So there are a lot of questions circulating these days about Blade Runner. Will there be a remake? Will it be as good as the original? Will Harrison Ford be too old and brittle to re-tackle this role and have to hand over the reigns to Shia Lebouf or some other former Disney star or Duff sister?
The answer is, simply: Who cares?
Blade Runner received a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. That alone should require an SEC investigation. 92%. That's the same percentage Colin Powell gave to the UN affirming that Iraq had WMD's. Coincidentally, those are the same odds that the only way I'll have offspring is by attaching a picture of Leonardo DiCaprio to my sperm donor application and forging a diploma.
Blade Runner takes place in the future, and being from the future and looking back on what Blade Runner was guessing at I can honestly say they got a few thing right and a most things wrong.
Where they succeeded?
Like Madam Cleo, the writer looked into the stars, threw down the cards, and found a housing bubble the size of the BP oil spill.... and then charged you $8.50 for his trouble.
I refer to the toymaker in the movie who lives alone in an apartment building and says, roughly, "This place is empty. Plenty of housing to go around." A housing surplus? In California? Only Nostradamus, Ron Paul, and the Austrian School of Economics could have gotten this one right.
They also predicted that Harrison Ford would still be a crowd-drawing romantic lead in spite of kissing like a robot.
So where did it all go wrong?
Flying cars, robotic lovers, and steam coming out of every vent in America. Sounds like a movie starring a prepubescent and pre-parkinson's Michael J. Fox or a creepy Japanese fetish, and maybe that's what this movie was supposed to be. A sex vacation to Thailand for a bunch of wealthy Toyota execs, or maybe it's just an overrated glimpse into a future that will never exist.
The one thing Rotten Tomatoes got right? There's a 92% chance I'll never listen to their reviews again.
No comments:
Post a Comment