Avengers: Infinity War
A good movie that buckles beneath the weight of its responsibilities to the franchise.
With the upcoming release of "Blade Runner 2049," (read Brian Tallerico's review here), we wanted to compile our previous coverage of the Ridley Scott classic, including Roger's reviews of three different versions.
On June 2, 1982, Roger gave three stars to “Blade Runner.” While praising the special effects more than the character work, Roger wrote that “’Blade Runner’ is worth attending just to witness this artistry.”
Ten years later, on September 11, 1992, Roger revisited “Blade Runner” through the director’s cut, which Ridley Scott has said was his actual vision for the film. Still, the additions and deletions did not make a significant difference. Roger wrote: Seeing the movie again, even in this revised version, I still felt the human story did not measure up to the special effects.
However, despite the three stars he had awarded to the two versions of “Blade Runner,” in 2007 Roger designated “Blade Runner: The Final Cut” as worthy of Great Movies designation, reviewing the film on November 3, 2007. Along with praising the film among other sci-fi classics such as “Dark City,” “Brazil,” "12 Monkeys" and “Gattaca,” Roger said, “I have never quite embraced ‘Blade Runner,’ admiring it at arm’s length, but now it is time to cave in and admit it to the canon.”
In 2012, writer Gerardo Valero took a closer look at the visuals of “Blade Runner,” for a piece titled “Blade Runner: Great, but a Little Dull.”
In 2014, Eric Haywood wrote a piece titled “There’s Something About Blade Runner,” where he enters into the debate that character Rick Deckard is actually the film’s villain.
This week, Brian Tallerico wrote about the Denis Villeneuve-directed sequel, "Blade Runner 2049." Click here to read his three-and-a-half star review.
A new video essay explores the uncanny durability of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...