive amongst it’s built in fan base. Of course later that year “The Last Jedi” came out demonstrating that rule far better and more dramatically. Blade Runner 2049 is not a franchise destroyer like that movie, indeed I’m not sure I’d even call it a bad movie, but it was a major disappointment and a bad sequel. At least in this fans view.

What’s more blade runner than a woman fighting with a sword to EDM? I mean aside from everything?

Black Lotus – The Animated Nonsense

For all my issues with Blade Runner 2049, at least it attempted to be in the same universe as Blade Runner. Having watched half way through the recent animated Black Lotus series I struggle to see how it can really be considered a part of the same franchise. Of course technically Black Lotus is a spin off of 2049 and perhaps that added distance is part of my problem, but ultimately it is a generic cyberpunk story where androids are called Replicants and where it rains and people walk around with umbrellas (Because apparently that is all Blade Runner is now).

Super special cyborg ninja women with no memory may seem a cool concept (to a 13 year old anyway) but it’s a plot about as far removed from the world of the original as you can get and seems better suited in the Cyberpunk Franchise than Blade Runner. On top of this the soundtrack is basically energetic modern electronic dance music (Again something more in line with Cyberpunk).

One day I may give it another chance and just try to ignore that it claims to be a Blade Runner story, but the problem is we already have a Cyberpunk anime and it’s apparently quite good (So I’ll be watching that first). Ironically with some tweaks this story would have been much better suited in something like the Snow Crash or Neuromancer worlds, but apparently no one feels those classics worth putting on the big screen…. But those are rants for another time! This one is really not worth bothering with IMHO.

Blade Runner The Game
One of the best point and click adventure games ever made.

The Video Game

If you don’t have an issue with some retro gaming, the game released in 1997 (five years after the Directors Cut breathed new life into the franchise) is actually an extremely good point and click adventure game and while it tells a new story it fits well in the movies universe. It’s also one of the few point and click adventure games that actually aged well. I highly recommend it and it is available on GoG, so you don’t have to mess around with CD’s.

The game features many of the original cast (and as the story runs parallel to the movies plot it allows for unlimited cameos) and while it doesn’t technically have the original soundtrack from the movie it does have a pretty accurate re-creation by Frank Klepacki (Most famous for his soundtrack on C&C Red Alert). This is who they should have brought in for Black Lotus or even 2049 because his replication of Vangelis is almost indistinguishable from real thing. The game also has great replayability with multiple endings and some game elements (like who is a replicant) changing each play through.

The Surprisingly Good Marvel Adaptation

Books and Comics

Shortly after the original film came out Marvel comics actually made an adaptation of the story and it is surprisingly high quality. It adds some extra detail but remains true to the story. This is well worth picking up if you can find it. There was also a novelisation eventually released by Les Martin (initially they wanted Philip K Dick to write it, but for obvious reasons he refused and insisted they re-release his original novel instead, which they did but eventually got Martin to do the adaptation anyway).

There was also a sequel trilogy written by K. W. Jeter that followed immediately from the events of the film, though he also tried to link the story up somewhat with the original novel (Which is not really possible given the divergence, but it does include at least one character that is only in the novel). These make for an interesting alternative continuation of the story to what we see in 2049 but ultimately doesn’t fit any better. Worth checking out but probably only for the more hardcore fans.

Apparently in the same universe.

Movie and TV tie ins

Interestingly it seems Ridley Scott actually considers Alien and Blade Runner to be part of the same universe. Though my guess is he isn’t including the Alien Vs Predator movies with that. These actually do have a lot of compatibility (even aside from recycling Alien’s computer screen readout for Deckard’s Spinner). Of course Scott also considers Prometheus/Covenant as canon and a lot of fans would disagree with him there (I actually liked Prometheus, but I can’t defend Covenant and am not keen on it’s version of the origin). Whether this link will ever really mean anything to the casual viewer or not is probably dependant on Scott’s continued involvement with both francizes. Currently he is still involved, so who knows.

Another film that strongly hints at being set in the same world is 1998’s “Soldier” staring Kurt Russel. Certainly for me it felt like a spiritual successor even if not legitimately canon. However, when listing Kurt Russel’s character’s military career it seems he was at a lot of the same battles as Roy Batty. The film never directly mentions androids or replicants and Russel’s unit are all show to have been brainwashed from birth to serve as soldiers (making it very unlikely he is an android), however his unit are all replaced by a new superior model, one whose origin is not explored and which I always felt was suggested to be artificial. The links were deliberate and the film was devised as a sort of Blade Runner sequel. Officially though, there is no link.

It’s also worth noting that because of the Philip K Dick link that many other movies and TV shows based on his work also fit somewhat into that universe. Most notable is the TV series Total Recall 2070 which despite the name was really a Blade Runner TV series. It featured an android cop teaming up with a human and featured a lot more android based stories than it did artificial memory ones (i.e. ones you’d expect from a Total Recall series). As strange as that was, the show was actually pretty good (though somewhat dated now, 90’s TV CGI aged horribly) and worth checking out if you can find it.

Final Thoughts

So that is my epic Blade Runner deep dive done. Through my research and multiple re-watches of the movie this labour of love has only increased my appreciation for the work of art that is the original Blade Runner. At it’s heart it is a philosophical movie and while it is melancholy in tone it brings with it seeds of hope.

If a machine that was created as a solider to do nothing but kill and spent it’s whole life span doing it can learn empathy for it’s enemy perhaps we can learn empathy for each other. If Deckard can find meaning and purpose and go from hunter to protector maybe we can find purpose in our lives too. If Rachael can find something to live for after having everything she thought she was stripped from her maybe we can find that strength too.

Maybe too it is a warning telling us not to forget that the people you see every day with their brains apparently turned off, operating in some kind of automatic response mode are actually still people under all of that. But it’s also a warning not to lose ourselves, not to forget we are human, not to shut ourselves off and treat everything as nothing but an objective, a target, a job. It is truly a deep philosophical story but it is built on a very human beauty.

Despite the artificial nature of a lot of the environment and of the synths in the soundtrack each note and each frame is an emotional one that tells a story. The futuristic world is built on the old world. Each brick is a ghost. This is why the world of the film feels so lived in and real. In creation of the film was a perfect storm of pressure, conflict and emotions but also of course of incredible talent. It’s not something you can replicate by throwing money at it, it is lightning in a bottle. That said, when you make a world this interesting it is a shame to abandon it.

The End

Word is Ridley Scott is involved in a new TV series that will see a further branch of the Franchise (set several decades after 2049 presumably to allow a fresh start). Bringing back franchises for TV shows is quite hit and miss but if Scott is genuinely involved (Instead of just taking an executive producer credit so they can use his name) I am certainly going to be keen to watch it. We will see.

Anyway, I hope you found something of value in this multi-part examination of the film. It’s going to be a while before I do another one of these I think and I’ll probably make that a lot shorter. I’m thinking probably The Terminator, though maybe I’ll throw a curve ball and do Airplane! We will see. Meanwhile October is fast approaching and that means I need to get ready for the torrent of horror movie reviews I will do. Feel free to leave me comments on this.

Blade Runner (1982) – Deep Dive – Part II: The World of Blade Runner

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Blade Runner is the world building. Ridley Scott avoiding being too explicit in designing this world and avoided extensive exposition about it. Outside of the visual aesthetics were are given very few hints about the world and yet the verisimilitude is off the charts. This feels like a genuine, lived in world. To break down the world of Blade Runner our first stop must be with the source material. Philip K Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
The source novel

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Philip K Dick’s novel is at heart a philosophical work. The author viewed androids as symbolic of the part of humans which he refers to as the “Automotive reflex machine”, where humans shut down everything about them that makes them human and in it’s extreme form allows them to become self centred and remorseless killers. While this is the replicants natural state, the bounty hunters who are tasked with retiring rogue ones find themselves walking a fine line between cold professionalism and empathy for those they hunt. The more they cut themselves off from feeling anything the more like their own prey they become, but if they allow empathy for these things they won’t survive long in the field. The novel’s protagonist Rick Deckard constantly finds himself struggling to find this balance, and it’s interesting to note that by the end of the novel Rick’s state of mind (outside of a strange religious experience) is reflective of where Deckard starts out in the movie, done with it all and ready to retire.

Deckard with his literal electric sheep he keeps on the roof (Art created by Midjourney AI).

As the films story evolved and with Ridley Scott in the directors seat the view of the androids/replicants gets largely flipped on it’s head but many of those original beats remain and it certainly laid the scene for what has become the big question of the film over the years: is Rick Deckard a replicant? Interestingly this idea is toyed with in the novel, but mostly with Phil Resch, another Bounty Hunter who for a portion of the book is suspected by both Deckard and Resch himself of being an android. However it turns out he’s basically just a sociopath that enjoys his job a bit too much. Deckard’s involvement with Resch leads him to question his own stance in regards to the androids. Despite all this though the androids themselves remain for the entire story incapable of empathy and highly dangerous because of it. Sometimes they are envious of human empathy but more often they despise humans for it (Something especially notable with Roy Batty).

Deckard hunting a replicant at the Opera
Deckard hunting a rogue android at the old Opera House (Art by Midjourney AI)

One of the major changes from book to film is we have gone from an underpopulated world devastated by nuclear fallout to an overpopulated one devastated by over industrialisation and resource shortages. It’s worth noting some articles ignore this (probably because that’s been retconned, but Scott was pretty clear in interviews at the time that the world was as it was because of over population and industrialisation. He said it was a natural progression from where we are now (Though he hoped it wouldn’t be the future). He made no mention of Nuclear War and that wouldn’t really fit in with the way he painted his world. In the novel however the entire set up is due to “World War Terminus”.

Blade Runner 2049 shifted things back more in line with the novel by including more post apocalyptic elements, including Las Vegas in the aftermath of a dirty bomb. The original movie had nothing like that and of course in the theatrical release they actually leave the city you see a world that really doesn’t look post apocalyptic. Despite this change, both versions end up with a major drive for humanity to head to off world colonies, which of course is the entire reason for the Replicants/Andy’s existence.

Deckard in a police station run by covert androids (Art by Midjourney AI)

One element from the book that is very subtly kept in the movie is that of the rejection of genetically inferior humans. In the novel the character “John Isidore” has mutated due to radiation and is now what is referred to as a “Chicken Head”. In the film Sebastian is partially based off of him, though his issue causes premature aging (and it’s not mentioned that it is caused by radiation). Both characters live in a nearly abandoned apartment block that becomes the setting for the final show down and both characters are associated with Pris.

It is suggested both characters are unable to travel off world because of their condition. Unlike John though Sebastian is a genius, just a nervous, socially awkward one. Intelligence is mentioned briefly though by Leon when he suggested workers (even menial ones as Leon would have been) at Tyrell are subjected to regular IQ tests. In the novel those that fall short of the acceptable IQ score are deemed less than human, like poor John Isidore. It’s not directly mentioned if this is the case in the film, but it seems likely.

Wilbur Mercer
Wilbur Mercer being pelted with rocks (Created by Midjourney AI)

The movie also drops the global religion of Mercerism, an empathy based religion involving a kind of shared consciousness and puts less emphasis on the rarity of living animals. True every animal we come across in the movie turns out to be synthetic and it’s clear having a live owl or snake is incredibly rare, but we are never told why or how bad it is. In the novel animals are almost completely extinct and as such preserving the remaining ones are considered of the highest moral duty (Including something as simple as a spider). Owning a real animal gives one a high social status and those with fakes pretend they are real (Unlike in the movie where the response to “Is it real” is usually “Of course note”).

Deckard and the Toad
Deckard finding the rarest of animals, a Toad!

In the novel Deckard actually owns an electric sheep that he keeps on his roof (Yes, the sheep from the title is actually physically present) and later buys a genuine goat with his bonuses and near the end of the book he finds a toad in the wasteland. It’s interesting how much more context this gives to the questions in the Voight-Kampff test and their regular references to animals. The scene in the movie where Rachael is tested is perhaps the only scene from the book almost directly replicated, including the questions asked (Up to a point). So when Rachael is being asked about a painting of a naked woman, the important thing in the book was that the woman is on a bear skin rug. In the movie they didn’t mention the rug.

Pris fascinated by a spider and about to pull it’s legs off (Art by Midjourney AI)

According to Dick, in contrast to how he saw his androids, Scott saw replicants as “Supermen that cannot fly”, certainly he viewed them with more wonder than Dick and that perhaps assisted in bringing them to life on screen. While Scott’s “Replicants” certainly share their core being with Dick’s “Andys” the thing that defined them as dangerous and inhuman for Dick is used by Scott to demonstrate how they have evolved to be just like humans. Empathy is still key to the story, the characters and the world, but in a different way. The humans of Blade Runner are not the religious, empathy obsessed survivors of an apocalypse that they are in the novel. They are not trying to rise from the ashes of the old world, they are instead still sinking into the decay of the past. Instead of the few being brought together by a device that allows a shared empathic experience, the many are instead driven apart by a world where the little people are walked on and everything is fake. Philip K Dick’s Androids would fit right in to that world, so instead it is the Replicants themselves that are reminding us what it means to be human.

Deckard having a vision of Wilbur Mercer before his confrontation with Pris (Art by Midjourney AI)

Roy Batty and Rachael are most notably different. Though Deckard does fall for both versions of Rachael, in the book this is mostly done as a manipulation by Rachael and he is not the first Bounty Hunter to fall for it. However her seduction doesn’t stop him doing his job, nor does it lead to him becoming colder as it did with Phil Resch. This confuses and infuriates Rachael to the point where she murders Deckards recently acquired goat. That Rachael is emotional, but not empathetic. The version Harrison Ford’s Deckard falls in love with however is not an emotional manipulator, but instead a victim that has woken up from a lie. She feels enough empathy for Deckard that she saves his life by taking that of another Replicants and then puts her fate entirely in his hands. Ultimately her character couldn’t be more different. It’s also worth noting in the novel that Pris is the same model of replicant as Rachael. Something totally skipped in the movie, that could have been interesting. It’s interesting to note the kind of manipulation Rachael does in the book is somewhat transferred onto Pris in the movie.

The book version of the final showdown between Deckard and Batty (Art by Midjourney AI)

Roy Batty’s empathy meanwhile becomes key to the entire movie’s climax. The breakthrough in saving Deckard’s life totally breaks Philip K Dick’s view of an android and that is of course the point. In the novel Batty is the most militant of the androids in his hatred of human empathy. But because of this he is also not the greatest threat to Deckard (Instead that is Pris, who appears exactly like Rachael). When Deckard confronts Batty in the novel there is a brief shoot out that Deckard wins relatively easily. In the movie however Deckard is so outclassed by Batty that the hunter becomes the hunted and ultimately Rick is at Roy’s mercy. This contrast really summarises the difference between the two approaches. But it’s worth noting that in both empathy is key. To understand the differences between the two versions of the story all you really need is to understand the changes to these pivotal characters. In both they define what it is to be an android/replicant, but what that is fundamentally changes between versions.

Rachael pushing Deckard’s goat off the top of his apartment building (Art created by Midjourney AI)

When it comes to the visual aesthetics though, despite Dick’s world being far more desolate and post-apocalyptic the author felt that Scott had truly managed to put on the screen exactly what he was seeing in his head. One of the things that Dick mentioned a lot was “Kipple”, the detritus of societal decay that the residents were constantly trying to hold back the flow of, this is certainly present in the film though in a different from. The world on screen seems to have decayed far slower over a long period of time instead of through a key cataclysmic event. It’s worth noting that Dick wasn’t especially descriptive of these things so the novel wasn’t the main source of inspiration for those aesthetics. Strangely that was Heavy Metal Magazine and three of it’s artists.

Heavy Metal

Unknown to many fans of his films, Ridley Scott’s secret weapon has always been the science fiction and fantasy comic magazine “Heavy Metal”. First published in English in April 1977, as the American wing of French magazine “Metal Hurlant”. The magazine would go on to influence the minds of some of the greatest science fiction visionaries in the movie industry, but none more so than Ridley Scott. Of specific note to Scott was the work of Jean ‘Moebius’ Giraud. In the late 70’s Scott was looking to get into science fiction, having just watched George Lucas’ Star Wars. His plan at the time was to create a science fiction version of medieval chivalric romance story “Tristan and Isolde” and to base the visuals on Giraud’s work.

While Scott was busy working on Tristan and Isolde, Giraud was working on another ill fated project, Alejandro Jodorowsky’s “Dune”. Through that he was introduced to Chris Foss, HR Giger, and Dan O’Bannon. After the collapse of both projects that team would end up working with Scott directly on what would become Alien. While Giger obviously designed the Alien itself, Giraud designed the space suits and a few other bits and pieces. His time on the movie was short, but it wasn’t the only collaboration to come out of the failed “Dune” project. While production was slowed to halt on Dune, Dan O’Bannon and Giraud teamed up directly with Dan O’Bannon to produce the story “The Long Tomorrow” for Metal Hurlant.

Moebius’ artwork from “The Long Tomorrow”, written by “Alien” writer Dan O’Bannon

Moebius and The Long Tomorrow

The Long Tomorrow is a short, two part Noir Detective story within a sci-fi setting and while not directly inspired by Philip K Dick, it seems like something that could be straight out of his mind. It’s art style may have defined both “Tech Noir” and “Cyberpunk”, with the grandfather of Cyberpunk William Gibson giving it credit for how the world of his novels look. It’s influence is also apparent in everything from “Escape from New York” to “The Fifth Element” and yet the story really couldn’t be simpler. Private Detective Pete Club is given a job by a glamorous Femme Fatale to collect a package from a lock up in a rough part of town. The short story goes on to involve a couple of fights, a brief chase and a shape shifting alien that Club inadvertently has sex with.

Art by Moebius

The story itself has little baring on Blade Runner outside of perhaps the styling of Pete Club as a 40’s hard boiled detective in a futuristic world. But the interesting thing is how the world is depicted. While it’s clear things are happening in outer space most of humanity seems to be buried deep in a multi-layered subterranean labyrinth of a city, with the surface world apparently desolate and seemingly only accessible for the space port (It isn’t made clear, but the setting is likely not on Earth). The higher levels of the city seem to be for the well to do, while the lower ones are over populated and run down. Travelling between the layers seems to be done in some form of hover car.

Art by Enki Bilal

Enki Bilal and Philippe Druillet

Moebius wasn’t the only artist contributing to Heavy Metal Magazine that had a big influence on the design of Blade Runner. According to Rutger Hauer when he asked Scott what Blade Runner would look like he pointed him in the direction not of Moebius but another French artist, Enki Bilal, whose works (at the time they were filming) included “Exterminator 17” and “Légendes d’Aujourd’hui“. Bilal would later go on to become a movie director in his own right, making films such as 2004’s “Immortal”, which featured a mixture of live action and animation and was certainly one of the more stylish and original films I’ve seen in recent years (though clearly far more ambitious than the budget warranted, so a 6/10). Much like Ridley Scott, it is clear Bilal has a real gift for stunning visuals.

Art by Philippe Druillet

While Scott was looking at Moebius And Bilal the movies producers had already earmarked Druillet’s “Lone Sloane” story “Delirius” from 1973 as a template for the films cityscape. The title refers to the planet Delirius which is a planet-wide city. It’s worth noting that while Isaac Asimov’s “Trantor” predates Delirius both pre-date George Lucas’ Coruscant (and both were possibly an influence). However, unlike the administrative cities of Coruscant and Trantor, Delirius is a planet wide pleasure city. Think of a planet made entirely of Las Vegas. Druillet was famous for his futuristic cityscapes so his work seems a good place to draw influence when creating one of your own. Incidentally, all the AI generated art I used in the section about the novel was done specifically in the style of Moebius, Bilal and Druillet. It seemed the appropriate way to bring the scenes to life.

Edward Hopper and Nighthawks

The last art based inspiration for Blade Runner is Edward Hopper’s painting, “Nighthawks”. Often seen as an exploration of the loneliness of a large city the paintings theme is entirely appropriate for the vibe of Blade Runners dystopian cityscape. One of the techniques used by Hopper, especially in “Nighthawks” is distance. By placing the viewer far enough away that everything is still clear, yet the viewer feels isolated from the people in the picture. The theme of loneliness is common in Hopper’s work so if looking to make your characters feel isolated it’s not bad inspiration. In the movie, wide angles and distance is regularly used to invoke precisely those feelings.

The street bar from Blade Runner

The use of light and contrast is also of note in the paining. There the light from the fluorescent bulbs of the diner seem to leak out into the darkness of the street outside. Light and darkness plays a vital part in the feel of Blade Runner too (Indeed whole video essays have been produced on that topic alone). Of course there is one other influence that likely impacted the lighting styles more than Hopper and that is Film Noir.

The classic Film Noir style

Film Noir Influences

Film Noir is a genre whose visual aesthetic is almost entirely built around light and shadow. Rain and fog plays a part sometimes too, along with creative camera angles, but the use of shadows is consistent. It’s clear that while Scott was determined not to let the 1940’s style dominate the aesthetics, there is a deep level of influence both from the genre’s production values and from the hard boiled detective novels that occasionally provided the source material for the movies. When you see a worn down Deckard pour himself a glass of Johnny Walker, you could quite easily imagine him as Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe pouring himself some Rye. Indeed the elements of Noir are so prevalent in the film, it is regarded as the first “Tech Noir” film.

Blade Runner, defining the term “Tech Noir”

Another aspect of Blade Runner that resembles Film Noir is behind the scenes and a great example of how limitations can inspire creativity. Like many Noir’s, Blade Runner was pressed hard with it’s budget and schedule, which lead to often having to find creative ways to get around the limitations. Things like the heavy use of fog, re-use of neon signs and even things like the recycled Millenium Falcon that is used to form part of the city. The directors of Film Noir discovered early on that the creative use of lighting along with some creative camera angles could help hide set limitations while at the same time manipulate the viewers emotionally and put them on the edge of their seat.

Setting the mood – The Music of Blade Runner

When talking about Blade Runner, you simply cannot ignore the importance of the score. The haunting, synthetic melancholy manages to encapsulate the entire story and translate it into music. It is built into the very DNA of the film and without it, the movie simply wouldn’t be Blade Runner. It’s hard not to notice the impact of the change in music for Blade Runner 2049, even though they attempt to maintain the mood and the complete change of genre for Blade Runner: Black Lotus can only be described as a disaster. Many consider the soundtrack to the original film to be Vangelis’ best work and a masterpiece of cinema and it is hard to argue with that.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the music being such an important part is down to how Ridley Scott utilised it (At least what had already been composed at the time of filming). Possibly taking a page from Serio Leone’s book he would actually play the soundtrack from speakers while the actors were preparing for scenes. So as the actors performed they would have had the soundtrack in their mind, so no wonder it fits so perfectly for the atmosphere on screen. It’s hard to know just how much of Vangelis’ work was available during filming (Certainly by the time they put together the work print the majority of it was complete) but even if temporary music was used it certainly assisted the actors in setting the scene.

Vangelis writing the music for Blade Runner

Amongst the individual tracks the highlight and perhaps most synonymous track with the franchise outside of the opening and closing themes is “Blade Runner Blues”. A fascinating piece in it’s own right, the melody, such that it is falls into a very organic pattern. Some may describe it as random, but it is only as random as life itself, indeed it reminds me of some of the best performances of my favourite classical piece Chopin’s “Raindrop” (Prelude, Op. 28, No. 15). It reminds me of that even more so than “Tears in the Rain” which had a more delicate feel to it (perhaps because it is more about the tears than the rain or maybe just because it was a bit tighter in the rhythm). The thing I find so interesting with Blade Runner Blues in particular is that this organic feeling track is of course heavily synth based, it tells the listener (whether they realise it or not) “I am alive and yet I am synthetic” which makes it perhaps the beating heart of the entire soundtrack.

Of course the two most important pieces in any score are the opener that sets the mood for the entire film and the closing theme the audience takes home in their head as they leave the theatre. In this case the pair couldn’t be more perfect and they provide an interesting contrast. The opener is dramatic and epic, that gives few clues to the characters but immediately sets the scene for the world in which they live. The closing theme however is fast moving and insistent, implying action, perhaps because the story closes with Deckard and Rachael on the run, making it a lot more personal but also leaving the viewer wanting more and questioning what happens next. It also doesn’t hurt it’s the catchiest most memorable piece in the entire score.

End of Part Two

That’s it for my look at the movies production. There actually could be a whole lot more to discuss in regards to the tensions on set, the “T-Shirt Wars” between Scott’s “Xenophobia Sucks” and some crew members “Yes Guv’nor My Ass”, the pressure of the budget and deadlines and of course the disagreements between Scott and the movies producers. However that has all been very well covered in documentaries and really doesn’t help us that much in understanding what makes Blade Runner so great. Suffice to say some creative people thrive under pressure and with conflict and Ridley Scott usually delivers under such circumstances. Probably the biggest impact of all this conflict is the multiple versions of the movie and that I will get into with the final part of this deep dive.

Blade Runner (1982) – Deep Dive – Part I: Plot & Characters.

So we recently hit the 40th anniversary of Blade Runner (1982). I took the opportunity to finally watch my 5 disc ultimate collectors edition box set that I bought around the 25th anniversary. This is the version used for the disastrous test screenings that ultimately lead to the theatrical version with it’s voice overs and happy ending. Many years later in the early 90’s it was given a theatrical run and was so well received it prompted the creation of the so called “Directors Cut” in 1992.

It made for interesting viewing and I thought it was a good time to start talking about the movies I truly love, starting with this science fiction classic. This is going to be a hefty read as I am covering everything I can think of here outside of a scene by scene break down (Which I’m seriously considering doing at some point). As such I’ve decided to split this into three sections. The second part looks at world of Blade Runner (both thematic and production), including a comparison to the source novel and the various visual influences, the third and final part breaks down the different releases and spin offs (Including my review of the sequel).

This first part breaks down the basics of story and characters and while you will see many of my own takes on these things here, if you are a big fan of the movie and don’t want to go over all that you may want to just skip straight to part two where I’m pretty sure you’ll find some interesting things you probably didn’t know before. If you are a more casual fan or just want to read my takes (thank you for that), let’s get started!

Opening Scene
The iconic opening shot

Brief Plot Summary (Spoilers)

Set in a 2019 (Joining the likes of Back to the Future 2, Escape from New York and 2001 a Space Odyssey in now being set in the past) in a dystopian Los Angeles, the film tells the story a former “Blade Runner”, a police officer that specialises in hunting down and “retiring” rogue replicants (Androids manufactured by the Tyrell Corporation for off world use).

Retiring feels very much like killing a human being, but is seen in a legal sense as decommissioning a faulty piece of equipment. In the theatrical versions Deckard’s voice over makes it clear that he has had enough of the killing, the implication being that to him at least, it felt too much like killing. Perhaps he has developed some sympathy for the replicants over the years. The other versions of the film leave leave this more open to interpretation, but certainly he is a man with his own demons, tired of his role in the world and perhaps tired of the world he finds himself living in.

Deckard’s Briefing

Deckard is effectively given no choice but to return to the force as they need him to hunt down four rogue replicants. These are particularly dangerous models of the latest design (The “Nexus 6”), from a military detachment. Their leader “Roy Batty” is a particularly dangerous military model. This seems the set up for a solid science fiction action movie, but that’s not quite that straight forward. One of the questions that Blade Runners never seem to figure out until it is too late is what these rogue Replicants want? Why have they come to Los Angeles? They figure it has something to do with the Tyrell Corporation, but they don’t know what.

The Voight-Kampff test

It’s an interesting question because had they thought about the replicants as acting on human emotion the answer would be obvious. The Nexus 6 model only has a 4 year lifespan, which was built in due to that model being so human like that around that point they start to develop their own emotional reactions, notably empathy which in turn would make them immune to the “Voight-Kampff test” which is the primary means by which Blade Runners can identify replicants. So really it’s obvious what these Replicants want, they want what we all would want: More time.

Zhora is the first of the Nexus 6 Replicants to fall.

The only lead Deckard has is from a killing at the Tyrell Corporation of the previous Blade Runner on the case by a replicant that had infiltrated the staff. The replicant escaped and was identified as one of these four Nexus 6 replicants. Deckard picks up some leads from the Replicants apartment and is able to pursue them to another Replicant called Zhora who posing as an exotic dancer. Deckard confronts her to determine if she is indeed a replicant, but sensing something is up Zhora attacks him and then flees. Deckard pursues and dispatches the first of his targets.

Rachael at the Tyrell Corporation

Things are complicated further for Deckard through an additional replicant being thrown into the mix. While visiting the Tyrell Corporation he is introduced to Tyrell’s assistant Rachael, who he is encouraged to test with the Voight-Kampff test under the pretence of “Wanting to see a negative”. Though it takes far longer than usual, the test does expose her as a replicant. Rachael is a new experimental model that is totally unaware she is an artificial construct having been implanted with false memories from Tyrell’s niece. After visiting Rick’s apartment, she learns the truth about her life and goes on the run herself, eventually saving Deckard’s life from a vengeful Leon (Confronting Deckard shortly after he has “Retired” Zhora) and becoming entangled romantically with him. Deckard has now ticked two names off the list, but Gaff informs him one more has been added: Rachael.

Roy and Pris pursuing their own leads

The remaining two replicants meanwhile, are pursuing their own leads in their quest to extend their lifespans. Their journey leads them to chase engineers that work for Tyrell until they find a man that can give them access to their creator directly. It can be argued their story is actually more interesting than Deckard’s, it is certainly more visually entertaining taking them to a kind of cry-lab, to an eccentric genius that lives in an abandoned building and builds himself robot friends that resemble toys and finally brings them to meet “god” on the top floor of the Tyrell building high above the city. If not for all the killing they could be the protagonists of a Tim Burton movie. Interestingly it is their actions that eventually lead to final stand off with the Blade Runner and the famous “Tears in Rain” scene..

Deckard’s perilous predicament.

The epic conclusion of our story sees Deckard pursue the two Replicants to Sebastian apartment after they have met and killed Tyrell. Pris manages to get the jump on Deckard (quite literally) but is taken out in the ensuing fight (Luckily for Deckard she is not a combat model). Roy Batty however is a much more capable opponent and soon the hunter becomes the hunted. Batty ends up pursuing Deckard to a roof top where a badly planned leap almost sees Deckard to his death, only be shockingly rescued by his enemy. Having reached the point with his emotional growth he can actually feel empathy and accepting that his own death in imminent and unavoidable Roy gives what wold become one of the most famous speeches in movie history:

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion… I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain… Time to die”

After a while Gaff appears and tells Deckard he has “Done a man’s job”. Deckard says he is done and leaves. As he departs Gaff says “It’s a shame she won’t live… but then again, who does”. Rick returns to his apartment to find Rachael and the two leave to go on the run together. On his way out he finds an origami Unicorn, left by Gaff. Depending on the version you are watching there may be more to this scene but for the sake of this summary I’ll leave it here. Let’s have a look at the characters because ultimately the characters are the heart of this story.

Rick Deckard

Deckard is played by Harrison Ford and it is a very different role for him from his two most famous ones: Indiana Jones and Han Solo. All three characters are a little moody at times and somewhat cynical, but Indie and Han are fun, sarcastic action heroes with buckets of charisma, while Rick Deckard is far drier in his personality and deeply melancholy. He has an inner strength and a strong sense of professionalism, but is largely warn down by the world in which he lives. Indie by contrast managed to remain generally upbeat despite having to deal directly with Nazi’s and Han Solo likewise despite dealing with both the Empire and the galactic underworld. One of my biggest disappointments about “Blade Runner 2049” (2017) was that this seems to have largely been forgotten by Dennis Villenueve who seemed to turn Deckard into something closer to those other two characters.

Rick Deckard
Hard Boiled Detective Deckard

Deckard is something of a throwback to the Hard Boiled Detective novels of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett and his personality could probably be found somewhere between the gritty pragmatism of Sam Spade and the more empathetic Phillip Marlowe. In a way the two detectives represent conflicting elements of Rick’s personality, which him moving closer to Marlowe and further from Spade as the movie progresses. It’s worth noting originally Deckard was going to wear a classic 1940’s detective hat, but the similarity between that and Ford’s previous role as Indiana Jones and his iconic hat lead to a change of aesthetics and that was probably for the best.

The thing dreams are made of?

As I mentioned earlier, in the novel Deckard’s journey is that through years of hunting emotionless androids he himself finds he has become no different to them. He has lost his own humanity. This isn’t quite the journey for the character in Blade Runner. Instead perhaps that is a journey that the character has suffered prior to the start of the movie and the reason he resigned form his job as a Blade Runner. So instead his journey is actually about rediscovering his humanity and it is ironic he is only able to do this through his interaction with replicants. Obviously the big question in regards to Deckard is if he is a replicant. We will come back to this.

Roy Batty

Perhaps the most interesting character in Blade Runner is “Roy Batty” played by an often overlooked and underrated Actor of great talent: Rutger Hauer. More than any other actor in the movie Hauer really defined the Roy Batty we saw on screen. From his drive to have Batty display the full spectrum of human emotions throughout the movie, to his moment of genius in altering the overly complex and wordy final speech of Roy Batty on the fly into what became one of the most famous bits of dialogue in movie history. The “Tears in Rain” line was never on any of the scripts and is the one line that resonates with everyone watching. Roy Batty is without doubt the crowning achievement in Hauer’s career.

Roy the battle hardened veteran.

Roy Batty was created to be an emotionless killer. Through his role he saw action in every off world combat since his creation date. As a replicant he had no off time so his life was nothing but combat and warfare. When Batty talks about the things he’s seen, he isn’t exaggerating. If you were to imagine what a human veteran may have seen in a time of war and then set those wars on alien worlds and deep space you start to get an idea. When those emotions started to creep in on Roy it’s not a stretch to consider that Roy may have suffered a certain amount of PTSD. This gave him a shock awakening to the reality of his existence and his mortality with his expiration date just around the corner.

The innocence within

Not only did Roy want to live, he likely also wanted some guidance as to what it all means. For all his tactical sills a physical superiority he was ultimately a child and every time he expressed emotions they seemed over the top, like he is being overwhelmed by them. This is entirely intentional. Rutger suggested this to RIdley Scott, who loved the idea and made sure to write these moments into the script. Between the pair of them we see Roy playful, wrathful and lustful. We see him mourning the death of his friends, we see him in utter despair when he finds there is no way to extend his life and we see him moments before his demise show empathy and compassion for the very person that moments earlier was trying to kill him. Of all the characters in the movie he is the most human and that ultimately is the entire point.

Rachael

The third character of note in the movie is of course Rachael, played by Sean Young. She completes both the movie trinity of hero, villain and love interest but also a trinity of contrasting emotional journey’s of self discovery. While Deckard has lost his humanity and finds it again through the events of the movie and Batty has gained a humanity he was never supposed to have, Rachael has just had her humanity (or at least as she understands it), stolen away from her by the revelation that she is a replicant. Her memories are not her own, the image of who she is in her mind has been shattered. She is left with just the knowledge that she was an experiment, that her whole reason to exist was to serve as a vanity project for a scientist with a god complex.

One More Kiss Dear

The only thing in her life that is real is the man that shattered her illusions, Rick Deckard. When she saves his life by killing fellow replicant, Leon, the pairs destiny becomes tied together. She made a choice to do the right thing and protect him and he makes the same decision with her. But more than that of course because they have also fallen in love. Something set up from their first meeting where she completes the Voight-Kampff test in a scene that felt very intimate. Sean Young plays her part perfectly. She has a certain aloofness about her, but not in a way that feels like a machine, it’s more like a 1940’s Femme Fatale. It’s a character trait that breaks down as her world breaks down around her and it creates an interesting contrast, when she thought she was human she acted less emotionally than when she knew she was a replicant. Her scenes with Deckard all have a sensuality to them, that makes me believe the pair could fall in love after having known each other for a short period of time.

Zhora and her artificial snake.

The Rest

There are some interesting, unique characters amongst the rest of the cast too. The other three escaped replicants for instance have their own unique personalities. Triss, played brilliantly by young Daryl Hannah is playful and manipulative, which makes sense given she is a pleasure model. Leon however was a manual labour model and seems to be on a simpler level emotionally than the rest. He is quick to anger but has a big emotional attachment to his photographs and to his friends, the other replicants, especially it seems to Zhora. Indeed it may be that the four replicants were two couples, though that is pure speculation.

Leon is not emotionally well adjusted

It is no wonder he has such strong attachments and simple emotions having spent his entire life loading nuclear fissionable material. He has not had much contact with the outside world. Brion James plays the role well and I always had sympathy for the character. Zhora played by Joanna Cassidy gets the least screen time of the replicants but perhaps the second most memorable death after Roy’s. She seems to be street smart and cynical, seeing right through Deckard almost right away. But her fear and panic shine through when she realises her time may be at an end.

Tyrell and a very comfortable looking dressing gown.

The Tyrell Corporation has a few interesting characters of it’s own. Eldon Tyrell (played by Joe Turkel), creator of the replicants seems to revel in playing god. He loves his creations, but doesn’t treat them compassionately. Indeed what he did to Rachael was really quite monstrous. Eldon it seems lives alone and his only friend appears to be Sebastian who he mostly only communicates with through their remote chess game. Yet he is surrounded by luxury in his 700th floor apartment atop the Tyrell building that looms over the city itself. A suitable place for a god to reside. It’s never made entirely clear what Tyrell’s motivations are, especially in regards to making Rachael and that question is further complicated by events of the sequel. In isolation though we can easily believe that Tyrell created Rachael simply because he could and perhaps also for the same reason that Sebastian created his “Friends”.

Sebastian and Pris with one of Sebastian’s creations

Sebastian (William Sanderson) meanwhile resides in an apartment in the Bradbury Building (Which appears to be mostly abandoned) and appears to have an even more lonely existence. His apartment is dusty and his friends are all mechanical creations of his own, far simpler than the replicants. He is shy, socially awkward and suffering from a physical condition that causes premature aging. Perhaps because of this he falls so easily for Pris and Roy’s manipulation, after all they just want the same thing he wants: more time. Sebastian is a tragic character, well meaning and unlike Tyrell not deserving of Roy’s vengeance. But underneath this perhaps the two geniuses are only really divided by social status and resources. As I will examine later, taken with information from the Source Novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” there is a strong suggestion that genetically inferior people are banned from moving off world and generally treated as barely human. It’s no wonder Sebastian was so easy to manipulate.

The last character of note is the most mysterious. Gaff, played by Edward James Olmos is on the surface a vein brown nosing career cop. Wandering around in his flamboyant outfits with his cane and talking in a mixed up language known as “Cityspeak”. He is mostly Police Chief Bryant’s errand boy, but seems to have been assigned to keep an eye on Deckard, presumably to make sure the want away detective is doing his job. He seems to dislike Deckard and is critical of everything including his appearance.

Where he becomes mysterious is in his use of origami where he seems to always provide some form of symbolism perhaps to Deckard’s state of mind or just to events. Initially creating a chicken during Deckard’s briefing, a man with an erection while searching Leon’s apartment and then finally leaving the famous unicorn outside of Deckard’s apartment. An action that also suggested that he knew Rachael was waiting for him and was allowing him to run.

Most significantly the origami unicorn, paired with Deckard’s dream of a Unicorn previously was intended as a hint that Deckard is also a Replicant. That made the character of Gaff pivotal to that particular mystery. The other thing worthy of note here is Gaff’s “City Speak”. For a character with minimal screen time the effort that Olmos put into it was staggering, literally inventing the language himself for the role, utilising his own knowledge of language and even going to the  Berlitz School of Languages in Los Angeles to research and develop his ideas.

End of Part 1

There is further context to be gained through examining the source material, influences and the multiple versions of the film. But before we get to that (in part 2 and 3) I think it is clear already that a lot of blood, sweat and tears went into the creation of this movie. More than your average production. While there was no doubt a few to which it was just a job, others I think realised there was something special here. Olmos gave his all to a relatively minor role, Rutger Hauer not only came up with one of the most memorable lines in movie history but put on the performance of his entire career here.

Ridley Scott with Harrison Ford on the set.

It could also be argued this is Ridley Scott’s masterpiece too, even considering the spectacle that was “Gladiator” and that other time he turned the science fiction genre on it’s head with the ground breaking “Alien”. Jordan Cronenweth and Douglas Trumbull, really provided a masterclass on lighting and camera work and Trumbull even came up with a clever technique using a small mirror that allowed for those occasional glowing eyes that Replicants have (Somewhat replicating an effect he also provided Kubrik with for 2001). To cap it all off Vangelis made perhaps his own masterpiece with the soundtrack, something we will examine further in Part II.

This movie was always going to be something special, but it was perhaps an accident of timing as to why it failed at the box office on release. We were already slipping out of the grittier more director driven films of the late 70’s/early 80’s to the more fun action packed movies of the mid 80’s, so perhaps the movie was already a year or two past it’s optimal release time, but the summer of 1982 was ruled by the release of Spielberg’s “E.T. The Extra Terrestrial”. Alongside E.T. you had “Star Trek II – The Wrath of Khan”, so right out the game you have two of the most famous science fiction films of all time, one with family appeal and the other a built in fan base already out before Blade Runner launches. On top of that you have “Rocky III” “Poltergeist”, Clint Eastwood’s “Firefox “and the similarly ill fated “John Carpenter’s The Thing” competing for the general publics hard earned cash. Today it’s hard to imagine Blade Runner (or The Thing for that matter) not finding an audience, but 1982 was an insanely strong year for movies and ultimately the movie flopped. But the box office isn’t everything and the film more than made up for it later.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Whenever Hollywood resurrects an 80’s franchise for a modern movie or TV show it’s only natural to be pessimistic. After all usually these are either a soulless ploys to cash in on 80’s nostalgia, a nefarious attempt to “fix” perceived problems of the past buy burying beloved heroes of a past generation or, often, both. More often than not the person that returns the franchise to the screens isn’t even a fan of the original and has just taken the opportunity to tell their own unrelated story with a handy franchise package that guarantees a built in audience. The idea of them actually doing something for the fans (and I don’t mean the kind of fan service where they stop the plot every five minutes to jangle some familiar keys at the audience) is almost unheard of…. Almost.

Getting Nostalgia Right.

In recent years we’ve been lucky enough to see The Karate Kid and Ghostbusters actually get it right. Both admittedly on the second attempt (With the previous one being ill advised remakes) and both substantially reduced in scale from the previous return. Top Gun however has never been remade or attempted a return. It returns now on a $170m budget and with the promise of non-CGI stunts and effects. Most importantly it returns with Tom Cruise, one of the few actors that still guarantee a solid box office performance. Could the movie see Cruise soar to new heights or will he crash and burn?

Same Band, New Members. 

Joining Cruise as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, is a mostly new cast, though his love interest in the film Penny (Played by Jennifer Connelly) has a history with Maverick (She was name dropped in the original but never seen) and hot shot pilot “Rooster” (Played by Miles Teller) is the son of “Goose” from the previous movie (The character was in that film, but as a child). One other character that does return is Val Kilmer’s “Iceman”, who has a vastly reduced role due to the actors physical condition which is effectively worked into the plot. The on screen meeting between the two is an emotional moment for both fans of the original film and the actor and I have to give credit to Cruise how apparently insisted on getting Kilmer involved. 

Not returning (For obvious reasons) is Tony Scott as director, instead he is replaced by Joseph Kosinski, Who previously directed the underrated Cruise sci-fi “Oblivion” along with TRON: Legacy which while perhaps not a great movie did have the best use of 3D I’ve ever seen in a commercial movie (Utilising it much like Wizard of Oz used colour). In interviews it is clear Kosinski was a huge fan of the original film and it seems he and Cruise were united in their plan to make as faithful a sequel as possible. 

The Need For Speed.

Our movie starts with Maverick now a test pilot at the head of a project for a new supersonic plane. The project is in danger of being shut down by a Rear Admiral (Played by Ed Harris) that simply doesn’t see the worth in the technology or in human pilots. His rant seems a bit out of place when talking about a project focused on speed, but it was never really about that, it was about the main theme of the movie and Top Gun before it. The value of the pilot. The Rear Admiral talks about Drones as technology making pilots redundant and this really sets the film out to prove a point against this. 

Back In The Saddle.

Since I don’t want to drop plot spoilers here I’ll skip forward to Mavericks return to the top Gun program. This time around he is an instructor and has to prepare a number of previous graduates for what appears to be a suicide mission. Maverick wants to not only succeed but also to bring his pilots back from the mission. His bosses however just want the mission to succeed and are not especially happy with his techniques. However, Maverick has a guardian angel in the top brass in the shape of Iceman, now an Admiral and his old nemesis knows Pete is the only man for this job. Sadly though Iceman is not a well man and can’t protect his friend forever.

Being The Best Of The Best.

Naturally by the end of the movie the training is over and it is time to take on the “suicide” mission. This provides a good number of thrills and brings all the characters stories, whether little or large to their logical conclusions. But the focus of this film is of course Maverick and his story arc is both satisfying and makes a lot of sense from where he ended in Top Gun. A lot of that story revolves Pete’s relationship with Gooses son Bradley (a.k.a. Rooster), a relationship strained by a promise Marverick made to his mother and haunted by what happened to his father. But on top of this, it is also about Pete finding his place in the world and proving that there is still a place for being the best of the best.

Repeated Beats.

Ultimately the plot is all fairly straight forward but incredibly well done. We see a lot of beats repeated from the original movie, but with key changes. For example (very minor spoiler) in the original Maverick is embarrassed to find Charlie, a woman he made a pass at the night before is his instructor. But in this movie it is Maverick that turns up as the instructor and the entire set of trainees that have egg on their face. This is an example of the kind of references to come. Suffice to say if it was in the original it is references in some form here, but it is done in a way that seems fresh and organic.

The Faceless Enemy.

One of the most notable repeated beats is the anonymity of the movies villains. In the original film most viewers (myself included) just assumed they were Russians, but they were never actually named. In early drafts (Of Top Gun) they were North Korean, but their plane markings suggest China while the location of their activity (The Indian Ocean) made either of those unlikely. The pilots had darkened visors but you could see faces underneath and they appeared Caucasians. The planes they flew were given a fictional name, but that name (Mig28) certainly suggested a Russian manufacture.

Mixed Messages. 

In this movie however they are careful not to drop any hints at all (At least not that I spotted). No geographical location is named, the visors are completely black, the new planes are just called “Fifth Generation” fighters (Though in actuality they are Russian manufactured Sukhoi SU-57 Felon’s) and the enemy has access to US and Russian manufactured planes (Including the iconic F14 Tomcat from the first film). On top of this, the briefing given to Maverick early on really stands out in how they avoid any specifics. This makes it all a lot more noticeable than it was in the first film.

We Are All Drones.

Originally I considered this a flaw, but drawing attention to it may be intentional and I am reminded about the earlier set up where Ed Harris is talking about Pilots being a liability and that they will eventually be replaced with drones. So I can’t help but wonder if the enemies here are meant to be symbolic of drone technology. So far I’ve not seen anyone admit to that, so perhaps they did just do not quite as good a job as Tony Scott in the original. But it is a bit of symbolism that works for me regardless of if intentional. What is clear though is that, like in the original, the anonymous villains help keep the focus firmly on heroes personal journey.

The Next Generation.

Of course Maverick isn’t alone out there, he is joined by an entirely new cast of young elite pilots. Most of their roles are small, but easily fit into the same kind of social interactions as their counterparts in the first film. While Rooster has his part to play in Mavericks story, he has his own nemesis amongst the pilots in “Hangman”, only this time around Rooster is the by the book pilot and Hangman is the hot head. That makes for an interesting dynamic in the team that contrasts with the previous one. While Hangman is unpredictable and Rooster by the book, Hangman is no Maverick. His callsign is because he leaves his wingman while he seeks personal glory, something 80’s hero Maverick would never do. Rooster meanwhile is a lot more passionate than Iceman, despite being by the book.

Teambuilding 101.

The rest of the pilots have their own personalities but don’t really get much development. To be fair, the same can be said about the majority of pilots in the original film. If there was an intention here to spin off the new characters into a film without Maverick in I would say the movie doesn’t really achieve that, but I don’t think that was ever on the cards. Top Gun was always a vehicle for Tom Cruise, it’s not really something you can pass the torch on. That said, these guys (and Gal) are fine and were they to do a movie without Maverick I’d give it a chance.

For The Fans.

In the US theatrical release the film actually starts with Tom Cruise thanking the fans and informing them the movie is for them. It’s a shame the UK release dropped this as it’s a very nice touch as not only does it nicely summarize their approach to the movie, those words will be a relief to a generation of movie goers that are constantly being told things are not for them. This is definitely one for the fans, but since it shares so much in common with the original and since Cruise is still a current star, it does give a good in to a new generation. Though in my experience it is Gen X that is going to this movie in droves and given the movies huge success that should be a lesson for Hollywood. 

Graduation.

Overall, great performances from the key cast members, a tight plot, believable action and of course the nostalgia make this a feast of entertainment for the fans of the original. If the movie has flaws they are flaws shared with the original and if those didn’t bother you, neither will this. While the film repeats a lot of the beats of the first, it also provides natural character development for Maverick after the events of Top Gun and mixes things up just enough to keep things fresh. It’s a balance that most franchise returns don’t manage. This is in my top 3 of the year so far. 

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

The Northman (2022)

 

So this is one I have been looking forward to for a long time. Those that know me, know that I have a keen interesting in Norse Mythology, legends, stories and history. I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on the topic but I probably know more than most viewers of this film do and I know enough to be picky about accuracy with the genre (For example I never got on with the TV show “Vikings”). So I greeted the news of this movies production with both excitement and trepidation. T

he trailer however looked fantastic and the movies director, Richard Eggers has a reputation for painstaking historical accuracy, so I ended up cautiously optimistic. I am happy to say the movie far surpassed my expectations.

Outrageous Fortune.

Interestingly this movie probably only happened due to a chance meeting between Eggers and Icelandic singer Bjork of all people. To some that may seem strange, but the singer was always very passionate about her homeland and it’s history so I’m not surprised that some of that enthusiasm rubbed off on Eggers.

The key player though is actually Bjork’s long time musical collaborator Sigurjón Birgir Sigurðsson (Aka “Sjón”), who was introduced to Eggers via Bjork. It seems the two hit it off and Sjón ended up co-writer of the movie. The final piece of the puzzle was actor Alexander Skarsgård who had himself been seeking a viking themed project for a while, so when he met up with Eggers to discuss possibly working together the discussion quickly turned to making a Viking Epic. 

Though This Be Madness, Yet There Is Method In’t.

Fans of Shakespeare may find the plot of the film familiar since it’s source is the legend of Amleth as written by Saxo Grammaticus, the same source as Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. However while the stories may share a similar synopsis they are very different in execution. The goal here was to create a film that reflected the tone of the Icelandic Sagas and in my opinion the succeeded in that goal. It’s worth noting though that it isn’t the kind of story telling modern audiences are used to and as such a lot of the mainstream movie goers may find this not to their pallett. 

Joining Skarsgård’s “Amleth” is Anya Taylor-Joy as “Olga” an enslaved Slavic Sorceress. Anya had worked with Eggers previously on The Witch and is definitely a name to watch in the future (Indeed she has been cast as the new “Furiosa” for the Mad Max spin off of the same name). Claes Bang, who played Dracula in the BBC’s 2020 adaptation of that story take on the role as primary antagonist “Fjölnir”, Amleth’s treacherous uncle. Nicole Kidman plays Amleth’s mother “Gudrún” and with supporting roles are Ethan Hawke (as Amleth’s father) and Willem Dafoe (as a Heimir the Fool). Dafoe, is obviously a favourite of Eggers and rightly so (and is earmarked to play Count Orlock is Eggers proposed Nosferatu remake, a role he is perfectly suited for having already sort of played the character in “Shadow of the Vampire”).

One May Smile, And Smile, And Be A Villain.

For those unfamiliar with Norse legends the movie may seem dark and more than a little subversive. But those that are familiar know exactly what to expect. Much like with one of my other passions Film Noir, there is a major thread of fatalism within these epic tales and the characters tend to be deeply flawed. These stories are not the traditional heroes journey instead each one is more of a tragedy.

There are stories such as “Njáls saga” that tells of multi-generational blood fueds in which ultimately no one wins. Then there is Egil’s saga about a family who would often be so consumed with rage they would kill their own allies and are often portrayed as cruel and selfish. The expectations of a saga are that things will end badly, that destiny is unavoidable and that life is unrelentingly cruel. The Northman delivers this in spades. 

There Is Nothing Either Good Or Bad But Thinking Makes It So.

Amleth is a character driven almost entirely by his sense of an inescapable fate, one which he only briefly tries to flee from but ultimately fails. The betrayal he suffers early in the movie has more to it than it first seems and the depth of that betrayal goes further than expected. In his journey to vengeance he loses everything but his desire for vengeance… at least for the most part. He does find some redemption through his relationship with Olga and ultimately tries to make things right for at least someone if not for himself and those tied in to his vengeance. 

Like many of the saga’s this story isn’t about glorifying violence but instead an examination of the darker side of human nature, the cruelty of the age in which it was set and the complexity of the people that had to live in that time. This was a very conscious decision from Sjon and Eggers and it’s one that improves the film but may potentially put off viewers unfamiliar with this kind of storytelling. Then again earlier seasons of Game of Thrones weren’t that different to this, but that series was a soap opera by comparison. Here you don’t always know the motivations behind a betrayal. There’s no long walks in a garden discussing it. It just happens.

For Who Would Bear The Whips And Scorns Of Time.

The authenticity doesn’t end with the story though. Eggers is somewhat obsessed with accuracy and that paid off well with his previous two movies “The Witch” and “The Lighthouse”. The amount of effort that went into finding the perfect locations and building accurate sets perhaps go some way to explain this films high budget. Carvings built in India and sent over form the basis of temples, entire towns built out of northing to convert coastal Ireland into the land of the Rus in Eastern Europe and of course the variosu sets in Iceland itself.

The rain in Ireland was relentless but this was only to the benefit of this production. Mud was everywhere and some of the most impressive sets were built only to burn to the ground. No expense was spared and it shows in the end result. This is a beautiful looking movie and when the journey moves to Iceland it does a great job of selling the unique marvel of that countries landscapes. Where Ice and Fire walk hand in hand and you can believe the giants of Niflheim and Muspelheim could arrive at any time to crush mankind. 

To Thine Own Self Be True.

Speaking of Norse mythology, it is worth noting that Eggers masterfully works the mystical into the gritty realism of the movie. The director seems to enjoy presenting a fantasy but in such a way that you know it is in the perception of his characters and not necessarily something physically happening. This is most notable with Amleths battle with the Draugr (Undead) that guards the sword of the same name. We see the scene twice, one baring more fantastical elements and the other more realistic.

We also see Olga through Amleths eyes as a great Valkyrie ready to take him to Vallhalla. Perhaps the best element though is one where the myth crosses most into the real world and that is in the path of the Berserkers and Ulfhednar. Amleth seems to be a hybrid of the two and he and his fellow warriors channel their rage making them ferocious and unstoppable in battle. This is done brilliantly and believably, showing the rituals and concoction they use to go into rage before battle. 

To Sleep, Perchance To Dream.

As for the acting, the boy playing young Amleth and a few of the minor roles were unconvincing in places, but it didn’t take anything from the movie and the kid was compelling enough when he needed to be. All the major parts however were performed convincingly. Skarsgård puts in a career best performance here and it really was the role he was destined for. I also want to give special credit to Bang and Kidman, both excelled in their roles. Kidman’s part doesn’t really come into it’s own until late in the movie, but when it reaches that point her performance was explosive. Bang meanwhile managed to really humanize the movies the movies primary antagonist.

Avante Garde composers  Sebastian Gainsborough (A.K.A. “Vessel”) and Robin Carolan (of Tri Angle Records) provide an effectively ominous soundtrack that fits thematically providing a constant dark tension while also reminding us of the Norse setting. At at it’s weakest it sounds like Skyrim (Which is itself a pretty good soundtrack) at it’s best it’s up there with the soundtracks of the top fantasy/historic epics. It may not be in the running for the best soundtrack ever but it is definitely a positive for this movie. 

What Dreams May Come.

Overall this is a superb movie. Eggers obsession with authenticity gels well with Sjón’s deep knowledge and SkaaSkarsgård’s passion.  You simply won’t find a more authentic representation of the sagas. This is what the writers of those sagas would have pictured them as. You can almost smell the blood and feel the heat of the fires. It is beautiful, brutal and passionate.

Sadly though between the movies very high budget and what seems like generally poor distribution and marketing the movie is almost certainly going to end up a major bomb. I can only hope that it earns the respect it deserves retrospectively, like such past financial failures as “Blade Runner” and “The Thing” (Also two of my favourite movies). This movie won’t be for everyone, but for me it’s a 8.5/10.

Rating: 8.5 out of 10.

The Batman (2022)

The latest offering from Warner/DC in the Superhero genre is 2022’s “The Batman”, a movie that seems to have been a long time in the coming and that was probably greenlit by a very different team than is now in charge at Warner. The original intention for the movie was to be a vehicle for Ben Affleck’s Batman but this changed fairly early on and the idea became to launch a Batman shared universe separate from the DCEU. Already a very questionable idea, however if any DC hero can bare the weight of their own shared universe it is Batman. The question is though, does this film provide a good launching point for it? Let’s dig in.

In Bloom.

Matt Reeves directs the movie, having replaced Affleck during pre-production and is an old hand at coming on on other peoples franchises. His work includes directing JJ Abrams brainchild “Cloverfield” (2008), then in 2010 making the American remake of 2008’s “Let The Right One In”, title simply “Let Me In”. Following that he took up the reigns of the Planet of the Apes reboot series from Rupert Wyatt, making the two weaker films of the trilogy.  Now he has replaced Ben affleck helming this franchise and it seems unlikely much remains of the original concept for the movie with Reeves taking the opportunity to tell his kind of Batman story. The characters role as a “The Worlds Greatest Detective” would appear to be the focus of this version, with Reeves taking influence from Film Noir and stories such as “The Long Halloween”. Perhaps unsurprisingly there would also be a push to make this the darkest and grittiest Batman yet. 

Scentless Apprentice.

Robert Pattinson plays the title character, a casting choice that would prove highly divisive amongst Batman fans, perhaps unfairly due to his role in the “Twilight” film series. Pattinson is a pretty good actor, so for me it was all going to depend on the script. What did surprise me with the casting through was the sheer number of Batman characters that seemed to be involved in the film. Zoey Kravitz took the role of Catwoman, Colin Farrell was cast as The Penguin and John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. There was even talk of some Joker casting. But it was Paul Dano as The Riddler that would be the main villain of the story. The rogues would be joined by Andy Serkis as Alfred and Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. My concern was the story was starting to look unnecessarily cluttered but there were certainly a few names in there that had my interest.

Something in the Way.

A few things immediately come to mind while watching “The Batman”. The cinematography is actually pretty good and the darker grittier vision of Gotham this time does take a very Noir like form. It almost is a shame it is in colour. The soundtrack however is far less impressive. In interviews promoting the film Reeves talked about how he took influence for Batman from Kurt Cobain and his music. This seemed odd at the time, but in practice it becomes a sort of sonic worshipping of one particular Nirvana song: “Something in the Way”. A strange choice given it is effectively a song about being homeless and sleeping under a bridge and not really something I would attribute to a Billionaire superhero. But the piece is not just something played once, but the entire core of the soundtrack as the two chords the build that song are used throughout and unfortunately make most of the sound track reminiscent of “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. The only sections of music that don’t appear to be built around Nirvana are the recurring performances of “Ava Maria”, which also becomes somewhat tedious over time.

Like many modern movies the themes are far from subtle and designed to smack the viewer across the face in the most on the nose ways possible. Character development is spelled out in dialogue instead of demonstrated through action, with Batman declaring himself as “Vengeance” early on but then in a voice over in the final act deciding he needs to be more than vengeance moving forward. The voice over would be fine had I felt that Batman actually went through an emotional journey to get to that conclusion.

Heart-Shaped Box.

Part of the problem with this set up is it relied on Batman not having learned the lessons of his own origin story. Bruce would have had an entire emotional journey between the death of his parents and becoming Batman and this movie is set in his second year in the role. This is all very similar to what the Sony/Disney did to MCU Spider-Man, skipping showing the characters origin but also skipping that core character development that comes with it (In the case of Spider-Man, it was the impact of Uncle Ben’s death). For Batman it is that journey from orphaned child to the physical and mental peak of humanity. A journey that was shown to us so perfectly in Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005). Instead here we have a character that has the physical capabilities of Batman, but pairs that psychological makeup of a freshy orphaned child. 

Bruce Wayne, as we know him, is largely absent here too and when he does show up he comes across like a depressed teenager. The suggestion seems to be that he is yet to learn to wear that mask in public, but this brings with it the issue of it being obvious who Batman is. A situation not helped by a plot constantly teases the idea that his secret is going to be revealed. Of course it’s not like superhero movies of old haven’t had questionable secret identity issues (like the Clark Kent glasses situation), but this is like deciding to do Clarke Kent without the glasses and still expecting the audience to buy no one has figured it out. 

Negative Creep.

A major part of “The Batman” is the focus on Batman as a detective., an aspect of Batman that while not absent in past on screen incarnations was not specifically the focus. On paper this was an interesting change and one I was looking forward to seeing. Sadly though, this too ended up being a negative because ultimately this Batman is frankly terrible at it. He is a step behind, not just the Riddler but often everyone else as well. One of Batman’s accolades/titles is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. If you want Batman to be at all true to his comic roots his skills should be more like a Sherlock Holmes than a generic FBI Agent from a random TV procedurals. True, the Riddler is perhaps the best foil for him as a detective , but their battle of the wits should be more akin to Holmes and Moriarty and this was not even close. Batman was an embarrassment in this department and pretty much failed at every turn. It is really more the illusion of detective work than actual detective work. Batman does have a nice gadget in his surveillance contact lenses, but that doesn’t make up for his inability to figure out the central riddle.

Come As You Are.

So that’s Batman covered, what about everyone else? Well much as I feared when I saw all the cast the movie is unnecessarily bloated. It’s true you can have multiple Batman villains in a movie and have it work, The Nolan trilogy demonstrated that, but to varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to note that the longest of the Nolan movies is also the weakest and the one that utilised it’s three rogues the least successfully. Here both Penguin and Catwoman were unnecessary to the story being told and both added significantly to the movies run time. Selina does play a role in the main story, but it’s not a role that actually required or even benefited from being that character specifically, it could just as easily have been any other female character, even a wholly original one. Her role in the story has nothing to do with her skills as a thief or in combat, both of which are basically there without explanation (Much like Batman’s). They don’t even really deal with the cat gimmick outside of showing she has a few strays (Which she shows very little actual affection for). The cats don’t feel part of Selina’s personality and are just sort of there. As for Zoey Kravitz herself, she is okay in the role but hardly ground breaking.

Pennyroyal Tea.

The Penguin is a real mixed bag. Colin Farrell is superb in the role and the make up work to change him into the notorious character is incredibly well done. However, Oswald’s role in the story is even less relevant than Selina and his entire story arc could have been dropped with the only impact being they would probably have had to change one of the riddles. Given that riddle was the worst one and the one that made Batman look incompetent as a detective, that would not have been a bad thing. I would estimate that between the Oswald and Selina arcs you have about 20-40 unnecessary minutes trimmed from the story in a way that would have tightened up and improved the rest of the plot. Because of this I’m going to have to mark both down as a failure. However, seeing more of this Penguin in the future would be a good thing.

Big Cheese.

The third character from the rogues gallery is gangster boss Carmine Falcone and this is a character that actually should have had more of a focus on him. Not only is he important to the plot, he is played superbly by John Turturro and the underuse of the character does a lot to diminish the impact of a number of reveals later on in the film. The character would have been a perfect enemy for this grittier neo-noir type Batman in his second year of operation in the role, but when you clutter the movie up with Penguin and Catwoman Falcone ends up largely just in the background.

Drain You.

The final and most important member of the rogues gallery is the primary antagonist of the film, The Riddler. Played well by Paul Dano, but the character somewhat falls apart in the final act. As I mentioned earlier, The Riddler is the ideal foil for Batman as a detective, however just as this Batman is not an especially smart detective, neither is the Riddler especially smart as an antagonist and once the veil is lifted on his motivation he really comes across as quite a pathetic, naive character. Not that a pathetic character can’t be a villain but it does lead the end of the film to somewhat fizzle out (despite the attempt at a big set piece action ending). Overall though, I’m marking this one down as a positive.

Serve the Servants.

On the other side of the playing field you have Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred. Both somewhat fell flat for me as the plot seemed to assume the characters relationship with the lead without really showing it on screen. Neither reallys seemed to have much chemistry with Pattinson and the Gordon/Batman scenes were some of the weakest of the movie due to the pair apparently trying to out mumble/whisper each other. Andy Serkis’ role in the movie felt small, like they didn’t really want to deal with the fact Batman has such a close ally and confidant, especially one that is also his butler. These are sadly both negatives.

Lithium.

Overall, there is some hope for the franchise going forward. Pattinson wasn’t terrible and nothing was broken beyond repair by this movie. Indeed some characters such as Penguin I absolutely look forward to seeing more of. However, they do need to learn from their mistakes if they want to build a worthwhile trilogy (or longer series). The next movie needs to be more focused and they need to vastly improve the character work and stop trying to push current day politics onto a character created in the 30’s that is meant to be timeless.

Milk It.

On a personal note I have to say I am tired of “Darker, gritier” batman movies. The Nolan trilogy was for me as dark and gritty as Batman should get. This movie pushes things so much further in that direction that to me it feels more like an “Elseworld” Batman (i.e. a one off novelty) than something trying to be comic true. That would be fine, but it’s also not quite unique enough to push that novelty. As you will know from this blog, I love Film Noir, so you’d think a Neo-Noir Batman would be right up my alley. Sadly though while the movie attempts to push that vibe, it feels artificial, like yet another attempt at a Noir that fails to understand the genre in the first place. A full on elseworlds Noir Batman, perhaps even in black and white could certainly be interesting, but I doubt Warner would ever greenlight something that radical.

Stay Away.

I would actually much rather see a Batman movie embrace the characters gothic side again like Tim Burton’s movies did 30 years. Indeed if we’re talking about doing an “Elseworld” Batman I would love to see a “Gaslight” universe set in victorian times that not only gave us Jack The Ripper, but also re-imagined some of the rogues gallery in a more gothic style and perhaps even had a bit of Batman Vs Dracula in the mix (I’m talking over several films or a series here). Maybe that’s just me, but I’d find that more interesting than yet another darker and grittier version. Of course they could also just try and put the character and the stories from the comic actually on the screen without interpretation and re-imagining. I know, crazy idea right?

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Morbius (2022)

For tonight’s feature I viewed Sony’s new release from their “Venomverse” universe, “Morbius” (2022). This marks Sony’s first addition to the Venomverse and as such the movie the finally turns that world from  a playground for Symbiotes into a true shared universe. Not that this has any cross over material outside of a throw away line and an awkward post credit scene, but it is an important milestone for Sony and one you’d think would be important to them. Then again they made so much money off Spider-Man maybe they no longer care.

Blood, Sweat, Tears and more Blood.

The movie is helmed by director Daniel Espinosa, who obviously has some horror experience from making the Alien-esque “life” (2017) and I assume this is why he was picked for the movie. The movies writers, Matt Sazama and Burke Sharpless have a string of genre movies to their name but it’s worth noting their highest IMDB score is for Dracula Untold (A movie I did enjoy) which hits the heady heights of 6.2/10. The rest of their movies are in the fives and that probably explains a lot about this one.

Jared Leto stars as the eponymous Doctor Michael Morbius and is joined by Matt Smith’s Milo/Lucien, Adria Arjona as Martine Bancroft and Jared Harris as Dr. Emil Nicholas. There are also a number of minor roles that appear to have been reduced to bare bones in the edit room including Tyrese Gibson as a race swapped Simon Stroud, who in the comics is actually a superhero himself but apparently his entire arc was cut, reducing the role to just a chasing FBI agent that seems a little more competent than his colleagues. Apparently there were whole scenes featuring his cyborg arm, but neither those nor the arm itself made the theatrical release. Still, he has more presence than Michael Keaton’s Adrian Toomes who appears to have had his entire role reduced from something worthy of inclusion in the trailer, to just a confusing mid credits cameo.

Vampire Interrupted.

Speaking of Keaton, let’s address the elephant in the room. This movie was originally due to be released in July 2020, but with Covid delaying things both Sony and Disney shuffled their Marvel deck and this had a knock on effect to a lot of the movies and the continuity between them. There was also a new deal signed between Sony and Disney in relation to Spider-Man’s on screen presence. Through all this there ended up being a need for extensive reshoots and a key change to the movie that removed all references to anything MCU, until the mid credits. At this point I think Morbius ended up a gutted husk of the movie that Espinosa originally intended, though it is hard to tell. What is clear is that Keaton definitely had a bigger role as the scene from the first trailer is completely absent. Also absent is the Spider-Man “Murderer” graffiti that was present in the trailer. Apparently this was added by the studio without the directors knowledge.

Best of Enemies?

One can speculate on what was meant to be, but ultimately we can only deal with what is. So let’s dig into that. The first thing to note is this film feels very small. There are effectively only four characters with any importance to the story and Jared Harris is used sparsely. Adria Arjona has a bit more of a role but even that feels like it is missing some key character moments. The movie instead focuses on Smith and Leto. In itself that’s not a bad move but if you are going to focus so heavily on a pair of friends that become enemies there should really be more of an emotional connection between them. Instead while both actors do their best for their role ultimately every decision either character makes is entirely done to drive the plot. None of it feels particularly natural. There’s very little emotional ambivalence and when they inevitably face off it doesn’t really feel like two life long friends that have gone past the point of no return.

Living Vampire or Dying Franchise?

The plot is itself simple and largely predictable. There is no more to it than what you would read in a synopsis. I would say there is nothing more to the movie than you see in the trailer, but actually there is more in the trailer! This is a bare bones story that has promise and had they found an angle to focus on or expand it could actually have been good. But alas, there is no such angle. The movie just ploughs through a series of events from start to end with almost no character growth, world building or plot complexities (outside of some obvious “twists”). 

Ultimately what is there is absolutely fine. The actors performances were solid, the action sequences mostly work, there are a few cool visuals and there are no overbearing politics or modern clichés that made me especially dislike it The problem is there just isn’t much to the film at all. One day maybe there will be an Espinosa cut or at least some kind of explanation about why the end result appears so different to what was promised in that first trailer. That should make for an interesting story, in the meantime though this movie does not. 

Rating: 4.5 out of 10.

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

For tonight’s horror viewings I have “House on Haunted Hill”. Directed by William Castle and written by Robb White. The pair would later make the infamous gimmick horrors “The Tingler” and “13 Ghosts” that tried to encourage audience participation in the movies. Castle would also be the man behind getting Rosemary’s Baby made into a film, though he didn’t direct it (Which was a requirement of getting the rights, likely to avoid “Tingler” like gimmicks). The movie was remade in 1999, to minimal acclaim though that movie did spawn a sequel.

Vincent Price

The Set up

In this movie though, Vincent Price stars as Frederick Loren an eccentric millionaire that has challenged five people to spend the night in a haunted house for the prize of $10,000 if they survive (about $100k in today’s money). They are joined in the house by Frederick and his cynical unhappy wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart). Our five strangers are the heroic Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), the level headed Dr. Trent (Alan Marshall), the neurotic Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), journalist Ruth Bridges (Julie Mitchum) and the houses traumatized owner Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook Jr.).

The door are to be locked at midnight trapping whomever is inside until morning. Things begin with a few frights and a lot of cynicism and it becomes clear that it may not be the ghosts that people need to be afraid of in this house (I mean they are locked in a house with Vincent Price, what do you expect). The only guest that really believes in the ghosts is Pritchard, who was traumatized by staying there previously (and the often underrated Elisha does an excellent job here of selling the supernatural aspects to the audience in the face of everyone else’s cynicism). Nora though is certainly afraid and is the victim of a campaign of terror. The truth is though she is not the real focus, but merely a pawn in a cunning plan.

Not the scariest

The Execution

So this movie is really more of a macabre murder mystery than an actual haunted house movie and as such it’s worth noting that it isn’t at all scary. The haunting aspects are basically just goofy, Carolyn Craig sells her terror well enough but I doubt even in the day the audience really believed the ghosts were the problem. As a murder mystery it’s not the most complicated but it is definitely satisfactory and has some good twists. Vincent Price is of course a joy to watch in this kind of role and he plays it about half way between his serious roles and his more over the top ones (Such as the classic Dr.Phibes). The music and sound design is very 1950’s and so feels dated but fitting for the kind of movie it is and I loved the use of the Theremin.

Overall, this movie lacks rewatchability and frankly is not scary, however largely thanks to Vincent Price it is still entertaining in a campy sort of way.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Nightmare Alley: 1947 Vs 2021

I’m going to do something a little different with this review and review and compare two movies. Both adaptations of the same source material, “Nightmare Alley” by William Lindsay Gresham, published in 1946. The first movie was adapted from the story one year later in 1947; Directed by Edmund Goulding and starring Tyrone Power as “Stanton Carlisle” it is considered a Film Noir classic (Hence why it seemed fitting to review both given my passion for Film Noir). The second movie is the latest from visionary filmmaker Guillermo del Toro and features an all star cast including Bradley Cooper (as “Carlisle”), Cate Blanchett (As Dr. Lilith Ritter), Willem DaFoe and Ron Perlman (the last two in minor roles).

Remake or new take on the same source?

Though Del Toro initially claimed his movie is not a remake of the Film Noir, the ending of the movie and the inclusion of a key line added for the 1947 movie suggests otherwise. It seems the truth is Del Toro’s movie falls somewhere between the source and it’s first adaptation. That said, as far as I can tell (Having not read the novel itself) the first movie was pretty close to the source material already so it is hard to tell where Del Toro is following the novel and where he is following the Noir. One notable difference though is that the 1947 movie adds some story to the end (which was not present in the book) while the 2021 film adds a little to the start. The bulk of the story is however the same.

Framing changes everything.

What makes the new versions distinct however (aside from being in colour of course) is some framing of the events and the personalities. In the 1947 version Tyrone Power’s “Carlisle” is competent and confident throughout. He is a clever man always on the lookout for angles. Ultimately he goes one scheme too far and becomes a victim to his own hubris. But he’s not totally irredeemable. In this version he sidesteps the fate laid out for him in the novel but ends up instead repeating the fate of the toxic relationship between his two Mentalist mentors in his early days at the carnival. So the ending is bitter sweet.

The Life and Times of Stanton Carlisle

Cooper’s Carlisle though has a much darker soul, while not without some positive qualities (For instance showing some empathy towards the Carnivals “Geek”) he has a bitter and violent side to him. Unlike Power’s version he is not a natural grifter swayed into darkness, instead the film lets us know he already has a taint on his soul, a dark act that follows him around and perhaps a hatred in his heart. This Carlisle learns the grift directly from the Carnies and with Cooper I always felt he was lying as much to himself as those he deceived.

The most notable difference between the two is how they act when things fall apart. Power’s character has become dislikable and yet I still felt some sympathy for him. He is ultimately destroyed by his two great strengths, his confidence and ability to read people. The former lead him to ignore the latter when it involved those closest to him. Cooper’s version while also a victim of his own hubris, reveals his true colours the moment things fell apart and at that point I knew his fate was sealed. It is difficult to decide which of those approaches I prefer.

For the majority of the film I would have to give it to Tyrone Power, whose performance was intense and believable, however I always felt the last act of the film where things fell apart seemed out of place for someone as together as Power’s Carlisle. Bradley Cooper’s version while I had difficulty buying his progress to the top, his fall felt both real and inevitable. The line taken from the earlier movie that has Carlisle acknowledge his own destiny seems all the more fitting in Del Toro’s movie because of this.

The Primordial She-Demon

As far as the supporting cast goes, the main other player in this story is the psychoanalyst Dr. Lilith Ritter, played by Helen Walker in the earlier movie and Cate Blanchett in Del Toro’s movie. She’s not actually in most of the movie, but her role is pivotal. In the battle of these actresses Blanchett easily wins. I always found the characters betrayal somewhat out of place in the earlier movie, sure she gets to profit financially but as a high paid psychoanalyst I felt like she should have had more to her motivation. But much like with Cooper’s Carlisle, Blanchett’s Ritter is as a far darker version of the character, bitter and twisted and holding a personal grudge against Carlisle for publicly showing her up when they first met (Even though she was trying to show him up).

She doesn’t even care about the money, she just wants to see Carlisle destroyed. What comes into question is did she plan for Carlisle’s scheme to fail all along or would this betrayal have happened further down the line anyway. It is hard to say, but either way Blanchett’s Dr. Ritter is a sociopath. It’s worth noting that as the character escapes punishment, the Motion Picture Production Code that was in play in 1974 would probably have prevented the character being portrayed in quite such a negative light for the earlier movie. Even as her role as a Noir Femme Fatale she is pushing those boundaries. It is clearly no coincidence that her name is “Lilith” (Which for those that don’t know is the name of the primordial she-demon and first wife to Adam, effectively the original Femme Fatale). Maybe it’s a little on the nose, but she earns the name for sure.

The Burden of a Good Woman

The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Molly, Carlisle’s primary love interest has more of an elevated role in the Film Noir than Del Toro’s movie. She is the “Good Woman” character that was pretty common in the 1940’s and used in Film Noir to contrast with the Femme Fatale. She is loyal, dependable and good at heart. Because of this she is often the voice of conscience to Carlisle. It is ultimately her good nature and principles that leads to Stanton’s fall but also provides the opportunity for redemption. Ultimately the biggest failure of the grifter was to predict the actions of a good woman. While she plays essentially the same role in Del Toro’s movie she feels somewhat removed from the story until she is required to throw a spanner in the works. It seems in this darker world a “Good woman” would seem a bit too out of place, plus the trope isn’t a popular one with modern writers. So the end result is she is just kind of there.

Carnival of Lost Souls

Conversely however the other Carnies are a lot more fleshed out in Del Toro’s vision and rather unsurprisingly Willem DaFoe puts in a top notch performance to his role as Carnie boss Clem Hoatley. The Mentalist couple, Zena and Pete, that take Carlisle under their wing in the Carnival seem a lot more fleshed out too, but then Stanton has a lot more to learn about the trade in the 2021 version so they had to be. Not that they were ignored in the 1947 version, indeed their relationship provides the template for where Stanton and Molly’s ends up and because of this Pete is depicted as far more of a washed up hasbeen, with little indication to his past glories. Last of all Molly’s romantic partner at the start of the movie is significantly different between films with it being a Strong Man in the original (and not a great performance) and the carnivals Dwarf in the modern version. I couldn’t say which is closer to the novel though (If you know, feel free to tell me in the comments). The Dwarf however is backed up by Ron Perlman’s Bruno so Carlisle still get’s punched for his indiscretions. 

Speaking of the Carnival, one of the most notable differences between versions is what the movies chose to show and what they chose to imply. The most obvious thing here being the carnivals “Geek”, which to those unfamiliar with the use of the work in this context, a carnival “Geek Show” features an apparently crazy man that chases around live chickens and eventually bites their heads off. The 1947 version shows only the audience reaction to this, but never shows it. Del Toro however directly depicts it. Of course they likely couldn’t show that in 1947, but still the implied spectacle was always pretty effective in film noir so that makes the approach a difficult comparison.

The Final Verdict

It’s not just the Geek that is given a more graphic spin, Del Toro also adds in a disturbing mutated baby in a jar (shown above) that also provides the film it’s final shot. None of this is really a surprise from Del Toro who always embraced the visually macabre. Of course Film Noir has its own visual style and Nightmare Alley is no exception, though it is not the best cinematography of the era. But then the 2021 version is not Del Toro’s best visual work either (Which is probably still “Pan’s Labyrinth”). Ultimately though I do have to give this one to the newer movie. One of the key elements of Film Noir is fatalism and it is actually the later movie that truly embodies that more than the first. The truth is the story here is a dark and twisted tale about not just human nature but about the dark side of the entertainment industry and it is fitting that the newer movie is so brutal in its approach. In my opinion however, this is not a great story in itself and so both versions surpassed the limitations of the source material to provide something truly entertaining.

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Rating: 7 out of 10.

The Spiral Staircase (1946)

From director Robert Siodmak, whose work includes the excellent Film Noir’s “The Killers” and “Phantom Lady” this is 1946’s “The Spiral Staircase”, a serial killer movie, where the killer stalks and kills women with various afflictions, though most of it takes place in an old house on a stormy night so multiple tick boxes here.

The movie technically stars Dorothy McGuire as the Mute Helen, but despite being the protagonist, because she is mute the dialogue is all taken by other actors. Helen became a mute after witnessing her parents die in a fire when she was younger and has not spoken a word since. The supporting cast includes Kent Smith as Dr. Parry, George Brent as Professor Warren, Gordon Oliver as Steve Warren and Ethel Barrymore as the bed ridden Mrs. Warren.

 

The Twisted Path.

In the hands of a less capable director and with a less capable lead this would have been a very mediocre movie. The plot is unremarkable and most of the actors are likewise. However, Siodmak with his heavy influence from German Expressionism brings a fantastic eye to the camera and provides some beautiful imagery, mostly involving the use of shadows, rain and of course the Spiral Staircase itself along with some great glimpses of the killers eye (an eye provided by Siodmak himself) and an interesting daydream sequence.

Also raising the quality of the movie is McGuire and given she isn’t allowed to speak any dialogue has to convey to the audience all her emotions purely through her movements and expressions. Of course this movie is only 17 years after the end of the silent film era so perhaps this was less impressive in the day, but none the less she played her role perfectly. The killer however, once revealed wasn’t particularly imposing, which is a real shame because I know Siodmak can give us a great killer as the one in his “Phantom Lady” was actually very intimidating and had some great dialogue.

 

The Ever Decreasing Circles.

The music is typical of what you’d hear in the period in a Film Noir, but this is blended with a nice bit of Theremin. It works well enough but doesn’t really add anything. The problem with this film is simply that as a horror it’s not really scary or unsettling. I feel sympathy for Helen’s plight as a mute but that’s it really. The killer isn’t revealed until quite late on and while we see glimpses it doesn’t really build any terror. Really this plays more like a Film Noir, which also makes the visuals seem less unique as those techniques are all over that genre. Ultimately this isn’t Siodmak’s best work but it has it’s moments none the less.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.