I don't like this movie

[deleted]

I felt the same what when I was younger. Then I watched it as an adult and I loved it. It's the uncaring elements in the film that (for me) bring to light the uncaring aspects of the world in which we live. In our modern techo world everyone is so obsessed with their phones, their facebook, their instagram, etcetera that they don't take the time to look around and see the pain and suffering of their fellow man, and even if they do (most) do not they care. This movie brings that to light perfectly. The reason why Batty is the only one to show emotion is because that's the way it was suppose to be. At this point "in the future" most of civilization had become unfeeling, uncaring monsters, but the Replicants that they created as sex toys, and workers had become more humans than their creators. In the end it takes a Replicant to bring human emotion out of Deckard who (at least in the original cut, and the book) WAS human. I know that in latter cuts (directors cut and the final cut) that he is suppose to be a replicant himself, but that wasn't initially the case. If you watch the original cut it's clear as day that he was human. I enjoy all the cuts of this film, but I am annoyed that Ridley Scott spilled the beans by telling the world that Deckard is a Replicant. I felt that there films were a lot more interesting when it was left ambiguous.

The romance was awkward, but it's another thing that I beleive adds to the film. Deckard is emotionally stunted from years of killing Replicants. He simply doesn't feel anymore. Rachel is a machine who doesn't realize that she is a machine, and if she indeed does have a three year lifespan, or has only been online for a short period of time then she would most likely be somewhat stunted emotionally too. I always looked at the romance as two emotionally stunted people learning how to love again. Deckard is rediscovering emotions that he buried a long time ago, and Rachel is discovering emotions for the first time.

To be honest I would have preferred Nina Axelrod as Rachel. She was in the running and was ahead of Sean Young, but Ridley wanted Sean. He said she reminded him of Vivian Leigh. Anyway here's Nina's screen test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8_hZo1J0g8

i basically agree. no issue from me in recognizing it's revolutionary look and style. it deserves all the credit it's received as far as that goes.

but every time i've watched it, as a kid in the theatre & the times i've watched the various versions as an adult, i've always been more or less bored by it. whatever it has that entrances other people, i seem to be immune to that effect.

i like 2049 a lot more. that's an imperfect movie, but i am able to connect with the plot and the characters and get sucked into the world in a way i never do with the original recipe.

I've always loved it. Even people I know who don't like sci-fi (wierd I know, but such people do exist) liked it. It's funny how films work differently for different people.

Try one of the Michael Bay movies. Maybe they're more your speed?

The movie has some amazing scenes (the opening panoramic shot, Tears in the rain speech, Tyrell and Roy meeting, basically every scene with Roy Batty) but also has a ton of plot holes and Deckard is boring and unlikeable. The whole subplot with Daryl Hannah and the old-young guy is a total slog to get through.

No doubt the plot holes due to changes in the screenplay as they shot it damage the story overall. I for one never believed Deckard was a replicant. It does answer some questions, sure, but makes the story overall seem less compelling. I think the parallels between Deck & the replicants—his collection of photos, the dream, Rachel challenging him did he ever take the test himself—were intended more to demonstrate the absurdity of creating beings so alike human ("More human than human!") & then not expecting the to behave as humans, e.g. revolt, murder.

Of course that wasn't your main issue. Sure, if BR were made today for the first time it'd be made differently. Scott & Co were playing around with special effects, set design, they didn't put as much effort into the screenplay as they ought to have.

To me, however, it remains an all-time classic, & one of the best movies made in & about my hometown.

Well, the movie has lots of philosophical depth underneath the mundane techno-rot exhibited in Los Angeles 2019.

There are elements in the story that I think highlight Ridley Scott's weaknesses and that for the most part is portraying love and romance. He just doesn't get it out of the performances between Ford and Young even though the setup is perfect for their union.