I saw Blade Runner at the theater, 1st release, with my pals. Our reaction was very much the same as S&E's reaction. Great special FX, but a too-predictable story with characters you didn't care about. That will seem harsh to some, but you have to remember the competition at the time. 1982 was an amazing year for fantasy and science fiction films. Blade Runner was overwhelmed by this flood of movies: ET: The Extra-Terrestrial, Conan the Barbarian, The Dark Crystal, The Secret of NIMH, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Swamp Thing, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, Poltergeist, Tron, The Thing...and more. We had so much fun at the movies that year! : )
@@kristinaant9747 their review of blade runner is valid. Blade runner is a popular movie that people haven't actually seen. It has a strong cult following, but that doesn't make it a masterpiece. I doubt Roger or siskel would change their review today.
Wow, did not realize that! I've seen THE THING countless number of times, but I still haven't gotten through the 1982 version of BR on DVD. Anyway, '82 was a magical year (Tron, The Thing, E.T., Fast Times, Wrath of Khan, etc. I usually agreed with Ebert but found Siskel too "stuffy". Great show to watch though!
From Wikipedia: "In 1993, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". Blade Runner is now regarded by many critics as one of the best science fiction films ever made."
The most memorable scene is the final scene: Blade Runner - Final scene, "Tears in Rain" Monologue. Rutger Hauer is the "star" of this movie. This ending elevates the film to special. The idea that an android can see the beauty in life better than living humans is ironic. Fantastic words "Like tears in rain."
He's right, he's seen things we can't imagine..."all gone, like tears in the rain." For me, some of the most moving lines in film. And they were Rutger's, bless his heart!
It's a sign that he wasn't intelligent enough to understand what was going on... I saw it as a kid and just went along with plot as best I could and thought the movie as "Ok". It wasn't until later in life I learned what a Turing Test was, which allowed me to understand the movie better... the subtle hints and other lines of dialogue that I thought were insignificant are what gave the movie it's significance... And now as an adult, knowing the Truth, can fully appreciate it for what it is.
@@jimvick8397 agree it’s pretty lazy review from frankly both of them. To call it predictable is ridiculous. Also, another review where they really under-appreciate the art design. Its not just the special effects after all, it still influences cyberpunk to this very day.
Theatrical Blade Runner blew me away in the first run. It is an amazing film. This is why I take reviews with a grain of salt. It's too fashionable to put a movie down. Fortunately, Blade Runner is now considered a classic, and both the director's cut and the theatrical release are available.
Siskel & Ebert, I really miss these guys. Loved to watch their reviews. However, they could not have been more wrong about Blade Runner. This film was so far ahead of it's time that it simply could not fit into their neat little paradigm of 80's movies. What a fantastic film. It still holds up today, some 30 years later.
I actually agree with Ebert, amazing and engrossing visuals but the story/characters isn’t great. It almost doesn’t matter though on multiple viewings.
This is a movie that you really need to watch a second time to fully appreciate, as Ebert did 25 years later when he reviewed the Director's Cut and admitted it was among the greatest
to be fair to siskel and ebert they werent the only critics that didnt understand the film on first viewing. I wonder if they changed their mind on the film over the years
They just didn't get the vision of blade runner, it all makes so much sense now to those that didn't at the time. AND MY GOD! what do they mean about the characters? Rutger Hauer was truly captivating, thumbs up if you agree.
Rickvsnewworldorder Tbf, they did watch the first version of it, with the forced happy ending and the voice over. I personally think the Final Cut goes leaps and bounds ahead of the 1st cut.
Rickvsnewworldorder Tbf, they did watch the first version of it, with the forced happy ending and the voice over. I personally think the Final Cut goes leaps and bounds ahead of the 1st cut.
+Rickvsnewworldorder HELLS YESSSSS THUMBS UP! No matter how many times I watch it , I'm captivated, and truly lost in the world. Rutger Hauer is mesmerizing, and heart breaking as a replicant self aware and more "human" and humane than most humans. I could watch it over and over...
Gene is essentially saying that he watched the "Tears in rain" monologue, Batty's final sentiments on life and death, and felt nothing. Fucking. Nothing.
I often get the feeling that reviewers like these guys watch so many movies that they are already on their way out the door (mentally, if not physically) to start typing up their reviews before the movie is over. I've caught these guys on this show several times getting details of movies wrong so that it was obvious they didn't even watch the whole thing.
This is why I never listen to film critics. Superb special efforts. Amazing musical score. Superbly written, directed and acted. REAL science and technology rolling along underneath (genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, space travel). Cult classic, now being remade.
I always loved these two -- and I saw this show (this particular episode) when it first aired. Now I look at it again. It is so clear that what both Gene and Roger missed here was the whole underlying theme of Blade Runner. The whole theme of life, death, more life, reduced life expectancy, approaching death, dealing with one's own mortality -- completely lost on these two.
.... funny how almost every critic misses the obvious traits that Blade Runner was a Noire Film, you know.. the ones that critics worship? The Movie was spectacular, in a way that it was at least 10 years ahead of it's time.
This is a sensory experience. It washes over you and changes you. It is a great story. The characters are great. There has never been a film like this.
For the record, Ebert essentially denounced his own review, after Blade Runner became a huge cultural icon. So, when everyone else decided they loved it, he did too.
@@steveconn I've grown to appreciate this film. When I first saw it, I really didn't have the patience. But in recent years, I find it to be one of my favorites.
Granted, the voice over in the 1982 version was redundant and took away from the film but Siskel and Ebert missed a lot about the film. It's abundantly clear they barely paid attention or even worse they assumed the audience was too stupid and unsophisticated to appreciate BR. I saw it when I was 12(It had a 'R' rating, but I snuck into the theater where it was shown) and was profoundly affected by it-Both the plot and the meta-narrative. Now, as I'm older I'm still surprised by some of the nuances of the film I didn't grasp when I was young. Also, for both critics to ignore the brilliant soundtrack by Vangelis is really appalling.
I liked the voice over. Needed it, the first time. I was a kid surrounded by people that did not understand it even with the voice over.Love the firm with voice over and without
JamesSOCO2006 Actually I think the voice over gives the film it's heart and soul and helps to make it special. Plus without it the story becomes very hard to understand.
FulciLives I watched it the first time with no subtitles and had no trouble following the story. The heart and soul of the film is in the visuals and some of the more poetic statements (mostly from Batty).
In retrospect it's easy to poke fun at this review but the original theatrical cut of Blade Runner is not very good. Since the Final Cut and so much hype and analysis we know what the film was going for but back then the film was a bit of a mess. Also the terrible marketing of the movie made most people think it was one thing but then they ended up seeing another.
It became a classic before the recuts because it gained a cult status. Siskel and Ebert are correct about the movie: great to look at but a bit boring with the story. But those who liked it focused on the subtext of the replicant, who should have been the protagonist instead of Ford's character. That's why those who like this movie have to twist themselves to like it. Many believe if the story focused on the replicant as the hero (or antihero, however you look at it), the movie may have been a blockbuster success.
The original film release is not much different from the director's cut, except for Harrison Ford's voice over. The director of the new Blade Runner publicly said the original film version is the one he first saw, and likes best. The marketing of the film, should not affect Siskel's and Ebert's review. Remember, Ebert also didn't like Full Metal Jacket.
Gene's saying, "congratulations, young man" like he's some ancient high priest. He was all of 35 or 36 here. It's amazing to see how fast people aged 30 to 40 years ago. They were middle aged crusty characters by 35.
Yeah, I don't know if it's maturity exactly or just getting old faster, at least in this example here with Gene. It's weird because I was a little kid when I would watch Siskel and Ebert and at the time they seemed like such authoritative older men. They seemed to be in their late 40s and 50s for 20 years. LOL I remember being shocked when I found out that Siskel was only 53 when he died. Point taken about actors seeming so old from such a young age in old movies, though. Maybe because life was simpler and people didn't live as long, didn't go to college as frequently and just got married, had kids and assumed responsibility earlier that they seemed like fully formed adults by 18, certainly by 21. Now you sometimes hear 27 year old Millennials referring to themselves as "kids". LOL Different times, different world I guess. Still, weird to see 35 year old Gene Siskel look and act like a 55 year old. He STILL seems like that crusty old guy he seemed to be back then, even though I'm now older than he was here in this footage. ;)
They've watched the one with the voice over and happy ending, so technically no. They're still assholes, what a stupid clip to use to talk about this movie
This was made when only the theatrical cut was out, which is widely considered to be the worst cut of the movie. They did also use the worst example possible as a scene to show, so there's that, too.
It's actually from a rare deleted scene from near the end of the movie.......the rain subsides and Deckard looks up to the sky, seeing a rainbow. Suddenly a call comes in from Bryant, where he discloses to Deckard that there were actually 4-and-a-HALF replicants to track down. He then tells him that if he follows the rainbow and completes this final task, he can keep the pot of gold. It was kind of stupid, so I can see why Ridley took it out. Trivia note as well: this was actually Warwick Davis' film debut, not Return of the Jedi. Harrison actually turned George Lucas on to him after Blade Runner. K, I'm going......sorry everyone.....
Just found this review and can't believe what S&E say about it. I believe I saw the version with the rainbow ending since the two times I I've seen it since 1982, I always felt something was missing at the end. Not even sure I saw the "Final Cut" version - so back to an entertaining night....
In my opinion it was Harrison Ford's best work. His acting was great. Sean Young was beautiful. It was such an interesting story with great performances by everyone.
Blade runner was ahead of it's time both metaphorically and literally. It will continue to be inspiring and thematically groundbreaking for generations to come. One of the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time if you ask me. Right up there with ''Space odyssey''
+SoulStylistJukeBox To be fair, the original holds your hand with all the voice overs, which made it fairly predictable. The director's cut is far superior and less predictable (but much harder to follow for some).
Everybody's freaking out over how they didn't like Blade Runner, but you have to remember sometimes they went back re-reviewed films, hell Ebert didn't like A Clockwork Orange when it first came out but he change his mind later years. It happens sometimes, it's certainly happened to me and also I agree with some peoples opinion that if you've seen an insane amount of films over the years the same old stories and tricks don't work on you anymore after awhile, blade runner certainly wasn't the first story to broach the question of whether you're human or not you can go back to the original twilight zone series and find That.
I remember this timeframe and opening of Siskel& Ebert. It was on PBS at the time. In the late 70’s-early 80’s it was watched because there were no movie reviews in the local paper and most definitely no means of looking up information on your own. Magazine reviews were available, but not exactly timely. These guys gave us more info and thoughts about what was in the theatres to view, including films we couldn’t see because they were not available locally.
You're right to a large extent, though modern CGI when done judiciously can quite effective. Too often it's overdone and it goes on and on and on with too much happening all at once, as in most modern superhero movies. Though I liked Dr. Strange the FX were so overdone and ridiculous I lost patience and sometimes nearly forgot what the hell the story was about. Even got bored during some of the fight scenes.
@@dondragmer2412 - Fight scenes are getting too cookie cutter these days. Especially when the people fighting all have superpowers. It was cool to see two terminators fighting in Terminator 2, but by the time Avengers End Game came along, it was like eating too much candy.
I was privileged to see it first not only in a theatre, but in fact in IMAX. I was 12 years old. As you can imagine, it utterly blew my mind, and all subsequent screenings have failed to come close to the impact that the film first had on me.
I was a youngster who saw its original release at the Drive-In where the huge screen did the cinematography justice. I will never forget leaving the venue of the magical, dreamlike music and the incredibly well designed and executed visuals. It made you really feel like we had finally entered the future that Bradbury et al had described as pf 1982...
You can find Bladerunner anywhere upon re-release after re-release. But Diner and Chan is Missing....I’m sure there’s an old VHS or flimsy DVD on eBay of those somewhere.
"a great movie to look at but a hard one to care about." that about sums it up! But it does look really awesome!! you can still see it's impact on movies today.
Aww The Secret of NIMH, I remember going to see that one. Blade Runner was the first film my dad bought on VHS and he played it every weekend. Fortunately, it was a film we both enjoyed.
+The Vicious Chicken of Bristol This fool also adored Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (which is a shit film, admitted even by the director) and called the first two Mad Max films shallow...
The Vicious Chicken of Bristol "Especially the second one, but the second one did suck" You mean the third one did suck, right? The third film is Thunderdome which is awful, but Ebert liked it. He disliked the first two films (Mad Max and The Road Warrior) which are actually classics.
You do realize they watched the original theatrical cut, right? You may enjoy it, but the vast majority of people don’t like the narration and ending of the theatrical cut.
Exactly. Does he want the ending to tie up everything in a nice neat bundle so we don't have to think about the movie? Instead, the movie purposely leaves some things open to interpretation. Besides, to me, the key to the movie is it's atmosphere. It paints a dark Orwellian dystopia of the future. The movie comes off like a film noir. Everyone talks in soft voices and the world is messy and confusing. There is rain and fog a lot of the time. THAT'S what makes it for me. It's a shadowy, mysterious but hi-tech world where we humans still have lots of problems, and corporations use robot slaves called Replicants - not Repliconts. Here's an Easter egg you might enjoy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue
I recently saw Bladerunner for the first time and I'm amazed I sat through the whole thing. Just about the only memorable part of it for me was "tears in the rain" and the unique soundtrack. One good scene in an otherwise boring snoozefest. I appreciate the futuristic neo-noir style as much as the next guy, but for one thing I've seen that before since it's 2020 and it's old hat nowadays, and for another thing, two hours of style and but no substance does not a good film make.
@Neal X Gaming Yes it’s 2020 and you have seen it before. Blade Runner did it first. It’s the first film to take the elements of film noir and mash it together in a sci-fi/dystopian future. The story is there but it’s the atmosphere, music, and set design that make the movie a classic.
When it came out I saw Blade Runner 31 times At the UltraVision in Deerfield Beach Florida. I thought it was one of the most amazing movies I'd ever seen. As of now, 34 years later, I've seen it several hundred times, And it remains one of the most amazing movies I've ever seen. Perhaps my favorite movie of all time. I remember hearing that the critics panned it, And I couldn't believe it. Perhaps these Critics were too old to see what I could see So clearly as a 16-year-old In 1982. The movie was ahead of its time, and will live on To be seen by Tens of millions in the future, when the movies these guys praised are long forgotten. Critics have their uses, but they are too often wedded to the sensibilities of The moment and what is fashionable at that particular time. They aren't very often people who can see And appreciate what is to come. I almost feel bad For these clowns, Who obviously missed out on one of the truly great movie experiences Because they were blinded by their own Narrow vision And prejudices
I totally agree with everything you said. I was just a kid when this came out and remember seeing it for the first time in VHS. I have the 3 DVD collection now and strongly prefer the original theatrical narrated version.
The scene with Sean Young and Harrison Ford at the piano is overwhelming. I really don't think I've ever seen anything more moving. How Siskel & Ebert could watch that and shrug is beyond me.
They drank the Snob Kool-Aid™ and couldn't see beyond their own noses. The movie was about memory and identity, acceptance of slavery and questioning the slog of a depressing job. The dialogue and characters were great rhoughout. I love when Roy tells Pris one of them was just killed... and Pris replies, "Then we're stupid and we'll die."
You have to remember that they're talking about the 1982 theatrical cut of Blade Runner here, *which is not that good.* The first good version of Blade Runner was the 1991 directors cut, but even that version pales in comparison to the 2007 final cut (although the line "I want more life, fucker!" sound better than "I want more life, father". Ebert gave the final cut 4 out of 4.
I have to disagree. Blade Runner became a cult classic way before the Director's Cut was released. The theatrical release was excellent and in my opinion the best story of all the tellings. Personally, of the two theories, I'd rather have the theme of a machine having to teach humans how to love because they've been numbed by technology... instead of simply robots in love which is what the Director's cut is. I never like Directors going back and tinkering with their films. The added footage from Legend (unicorn dream) was very added on, even worse than the so called 'happy ending' (Kubrick's footage from Shining). But you're in the majority. I think most prefer the director's cut. I prefer the original theatrical release. I do enjoy the voice overs, they're a direct tip of the hat to the Film Noir style of which BR is a tribute. I rarely agreed with Siskel and Ebert, but loved their show and miss them.
"I want more life father" is from the television version of the film, not the theatrical release. There are three primary differences between the theatrical cut and later ones - the voice over, the unicorn scene, and the happy ending. It also contains several continuity errors as the film took shape in the editing room. The people who say that the movie was crap before the recuts mustn't have been born when it was released. The differences are hardly earth-shattering. Also, the Director's Cut was not actually a Director's Cut- Ridley Scott didn't supervise it. It was a Warner Bros.-sanctioned recut by the film archivist who discovered the lost workprint that had been used for early 1982 Dallas and San Diego previews. This discovery had unauthorized showings at the NuArt in LA (which I was lucky enough to see) in 1991 under the misleading label of "Director's Cut", and really jumpstarted the modern reverence of the film. It's only with Final Cut that Ridley finally got involved again, and digitally fixed or rerecorded lines to remove the old continuity errors, and readjusted some of the hamfisted changes in the faux Director's Cut.
Prince loved Bladerunner and asked his photographer Alan Beaulieu to go and watch it before designing the inner sleeve picture for 1999 where he's reclining on a venetian lit futuristic bed.. The Beautiful Ones is also to my ears inspired by Vangelis' theme
Wow. 2 "professional" movie reviewers who are both debunked by the historically reality that Blade Runner has been one of the most influential and copied Science Fiction movies of all time. Furthermore, one of the most scientifically accurate. As we approach 2019, robotic technology is getting close to this portrayal. Ridley Scott was and is a genius, while Siskel & Ebert were mere critics.
I got like all the versions of Blade Runner, and despite the small flaws, which are minimal, it is by far, one of the best movies ever made. I love every version of it. Yeah, it is long, feels lonely, not for everyone, but look at it. The acting is excellent, the script is excellent, and it has so many superb details. I have probably seen it 100 times, and I see something new every time. I would say that Blade Runner, is one of the most complete movies ever made.
Yes the Blade Runner episode if you may of noticed. A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. By doing this, you will awaken from your dreams.
ronald black That would depend on your age. I watched Siskel and Ebert often as a kid. It was pre-Internet and that was kind of how you saw what movies were out or you read newspaper reviews, or just went to the theater, picked a movie and went. I love the movie "Blade Runner" and Philip K Dick's book too. Not saying their review isn't bland, just that such information wasn't as readily available as they are now.
Damnnnnnnn!!!! What a great week to see some Movies!!!! Diner, Chan is Missing, Blade Runner AND The Thing open ALL ON THE SAME DAY!!!! What a COOL TIME TO BE A MOVIE FAN!!!!!
Although this is my favorite movie of all time, I agree with them. The plot is predictable, and you really don't get a chance to get to know or like the characters. I would've loved to have known more about Tyrell.
When Ebert saw The Final Cut, he gave it a 4 out of 4 star rating, so that goes to show he thinks it has improved since the theatrical release, he is reviewing here.
The reviews are not surprising here...the film got very bland reviews or even bad reviews from many critics. And then the film, over time, became a masterpiece. Ebert changed his mind in later years.
You guys have to remember the theatrical release (tempered with by studio) of Blade Runner was very lackluster. You can even hear the narration in the clip which was taken out of the "directors cut" and final cut (the true version)
I love Blade Runner. The following is not a judgement of the film but a comment on the society that rejected it ... The film was dark and off putting for the time (1982). Reagan was in with hope, prosperity, and bright colors. Carter was out because of inflation, the hostage / oil crisis, and the color brown ... no shit, cars used to be brown, I digress. The studio tried to lighten it up with a narration and happy ending but it was just too dark for the time. American culture (in the eighties) was desperately trying to break away from the seventies darkness. Films like Taxi Driver and Dog Day Afternoon would have never been made in the 80's. Additionally, people wanted to see Harrison be a hero (Han, Indy ...). Not an anti-hero, that is possibly the thing he is trying to kill and have sex with - A replicant. In fact, believe it or not Deckard's hair cut was a complete distraction for the time. Look up GQ magazine covers from 1982 - Men didn't have hair cut's like that in '82. The film was tragically ahead of it's time. That being said, there were a minority of people that always knew the film was cool as hell. My Dad was in that group, and he took me to see the film when I was ten-years-old. It changed my life.
Deckard's haircut is directly tied to Indiana Jones. Ridley Scott originally wanted Ford to wear a floppy hat, carrying the film noir look even further, but Ford's previous film was Indy, so he didn't want to use a hat that would look like the Indy character, hence the haircut...
These guys are total tool! Bladerunner was so visionary and yet true to it's time. Every character was well-developed and stayed true to its uniqueness. The premise -the quest for immortality- is a familiar and relevant. It was fun watching Ford, in his early days, playing a tired, disenfranchised, single/solitary professional whose handles his job in an emotionless, oddly robotic way. Sean Young -the android- well, she was perfectlyly beautiful with her confident and mature sexiness combined with her struggle with fear of the fragility and uncertainty of life. That emotional struggle made her human much more 'human' than Ford's slob+cop character. I was gonna say that Young was the most beautful girl of that time but that I remembered Demi Moore in Ghost and Olivia Newton John in Grease, and Jame Lee Curtis in Trading Places, etc. Any ways, the complexity of those two as well as Rutger's life ending dialog were so provocative and unforgettable. RIdley Scott has an incredible ability to create images that are so vast and so richly detailed that they're just undeniable. I loved this movie (and soundtrack) so much that I often mimic the clowns laugh at the beginning of Priss' death scene.
This is the most shallow review of Blade Runner I have ever seen, I'm in shock ... there is literally no mention of the main themes, they just discuss the basic plot and yawn at it, without ever going deeper into the movie. The acting was superb, human and repliCANT (Ebert), the music was fantastic, the vision of a dirty, wet and damaged future world ... the fact that humans will never get to experience what they force their creations to endure for them in their shortened lives. It's a totally enthralling morality tail about what it means to be human, what it means to be sentient, what it means to have free will and much much more. Shame on these two for not seeing any of that, I expected more from so called professionals.
A youtuber made interesting points on the film Bladerunner, he basically mentions it's a film about empathy and if you aren't an empath you won't relate to it. You'll find it void of any plot.. Boring! You'll ask 'what's the point of the film?'. Maybe siskel and ebert were psychopaths or had traits of psychopathy?
Philip Dunne when the Director's Cut of Blade Runner came out about 10 years later, Siskel and Ebert came to their senses and gave it two thumbs up. I hope it was because they genuinely liked the movie and not because everyone by that point had recognized Blade Runner for the genius it is.
"basically mentions it's a film about empathy and if you aren't an empath you won't relate to it" I am an empath and I've always found the film somewhat dull and unrelatable because it just doesn't communicate its themes very well. Scott's direction for the most part feels like he himself wasn't sure what the film was supposed to be while shooting (and based on stories there might be truth to that) and only later in editing tried to make it more coherent (and thus the multiple revisions). Also while the movie is quite pretty to look at it really isn't cinematographed that well. Especially as far as communicating the themes the cinematography doesn't place nearly enough emphasis on key elements such as the replicants' emotions or interpersonal relationsips (though 'Tears in Rain' somewhat redeems this). This again I feel is a shortcoming in the direction since the same problems are also reflected in the acting which in general carries a very inconsistent quality.
Yet many could SEE understand the core themes ideas in it JUST from first seeing it in the theater and were not this shallow. Ebert admits in many instances he is clueless with some epic movies and changes his reviews years later.
Boy do I miss boy these guys. I watched all of their programs. I generally agree with Roger. I remember when Blade Runner came out which was 34 years ago. It got terrible reviews. The movie was so slow and so dark compared to Star Wars which had come out 5 years earlier and then The Empire strikes Back released 2 years before B.R and the last one in 1983. In 1982 you got E.T. and Raiders. All these were all up, fun, really light. Then B R came along with its really sad, hopeless plot. No wonder no one liked it then. I can remember leaving the theatre and listening to people bitching about how terrible it was and talking about asking for a refund. Now it is a cult film and has been diagnosed and picked over for decades. Remember that.
I saw it in high school when it first came out and loved it instantly. Total immersion from start to finish, even with the cheesy voice over narration. I think it helps to have seen a ton of sci-fi movies before seeing Blade Runner.
Just goes to show that when public figures die tragically, we tend to forgive and overlook their professional deficiencies. I went to this film when it debuted and I left the theater totally moved. It was then and remains in my top 5 films of all time. It anticipated the questions we currently deal with such as what constitutes humanity when we can create so much of it in a lab. When does a being become sentient and cease to be the property of its maker? This is the Frankenstein/Prometheus myth rewritten for future generations. Powerful.
“Diner”! Talk about a wonderful flick. Definitely Guttenberg’s best film performance as an actor. His wedding scene was hilarious. And to some extent the same holds true for Rourke who was very understated as Boogie. Talk about great ensemble acting. And Roger’s comment about his Dog of the Week is very funny: “Well thank God these kids only have one camel.”
I agree with Gene and Roger. I didn't get much from Blade Runner -The sets, while impressive, were too dark. So dark it was hard to focus on the film. And why was it always raining in Los Angeles? - The replicants got surprising little screen time ; there wasn't a scene with all four of them. Two of them were knocked off very early. Consequently the audience can't care about them. -The plot was thin. The replicants are trying to live and infiltrate the company that designed the before they expire. Much more screen time should have been devoted to this. -It was never explained why the repicants would kill the company head and the designer but not Harrison Ford I suspect the novel was much better
The novel was ok, but more existential and dated. When I saw the film when I was 13, all I cared about were the effects, set design, and costumes. However, as a mature person, I have to agree with these guys. I really wanted to know more about Tyrell, Pris, Zora, and even the eye guy.
Thank you for posting this. I have found myself humming the theme song from their show on and off for the last 20 or so years, but never being able to remember where it came from. I'm not crazy. Thank you.
Everyone has to understand, Blade Runner wasn't well received by a majority of people upon it's initial release. It was marketed as a straight up action film. The trailer shows a piece of every action scene. It was really just ahead of it's time. Now, it's considered one of the best sci-fi films of all time and a masterpiece. I just watched this movie today finally, and I have been missing out. Let me correct myself, I just watched this film today for my first time, then I watched it again. This movie is a spectacle on all levels with deeper undertones. It's perfect. 5 STARS.
THIS REVIEW WILL BE LOST IN TIME, LIKE TEARS IN THE RAIN.
I saw Blade Runner at the theater, 1st release, with my pals. Our reaction was very much the same as S&E's reaction. Great special FX, but a too-predictable story with characters you didn't care about. That will seem harsh to some, but you have to remember the competition at the time. 1982 was an amazing year for fantasy and science fiction films. Blade Runner was overwhelmed by this flood of movies: ET: The Extra-Terrestrial, Conan the Barbarian, The Dark Crystal, The Secret of NIMH, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Swamp Thing, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, Poltergeist, Tron, The Thing...and more. We had so much fun at the movies that year! : )
Rich Carlson You and your pals didn’t understand you were watching a masterpiece in 1982.
@@DigitalEelRich so almost all those movies aren't great. Blade runner was ahead of its time.
@@kristinaant9747 their review of blade runner is valid. Blade runner is a popular movie that people haven't actually seen. It has a strong cult following, but that doesn't make it a masterpiece. I doubt Roger or siskel would change their review today.
_Blade Runner_ and _The Thing_ were released on the same day in June of '82. What a magical day in cinema.
Captain Deadpool geese
Wow, did not realize that! I've seen THE THING countless number of times, but I still haven't gotten through the 1982 version of BR on DVD. Anyway, '82 was a magical year (Tron, The Thing, E.T., Fast Times, Wrath of Khan, etc. I usually agreed with Ebert but found Siskel too "stuffy". Great show to watch though!
The Thing was a good movie. It had no happy ending. It also had no female actresses in it. Those two issues hurt this otherwise exciting movie.
Critics panned both of them at the time.
@@danieltadros3262 ehh not really.
For the record, Roger Ebert went back to Blade Runner and gave it 4/4 stars as well as a spot on his "great movies" list.
From Wikipedia: "In 1993, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". Blade Runner is now regarded by many critics as one of the best science fiction films ever made."
I totally agree that it is one of the best Science Fiction movies ever made.
It's boring and the narration totally destroys any suspense.
Bro. Final Cut.
At the time it came out it was panned by critics and ignored by audiences.
A lot of films that were later deemed to be classics have suffered so.
The most memorable scene is the final scene: Blade Runner - Final scene, "Tears in Rain" Monologue. Rutger Hauer is the "star" of this movie. This ending elevates the film to special. The idea that an android can see the beauty in life better than living humans is ironic. Fantastic words "Like tears in rain."
He's right, he's seen things we can't imagine..."all gone, like tears in the rain." For me, some of the most moving lines in film. And they were Rutger's, bless his heart!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue
Wrong.
someone could have mentioned to fast forward to 19:18 for blade runner
***** yw
+zee339 The funny thing is as soon as they said, Hey we're going to review these other films first, I knew to fast forward..... LOL
Thanks, just the info I was lookin for... :)
Thanks for doing so.
Christopher Thorkon glad to help
I like how Siskel goes from "it is predictable" to "I got halfway thru and didn't know where it was going" in the next sentence.. ;-)
It's a sign that he wasn't intelligent enough to understand what was going on... I saw it as a kid and just went along with plot as best I could and thought the movie as "Ok". It wasn't until later in life I learned what a Turing Test was, which allowed me to understand the movie better... the subtle hints and other lines of dialogue that I thought were insignificant are what gave the movie it's significance... And now as an adult, knowing the Truth, can fully appreciate it for what it is.
@@jimvick8397 agree it’s pretty lazy review from frankly both of them. To call it predictable is ridiculous. Also, another review where they really under-appreciate the art design. Its not just the special effects after all, it still influences cyberpunk to this very day.
Theatrical Blade Runner blew me away in the first run. It is an amazing film. This is why I take reviews with a grain of salt. It's too fashionable to put a movie down. Fortunately, Blade Runner is now considered a classic, and both the director's cut and the theatrical release are available.
After watching Blade Runner without the voice over/narration, you can never go back to the theatrical version
Siskel & Ebert, I really miss these guys. Loved to watch their reviews. However, they could not have been more wrong about Blade Runner. This film was so far ahead of it's time that it simply could not fit into their neat little paradigm of 80's movies. What a fantastic film. It still holds up today, some 30 years later.
I actually agree with Ebert, amazing and engrossing visuals but the story/characters isn’t great. It almost doesn’t matter though on multiple viewings.
They were lazy and ignorant sometimes. Look at their review of The Terminator. They never actually watched the movie but they still took swipes at it.
This is a movie that you really need to watch a second time to fully appreciate, as Ebert did 25 years later when he reviewed the Director's Cut and admitted it was among the greatest
to be fair to siskel and ebert they werent the only critics that didnt understand the film on first viewing. I wonder if they changed their mind on the film over the years
Vangelis's music is superb in this movie and creates the perfect mood for the story.
And the deaf reviewers didn't hear a thing apparently.
The perfect mood for a story, now if only there'd been a story. "Here are some robots. Now they're dead." What a story Mark...
They just didn't get the vision of blade runner, it all makes so much sense now to those that didn't at the time.
AND MY GOD! what do they mean about the characters? Rutger Hauer was truly captivating, thumbs up if you agree.
Rickvsnewworldorder Tbf, they did watch the first version of it, with the forced happy ending and the voice over. I personally think the Final Cut goes leaps and bounds ahead of the 1st cut.
Rickvsnewworldorder Tbf, they did watch the first version of it, with the forced happy ending and the voice over. I personally think the Final Cut goes leaps and bounds ahead of the 1st cut.
+psychoclownboy I remember Harrison saying that's exactly why he purposely did a bad job.
+Rickvsnewworldorder HELLS YESSSSS THUMBS UP! No matter how many times I watch it , I'm captivated, and truly lost in the world. Rutger Hauer is mesmerizing, and heart breaking as a replicant self aware and more "human" and humane than most humans. I could watch it over and over...
it is a boring movie, i mean, it just is, those saxophones, my gosh.
Ebert please stop saying "RepliCONT"
No it's repliCUNT. Harrison Ford as Decker got some replicunt. I say Harry Dicker repcunt for short:-(
replicunt?
Ebert is projecting. *He* is the true repli-cunt.
jack squatt thanks, that gave me a good laugh, lol.
Deckard is a Replican, Ebert is a Replican't 😂
Man, they got Blade Runner so wrong. The GREATEST Sci-Fi movie EVER.
Gene is essentially saying that he watched the "Tears in rain" monologue, Batty's final sentiments on life and death, and felt nothing. Fucking. Nothing.
I often get the feeling that reviewers like these guys watch so many movies that they are already on their way out the door (mentally, if not physically) to start typing up their reviews before the movie is over. I've caught these guys on this show several times getting details of movies wrong so that it was obvious they didn't even watch the whole thing.
Siskel may have been a replicant himself..
This mоoooviе is nоw ааavаilаblе to watсh hеrе => twitter.com/98e8c7d58f08e0a1b/status/795842553937469440 Siskel ЕЕEЕbert Blаdе Runnеr
That was because Gene didn't understand shit about the movie.
HOW PREDICTABLE
This is why I never listen to film critics. Superb special efforts. Amazing musical score. Superbly written, directed and acted. REAL science and technology rolling along underneath (genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, space travel). Cult classic, now being remade.
I always loved these two -- and I saw this show (this particular episode) when it first aired. Now I look at it again. It is so clear that what both Gene and Roger missed here was the whole underlying theme of Blade Runner. The whole theme of life, death, more life, reduced life expectancy, approaching death, dealing with one's own mortality -- completely lost on these two.
.... funny how almost every critic misses the obvious traits that Blade Runner was a Noire Film, you know.. the ones that critics worship? The Movie was spectacular, in a way that it was at least 10 years ahead of it's time.
+Felix Catora Spot on.
trha2222 Artsy fartsy.
+trha2222 duhhhh
Felix Catora
Art House.
None of those are Noir films
Wow. I WISH I lived in a time when Blade Runner was considered mediocre...
This is a sensory experience. It washes over you and changes you. It is a great story. The characters are great. There has never been a film like this.
For the record, Ebert essentially denounced his own review, after Blade Runner became a huge cultural icon. So, when everyone else decided they loved it, he did too.
nikosvault I won't. And didn't.
No, he just saw the Director's Cut. He never changed his stance on Full Metal Jacket, a now praised movie.
It was the damn voice over that killed the original run.
So basically you stopped liking him because he didn't like a movie you did, you do know what opinions are don't you? They aren't facts.
" by the early 90's". It came out in 1982.
Interesting pronunciation of Replicant.
Maybe it's the British pronunciation? But these guys are Americans!
That's Ebert talking. RIP Roger.
Reminds me of how people from some parts of the East Coast pronounce "defendant."
Brit right here, and let me tell you I'm as puzzled as you. I don't know what the fuck a repliCONT is supposed to be.
@@dondragmer2412 Yeah, British. Sometimes Roger did talk a little that way, especially when he was in London.
One of the 10 best films ever made. Freeze almost any frame and you can see the craftsmanship.
Daniel Savadel Blade Runner is a good movie, but not that good.
If it were a painting it'd be great. But films are also about narrative and Blade Runner is deadly dull.
Great production design does not make a great film. This film isn't even in my top 100.
@@steveconn I've grown to appreciate this film. When I first saw it, I really didn't have the patience. But in recent years, I find it to be one of my favorites.
top 10 lol? Not even close.
Granted, the voice over in the 1982 version was redundant and took away from the film but Siskel and Ebert missed a lot about the film. It's abundantly clear they barely paid attention or even worse they assumed the audience was too stupid and unsophisticated to appreciate BR. I saw it when I was 12(It had a 'R' rating, but I snuck into the theater where it was shown) and was profoundly affected by it-Both the plot and the meta-narrative. Now, as I'm older I'm still surprised by some of the nuances of the film I didn't grasp when I was young. Also, for both critics to ignore the brilliant soundtrack by Vangelis is really appalling.
The voiceover really ruined the film, because it meant you didn't have to think.
Not thinking is bad for the BR experience.
I liked the voice over. Needed it, the first time. I was a kid surrounded by people that did not understand it even with the voice over.Love the firm with voice over and without
JamesSOCO2006 Ebert later rewatched Blade Runner and called it a great movie
JamesSOCO2006 Actually I think the voice over gives the film it's heart and soul and helps to make it special. Plus without it the story becomes very hard to understand.
FulciLives I watched it the first time with no subtitles and had no trouble following the story. The heart and soul of the film is in the visuals and some of the more poetic statements (mostly from Batty).
Helen Caldecott came to speak numerous times in 77 78 during our protests in Barnwell SC. She was is a saint
In retrospect it's easy to poke fun at this review but the original theatrical cut of Blade Runner is not very good. Since the Final Cut and so much hype and analysis we know what the film was going for but back then the film was a bit of a mess. Also the terrible marketing of the movie made most people think it was one thing but then they ended up seeing another.
Most people don't see the original cut today - I don't think it's a great movie in that form. The recuts are what made it a classic.
It became a classic before the recuts because it gained a cult status. Siskel and Ebert are correct about the movie: great to look at but a bit boring with the story. But those who liked it focused on the subtext of the replicant, who should have been the protagonist instead of Ford's character. That's why those who like this movie have to twist themselves to like it. Many believe if the story focused on the replicant as the hero (or antihero, however you look at it), the movie may have been a blockbuster success.
I watched the original BR in the cinemas when it was first released. Loved it.
I saw the original for the first time, too, and really loved it, but I loved it for its style. The story was like looking through a mirror darkly.
The original film release is not much different from the director's cut, except for Harrison Ford's voice over. The director of the new Blade Runner publicly said the original film version is the one he first saw, and likes best. The marketing of the film, should not affect Siskel's and Ebert's review. Remember, Ebert also didn't like Full Metal Jacket.
Gene's saying, "congratulations, young man" like he's some ancient high priest. He was all of 35 or 36 here. It's amazing to see how fast people aged 30 to 40 years ago. They were middle aged crusty characters by 35.
Movies in the 1940s and 1950s show men and women being quite mature and the actors were in the mid twenties.
Yeah, I don't know if it's maturity exactly or just getting old faster, at least in this example here with Gene. It's weird because I was a little kid when I would watch Siskel and Ebert and at the time they seemed like such authoritative older men. They seemed to be in their late 40s and 50s for 20 years. LOL I remember being shocked when I found out that Siskel was only 53 when he died. Point taken about actors seeming so old from such a young age in old movies, though. Maybe because life was simpler and people didn't live as long, didn't go to college as frequently and just got married, had kids and assumed responsibility earlier that they seemed like fully formed adults by 18, certainly by 21. Now you sometimes hear 27 year old Millennials referring to themselves as "kids". LOL Different times, different world I guess. Still, weird to see 35 year old Gene Siskel look and act like a 55 year old. He STILL seems like that crusty old guy he seemed to be back then, even though I'm now older than he was here in this footage. ;)
I think the word you're looking for isn't crusty, it's "mature"
Everyone was more mature at 35 back then because they grew up hard
Fucking hilarious watching critics completely misunderstand the movie.
You got that right, KingKaitain. Wow, did they see the same movie we did?
They've watched the one with the voice over and happy ending, so technically no. They're still assholes, what a stupid clip to use to talk about this movie
This was made when only the theatrical cut was out, which is widely considered to be the worst cut of the movie. They did also use the worst example possible as a scene to show, so there's that, too.
The director's cut is a 9/10 movie. The theatrical cut is at worst an 8/10 movie.
This is the original theatrical cut they're reviewing though, vastly inferior to the later ones that reflect Scott's original vision.
They really blew it regarding Blade Runner, which is pretty surprising. Anyone who loves cinema loves Blade Runner.
I don't remember anyone mentioning "Replicaunts" in the movie..
It must be a Chicago and/or Ebert thing because in the 1992 directors cut re-review he pronounced it the exact same way.
I think Roger was confusing them with leprechauns.
It's actually from a rare deleted scene from near the end of the movie.......the rain subsides and Deckard looks up to the sky, seeing a rainbow. Suddenly a call comes in from Bryant, where he discloses to Deckard that there were actually 4-and-a-HALF replicants to track down. He then tells him that if he follows the rainbow and completes this final task, he can keep the pot of gold. It was kind of stupid, so I can see why Ridley took it out.
Trivia note as well: this was actually Warwick Davis' film debut, not Return of the Jedi. Harrison actually turned George Lucas on to him after Blade Runner.
K, I'm going......sorry everyone.....
Just found this review and can't believe what S&E say about it. I believe I saw the version with the rainbow ending since the two times I I've seen it since 1982, I always felt something was missing at the end. Not even sure I saw the "Final Cut" version - so back to an entertaining night....
In my opinion it was Harrison Ford's best work. His acting was great. Sean Young was beautiful. It was such an interesting story with great performances by everyone.
Are you kidding me ? Ford is anemic in this film. This is the only time I found Ford to be a total bore.
Blade runner was ahead of it's time both metaphorically and literally. It will continue to be inspiring and thematically groundbreaking for generations to come. One of the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time if you ask me. Right up there with ''Space odyssey''
"predictable story"?
+lawrencetboyer Ebert a jew?
And the original cut had a VERY predictable ending.
+SoulStylistJukeBox To be fair, the original holds your hand with all the voice overs, which made it fairly predictable. The director's cut is far superior and less predictable (but much harder to follow for some).
+psychoclownboy I would watch it anytime that it was shown in the theater. They used to show it on a throwback night once a year or so locally.
+psychoclownboy I agree. just watched it for the second time and this time I liked it.
Philip K. Dick is sooo predictable! LOL www.imdb.com/name/nm0001140/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Blade Runner is a great film that surpisingly ends up being a touching allegory about life and living.
Everybody's freaking out over how they didn't like Blade Runner, but you have to remember sometimes they went back re-reviewed films, hell Ebert didn't like A Clockwork Orange when it first came out but he change his mind later years.
It happens sometimes, it's certainly happened to me and also I agree with some peoples opinion that if you've seen an insane amount of films over the years the same old stories and tricks don't work on you anymore after awhile, blade runner certainly wasn't the first story to broach the question of whether you're human or not you can go back to the original twilight zone series and find That.
I remember this timeframe and opening of Siskel& Ebert. It was on PBS at the time. In the late 70’s-early 80’s it was watched because there were no movie reviews in the local paper and most definitely no means of looking up information on your own. Magazine reviews were available, but not exactly timely. These guys gave us more info and thoughts about what was in the theatres to view, including films we couldn’t see because they were not available locally.
Well there were books about film history and books written by film critics. But that's it.
These guys are totally off. Blade Runner is one of the greatest pictures ever made.
+jujufactory it is my fucking favourite sf movie ever
+Ruben Mariciuc Watching it on netflix right now.lol
well it s fucking great
and they are makeing a sequel, with harrison and ryan gosling
One of the most overrated pictures ever made.
Special Effects back in 1982 were better than the crap we see now in the 21st century.
You're right to a large extent, though modern CGI when done judiciously can quite effective. Too often it's overdone and it goes on and on and on with too much happening all at once, as in most modern superhero movies. Though I liked Dr. Strange the FX were so overdone and ridiculous I lost patience and sometimes nearly forgot what the hell the story was about. Even got bored during some of the fight scenes.
@@dondragmer2412 - Fight scenes are getting too cookie cutter these days. Especially when the people fighting all have superpowers. It was cool to see two terminators fighting in Terminator 2, but by the time Avengers End Game came along, it was like eating too much candy.
Funny how the "story" and the "underdeveloped characters" are really what has carried this movie through so many years.
Funny how other people don't like this movie, it's almost as if this movie being great is just an opinion and not a fact...
A lot of critics still contest that the characters, besides Rutger Howard's, were pretty blah. Movie is still amazing but no movie is perfect.
I don't love Blade Runner for its characters, I love it for its visuals. Simply stunning!
Why is Ebert mispronouncing 'Replicant' when they say it in the film? God that narration is horrible. Final Cut all the way.
I kinda liked his narration. He gives it in a 'film noir' kind of delivery. It's just what the film really is - a 30s detective movie.
@@The22on It's OK the first screening to fill in some details, but after that it's awful.
I love the narration
The narration is essential to the noir essence of the movie.
The movie just came out, you had decades to learn how to pronounce it the correct way
Harrison just looks like the role and perfectly plays it
I remember wanting his jacket when I saw this movie way back when.
Oh, and I think one of the most amazing things in this movie, is the music. Brilliance.
Blade runner is the sort of film that gets better over time
I wish I had gotten to see Blade Runner at the theater.
They played the final cut at my local theatre like two months ago.
so you would be 45+ you want that?
I was privileged to see it first not only in a theatre, but in fact in IMAX. I was 12 years old. As you can imagine, it utterly blew my mind, and all subsequent screenings have failed to come close to the impact that the film first had on me.
Look at the schedules for some Revival House type movie theaters and they are bound to show it eventually
I was a youngster who saw its original release at the Drive-In where the huge screen did the cinematography justice.
I will never forget leaving the venue of the magical, dreamlike music and the incredibly well designed and executed visuals. It made you really feel like we had finally entered the future that Bradbury et al had described as pf 1982...
You can find Bladerunner anywhere upon re-release after re-release.
But Diner and Chan is Missing....I’m sure there’s an old VHS or flimsy DVD on eBay of those somewhere.
If they hated Blade Runner, WTF did they think of MEGAFORCE????
"a great movie to look at but a hard one to care about." that about sums it up! But it does look really awesome!! you can still see it's impact on movies today.
I say it's one of the greatest movies ever made, to this day .
Aww The Secret of NIMH, I remember going to see that one. Blade Runner was the first film my dad bought on VHS and he played it every weekend. Fortunately, it was a film we both enjoyed.
Ebert liked The Phantom Menace....that is all.
The Vicious Chicken of Bristol ha ha. he also gave Garfield the movie thumbs up.
The Vicious Chicken of Bristol Can we say "payoff"? :D
+The Vicious Chicken of Bristol This fool also adored Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (which is a shit film, admitted even by the director) and called the first two Mad Max films shallow...
+MiiMungus Really? I love Mad Max, especially the second one, but the third one did suck!
The Vicious Chicken of Bristol "Especially the second one, but the second one did suck"
You mean the third one did suck, right? The third film is Thunderdome which is awful, but Ebert liked it. He disliked the first two films (Mad Max and The Road Warrior) which are actually classics.
Blade Runner -Director's cut is fabulous. The storyline was so edited in its first release as to make it incomprehensible. Ridley Scott masterpiece.
Wow, I never realized how much I missed Siskel and Ebert.
And this is why I don't derive my opinion from the opinion of others.
Siskel and Ebert had their thumbs up their asses on this one.
Siskel and Ebert two clowns who have/had no understanding of what great acting and great movie-making is !
You do realize they watched the original theatrical cut, right? You may enjoy it, but the vast majority of people don’t like the narration and ending of the theatrical cut.
Remember that the version they saw was the mutilated version with an unwilling Harrison Ford's ham-fisted narration.
Loved Blade Runner and Vangelis music when it first came out on the big screen. Has become a classic for good reason.
Gene: "Where was the story?"
Are you serious man?
Exactly. Does he want the ending to tie up everything in a nice neat bundle so we don't have to think about the movie? Instead, the movie purposely leaves some things open to interpretation. Besides, to me, the key to the movie is it's atmosphere. It paints a dark Orwellian dystopia of the future. The movie comes off like a film noir. Everyone talks in soft voices and the world is messy and confusing. There is rain and fog a lot of the time. THAT'S what makes it for me. It's a shadowy, mysterious but hi-tech world where we humans still have lots of problems, and corporations use robot slaves called Replicants - not Repliconts.
Here's an Easter egg you might enjoy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue
I recently saw Bladerunner for the first time and I'm amazed I sat through the whole thing. Just about the only memorable part of it for me was "tears in the rain" and the unique soundtrack. One good scene in an otherwise boring snoozefest. I appreciate the futuristic neo-noir style as much as the next guy, but for one thing I've seen that before since it's 2020 and it's old hat nowadays, and for another thing, two hours of style and but no substance does not a good film make.
@Neal X Gaming Yes it’s 2020 and you have seen it before. Blade Runner did it first. It’s the first film to take the elements of film noir and mash it together in a sci-fi/dystopian future. The story is there but it’s the atmosphere, music, and set design that make the movie a classic.
i guess i've wasted lots of time according to Siskel, cause i've watched that film over 10 times
Nice. I've probably seen it 50+ times, lol.
@@larryparks1520 Me too, the music and art sparks my imagination, feels like my dreams.
When it came out I saw Blade Runner 31 times At the UltraVision in Deerfield Beach Florida.
I thought it was one of the most amazing movies I'd ever seen. As of now, 34 years later, I've seen it several hundred times, And it remains one of the most amazing movies I've ever seen. Perhaps my favorite movie of all time.
I remember hearing that the critics panned it, And I couldn't believe it. Perhaps these Critics were too old to see what I could see So clearly as a 16-year-old In 1982.
The movie was ahead of its time, and will live on To be seen by Tens of millions in the future, when the movies these guys praised are long forgotten.
Critics have their uses, but they are too often wedded to the sensibilities of The moment and what is fashionable at that particular time. They aren't very often people who can see And appreciate what is to come.
I almost feel bad For these clowns, Who obviously missed out on one of the truly great movie experiences Because they were blinded by their own Narrow vision And prejudices
I love the Final Cut. So beautiful.
I totally agree with everything you said. I was just a kid when this came out and remember seeing it for the first time in VHS. I have the 3 DVD collection now and strongly prefer the original theatrical narrated version.
31 times? Please get a life.
31 times!? Damn. Then again tickets were around $3 in 1982.
The scene with Sean Young and Harrison Ford at the piano is overwhelming. I really don't think I've ever seen anything more moving. How Siskel & Ebert could watch that and shrug is beyond me.
They drank the Snob Kool-Aid™ and couldn't see beyond their own noses. The movie was about memory and identity, acceptance of slavery and questioning the slog of a depressing job. The dialogue and characters were great rhoughout. I love when Roy tells Pris one of them was just killed... and Pris replies, "Then we're stupid and we'll die."
How could they have been "america's most beloved film critics" while they weren't even competent movie viewers?
+Chillton ooooooooooooooooooo burn!
I really love Blade Runner. I have always loved it. But I can see where they are coming from.
I can just imagine the guy who saw this review and decided to save his money, skip Blade Runner and and go see Megaforce the next week instead.
Siskel gave useful reviews. If he didn't like the movie, it was a must-see. If he liked it, then it was a pass.
You have to remember that they're talking about the 1982 theatrical cut of Blade Runner here, *which is not that good.* The first good version of Blade Runner was the 1991 directors cut, but even that version pales in comparison to the 2007 final cut (although the line "I want more life, fucker!" sound better than "I want more life, father".
Ebert gave the final cut 4 out of 4.
Blade runner is a iconic film. Not to mention the vangelis tracks that were stunning
I have to disagree.
Blade Runner became a cult classic way before the Director's Cut was released. The theatrical release was excellent and in my opinion the best story of all the tellings.
Personally, of the two theories, I'd rather have the theme of a machine having to teach humans how to love because they've been numbed by technology... instead of simply robots in love which is what the Director's cut is.
I never like Directors going back and tinkering with their films. The added footage from Legend (unicorn dream) was very added on, even worse than the so called 'happy ending' (Kubrick's footage from Shining).
But you're in the majority. I think most prefer the director's cut. I prefer the original theatrical release. I do enjoy the voice overs, they're a direct tip of the hat to the Film Noir style of which BR is a tribute.
I rarely agreed with Siskel and Ebert, but loved their show and miss them.
"I want more life father" is from the television version of the film, not the theatrical release.
There are three primary differences between the theatrical cut and later ones - the voice over, the unicorn scene, and the happy ending. It also contains several continuity errors as the film took shape in the editing room. The people who say that the movie was crap before the recuts mustn't have been born when it was released. The differences are hardly earth-shattering.
Also, the Director's Cut was not actually a Director's Cut- Ridley Scott didn't supervise it. It was a Warner Bros.-sanctioned recut by the film archivist who discovered the lost workprint that had been used for early 1982 Dallas and San Diego previews. This discovery had unauthorized showings at the NuArt in LA (which I was lucky enough to see) in 1991 under the misleading label of "Director's Cut", and really jumpstarted the modern reverence of the film.
It's only with Final Cut that Ridley finally got involved again, and digitally fixed or rerecorded lines to remove the old continuity errors, and readjusted some of the hamfisted changes in the faux Director's Cut.
Yep, and they, Roger in particular, gave the Director's Cut a very similar bad review to this one: th-cam.com/video/HPofu9nrkGE/w-d-xo.html
DC > Final Cut
Prince loved Bladerunner and asked his photographer Alan Beaulieu to go and watch it before designing the inner sleeve picture for 1999 where he's reclining on a venetian lit futuristic bed.. The Beautiful Ones is also to my ears inspired by Vangelis' theme
Wow. 2 "professional" movie reviewers who are both debunked by the historically reality that Blade Runner has been one of the most influential and copied Science Fiction movies of all time. Furthermore, one of the most scientifically accurate. As we approach 2019, robotic technology is getting close to this portrayal. Ridley Scott was and is a genius, while Siskel & Ebert were mere critics.
+Antenna Wilde - It's amazing. Neither understood the brilliance of this film.
Other than Hauer and the Vangelis score Blade Runner was a deadly bore. Even Ford thought so (though not as coma-inducing as 2049).
I got like all the versions of Blade Runner, and despite the small flaws, which are minimal, it is by far, one of the best movies ever made. I love every version of it. Yeah, it is long, feels lonely, not for everyone, but look at it. The acting is excellent, the script is excellent, and it has so many superb details. I have probably seen it 100 times, and I see something new every time. I would say that Blade Runner, is one of the most complete movies ever made.
A miovie ahead of its time? ; critics and audiences despised Blade Runner. I loved it since the first time saw it, the year it was released. A classic
Funny how Blade Runner stands strong as one of the best films ever while the other films they mention are long forgotten much like their own show.
.....you say that while your watching their "show" in 2015.....fuckin douche-nozzle
Yes the Blade Runner episode if you may of noticed. A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. By doing this, you will awaken from your dreams.
ronald black Thanks! I'm headed for the roof of a very tall building even as we speak. I'M TAKIN' THE PLUNGE!
ronald black That would depend on your age. I watched Siskel and Ebert often as a kid. It was pre-Internet and that was kind of how you saw what movies were out or you read newspaper reviews, or just went to the theater, picked a movie and went. I love the movie "Blade Runner" and Philip K Dick's book too. Not saying their review isn't bland, just that such information wasn't as readily available as they are now.
ronald black Blade Runner is the most overrated movie of all time.
I love your channel!! Thanks for posting all these Siskel and Ebert full episodes. You have the best collection I have found. Thank you!!!!
"Replicunts"
~Ebert
Damnnnnnnn!!!! What a great week to see some Movies!!!! Diner, Chan is Missing, Blade Runner AND The Thing open ALL ON THE SAME DAY!!!! What a COOL TIME TO BE A MOVIE FAN!!!!!
Ebert gave a better review of Blade Runner's "The Final Cut" in 2007. Even his 1982 newspaper review is a little better than how he sounds here.
His written reviews were always better than his TV appearances, I thought.
This is perhaps the number one reason why I don't listen to critics---thanks Skittle and Eggbert!!!!
Although this is my favorite movie of all time, I agree with them. The plot is predictable, and you really don't get a chance to get to know or like the characters. I would've loved to have known more about Tyrell.
How COULD they NOT like Blade Runner?
When it came out, MOST people said they didn't like it (same with The Shining)
They didnt understand the film. It was ahead of its time and of this critics.
Blade Runner "a waste of time". I bet he wished he could take those words back.
When Ebert saw The Final Cut, he gave it a 4 out of 4 star rating, so that goes to show he thinks it has improved since the theatrical release, he is reviewing here.
Siskel and Ebert were replicants themselves, they really didn't want to retire. By the way, I'm surprised that they did not mention Rutger Hauer.
The reviews are not surprising here...the film got very bland reviews or even bad reviews from many critics. And then the film, over time, became a masterpiece. Ebert changed his mind in later years.
You guys have to remember the theatrical release (tempered with by studio) of Blade Runner was very lackluster. You can even hear the narration in the clip which was taken out of the "directors cut" and final cut (the true version)
I love Blade Runner. The following is not a judgement of the film but a comment on the society that rejected it ... The film was dark and off putting for the time (1982). Reagan was in with hope, prosperity, and bright colors. Carter was out because of inflation, the hostage / oil crisis, and the color brown ... no shit, cars used to be brown, I digress. The studio tried to lighten it up with a narration and happy ending but it was just too dark for the time. American culture (in the eighties) was desperately trying to break away from the seventies darkness. Films like Taxi Driver and Dog Day Afternoon would have never been made in the 80's. Additionally, people wanted to see Harrison be a hero (Han, Indy ...). Not an anti-hero, that is possibly the thing he is trying to kill and have sex with - A replicant. In fact, believe it or not Deckard's hair cut was a complete distraction for the time. Look up GQ magazine covers from 1982 - Men didn't have hair cut's like that in '82. The film was tragically ahead of it's time. That being said, there were a minority of people that always knew the film was cool as hell. My Dad was in that group, and he took me to see the film when I was ten-years-old. It changed my life.
Indeed.
Deckard's haircut is directly tied to Indiana Jones. Ridley Scott originally wanted Ford to wear a floppy hat, carrying the film noir look even further, but Ford's previous film was Indy, so he didn't want to use a hat that would look like the Indy character, hence the haircut...
These guys are total tool! Bladerunner was so visionary and yet true to it's time. Every character was well-developed and stayed true to its uniqueness. The premise -the quest for immortality- is a familiar and relevant. It was fun watching Ford, in his early days, playing a tired, disenfranchised, single/solitary professional whose handles his job in an emotionless, oddly robotic way. Sean Young -the android- well, she was perfectlyly beautiful with her confident and mature sexiness combined with her struggle with fear of the fragility and uncertainty of life. That emotional struggle made her human much more 'human' than Ford's slob+cop character. I was gonna say that Young was the most beautful girl of that time but that I remembered Demi Moore in Ghost and Olivia Newton John in Grease, and Jame Lee Curtis in Trading Places, etc. Any ways, the complexity of those two as well as Rutger's life ending dialog were so provocative and unforgettable. RIdley Scott has an incredible ability to create images that are so vast and so richly detailed that they're just undeniable. I loved this movie (and soundtrack) so much that I often mimic the clowns laugh at the beginning of Priss' death scene.
I can't believe they didn't like it... I still respect them, and always will. But boy, were they wrong.
Oh! Well.... Time the best judge 👍👍👍👍Blade Runner!! Way ahead of his time.. No doubt!! ⌚
If someone reviews Blade Runner and doesn't mention Rutger Hauer, he is "wasting my time" (talking to you Gene).
Blade runner actually is well acted. It's suprising for a Science fiction film to have such scenes. Not many actors today can pull that scene off.
They wouldn't film a scene like that today because of the dominant male portrayal, people would cry sexual assault
This is the most shallow review of Blade Runner I have ever seen, I'm in shock ... there is literally no mention of the main themes, they just discuss the basic plot and yawn at it, without ever going deeper into the movie. The acting was superb, human and repliCANT (Ebert), the music was fantastic, the vision of a dirty, wet and damaged future world ... the fact that humans will never get to experience what they force their creations to endure for them in their shortened lives. It's a totally enthralling morality tail about what it means to be human, what it means to be sentient, what it means to have free will and much much more. Shame on these two for not seeing any of that, I expected more from so called professionals.
A youtuber made interesting points on the film Bladerunner, he basically mentions it's a film about empathy and if you aren't an empath you won't relate to it. You'll find it void of any plot.. Boring!
You'll ask 'what's the point of the film?'. Maybe siskel and ebert were psychopaths or had traits of psychopathy?
Philip Dunne when the Director's Cut of Blade Runner came out about 10 years later, Siskel and Ebert came to their senses and gave it two thumbs up.
I hope it was because they genuinely liked the movie and not because everyone by that point had recognized Blade Runner for the genius it is.
"basically mentions it's a film about empathy and if you aren't an empath you won't relate to it"
I am an empath and I've always found the film somewhat dull and unrelatable because it just doesn't communicate its themes very well. Scott's direction for the most part feels like he himself wasn't sure what the film was supposed to be while shooting (and based on stories there might be truth to that) and only later in editing tried to make it more coherent (and thus the multiple revisions). Also while the movie is quite pretty to look at it really isn't cinematographed that well. Especially as far as communicating the themes the cinematography doesn't place nearly enough emphasis on key elements such as the replicants' emotions or interpersonal relationsips (though 'Tears in Rain' somewhat redeems this). This again I feel is a shortcoming in the direction since the same problems are also reflected in the acting which in general carries a very inconsistent quality.
This isn't the director's cut, this is the stupider theatrical cut.
Yet many could SEE understand the core themes ideas in it JUST from first seeing it in the theater and were not this shallow. Ebert admits in many instances he is clueless with some epic movies and changes his reviews years later.
Ten years later, The Director's Cut came out and they loved it. Also, pretty sure Ebert gave the original 3/4 stars.
Wrong. They didn't love it. The review is here on youtube, watch it for yourself.
@@frankieboy8414 It was really Siskel who completed dismissed the film. Ebert later gave it 4/4 stars and included it on his Great Movies list.
Boy do I miss boy these guys. I watched all of their programs. I generally agree with Roger. I remember when Blade Runner came out which was 34 years ago. It got terrible reviews. The movie was so slow and so
dark compared to Star Wars which had come out 5 years earlier and then The Empire strikes Back released 2 years before B.R and the last one in 1983. In 1982 you got E.T. and Raiders. All these were all up, fun, really light. Then B R came along with its really sad, hopeless plot. No wonder no one liked it then. I can remember leaving the theatre and listening to people bitching about how terrible it was and talking about asking for a refund. Now it is a cult film and has been diagnosed and picked over for decades. Remember that.
I saw it in high school when it first came out and loved it instantly. Total immersion from start to finish, even with the cheesy voice over narration. I think it helps to have seen a ton of sci-fi movies before seeing Blade Runner.
I loved BR when it came out and still love it now. Sometimes even critics we like get it wrong.
Appears to me that Siskel and Ebert are not Sci-Fi fans. Blade Runner turned out to be. a classic in the genre.
Just goes to show that when public figures die tragically, we tend to forgive and overlook their professional deficiencies.
I went to this film when it debuted and I left the theater totally moved. It was then and remains in my top 5 films of all time. It anticipated the questions we currently deal with such as what constitutes humanity when we can create so much of it in a lab. When does a being become sentient and cease to be the property of its maker? This is the Frankenstein/Prometheus myth rewritten for future generations. Powerful.
Blade Runner #97 AFI's top 100.
“Diner”!
Talk about a wonderful flick.
Definitely Guttenberg’s best film performance as an actor.
His wedding scene was hilarious.
And to some extent the same holds true for Rourke who was very understated as Boogie.
Talk about great ensemble acting.
And Roger’s comment about his Dog of the Week is very funny:
“Well thank God these kids only have one camel.”
I agree with Gene and Roger. I didn't get much from Blade Runner
-The sets, while impressive, were too dark. So dark it was hard to focus on the film. And why was it always raining in Los Angeles?
- The replicants got surprising little screen time ; there wasn't a scene with all four of them. Two of them were knocked off very early. Consequently the audience can't care about them.
-The plot was thin. The replicants are trying to live and infiltrate the company that designed the before they expire. Much more screen time should have been devoted to this.
-It was never explained why the repicants would kill the company head and the designer but not Harrison Ford
I suspect the novel was much better
The novel was ok, but more existential and dated. When I saw the film when I was 13, all I cared about were the effects, set design, and costumes. However, as a mature person, I have to agree with these guys. I really wanted to know more about Tyrell, Pris, Zora, and even the eye guy.
Thank you for posting this. I have found myself humming the theme song from their show on and off for the last 20 or so years, but never being able to remember where it came from. I'm not crazy. Thank you.
Shame on Douglas Trumbull for not coming up with more futuristic-looking noodles!
Everyone has to understand, Blade Runner wasn't well received by a majority of people upon it's initial release. It was marketed as a straight up action film. The trailer shows a piece of every action scene. It was really just ahead of it's time. Now, it's considered one of the best sci-fi films of all time and a masterpiece. I just watched this movie today finally, and I have been missing out. Let me correct myself, I just watched this film today for my first time, then I watched it again. This movie is a spectacle on all levels with deeper undertones. It's perfect. 5 STARS.
"I invested a lot of energy watching this movie." -- I'd forgotten what a pretentious ass Gene could be.