Der Tag des Falken ist ein wirklich schöner Fantasyfilm mit guter Besetzung (Rutger Hauer, Matthew Broderick, Michelle Pfeiffer)  und interessanten Charakteren, gemischt mit einer tragischen Geschichte um ein von einem aus Eifersucht dem Teufel verfallen Priester verfluchtes Liebespaar: Er – der Ritter – verwandelt sich jede Nacht in einen Wolf, sie – seine Herzensdame – wird am Tag zum Falken, wodurch ihre Liebe unmöglich wird. Ein kleiner Gauner und ein alter Eremit werden geschickt, um die zwei zu erlösen.

Auch heute noch, im Zeitalter von Tricktechniken vom feinsten, ist dieser Film aus dem Jahr 1985 ein Muss für jeden Fan von “Ritterfilmen”, zu denen ich mich allerdings nicht zähle.

Leider muss auch in den etwas unpassenden Soundtrack erwähnen, der dem Film die Erhabenheit nimmt und so manche wundervolle Szene mit “Disco-Sound” buchstäblich zu Boden trampelt. Aber ansonsten, wenn man darüber hinwegsehen kann, ist das Vergnügen diesen Film zu sehen ungetrübt und man wird bestimmt nicht bereuen, ihn gesehen zu haben!

Ik heb afgelopen maandag de film Batman Begins (2005) op tv gezien. In deze film worden de hoofdrollen gespeeld door Christian Bale als Bruce Wayne/Batman, Michael Caine als Alfred, Morgan Freeman als Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman als Jim Gordon, Rutger Hauer als Earle, Cillian Murphy als Dr. Jonathan Crane, Liam Neeson als Henri Ducard, Ken Watanabe als Ra’s Al Ghul, Colin McFarlane als Loeb en Katie Holmes als Rachel Dawes.

De kleine jongen Bruce Wayne zag zijn ouders voor zijn ogen wreed vermoord worden: een trauma dat hem voor de rest van zijn leven vervult met wraakgevoelens. Het lot laat hem zijn wraak echter niet uitvoeren. Hij vlucht naar het Oosten, waar hij opgevangen wordt door de ninja-leider Ra’s Al-Ghul, en als hij terugkeert naar zijn thuisstad Gotham City vindt hij die in de handen van maffiabendes en andere gangsters. Hij besluit een nieuw persoon te worden, één die de harten van misdadigers met vrees vervult: Batman! Met de hulp van politieman Jim Gordon zet Batman zijn eerste stappen in zijn strijd tegen het onrecht. Zijn strijd begint tegen de maffiabaas Don Falcone, de gekke dokter Jonathan ’Scarecrow’ Crane en een mysterieuze derde persoon …
[FilmTotaal.nl]

Ik vind dit een hele goede Batman-film. Juist het fet dat de beslissing die Bruce Wayne neemt om als Batman de misdaad te bestrijden halverwege de film genomen wordt vind ik moedig en is verder heel goed uitgewerkt.

Wat ik ook heel goed vind is dat je ziet dat Bruce Wayne altijd last heeft gehad van het feit dat zijn ouders voor zijn ogen vermoord zijn. Ook wel leuk om te zien dat Bruce Wayne bij een groep Ninja’s terecht gekomen is om zichzelf te stalen en veel te leren.

Verder blijft Gotham City gewoon erg gaaf om in beeld te brengen en dat is ook in deze film heel goed gelukt. De nieuwe batmobiel is natuurlijk supergaaf!!

Al met al een film die gewoon zeer goed en onderhoudend is.

“Nederland kent geen leuke mannen,” hoor ik mijn vriendinnen vaak zeggen. Ze zwijmelen weg bij namen als Jude Law en Matthew McConaughey, of gieren om Jim Carry als een –wat mij betreft- humorloze Bruce Almighty, maar nooit hoor ik ze over een vent van eigen bodem. Ja, over hun eigen liefje, die wel uit een Hollandse moestuin is gekomen. Ik ben het totaal niet met de hoofdstelling eens. Nederland kent wel degelijk leuke mannen. En dat ga ik met een lijstje bewijzen.

# 10. Herman den Blijker (van de liefde voor eten van deze man en zijn souplesse in de keuken krijg je spontaan honger)

# 9. Jort Kelder (altijd goed gekleed, hij slaapt waarschijnlijk zelfs in pak)

# 8. Patrick van Luijk (Nederlands kampioen op de 100 en 200 meter sprint, onze eigen Usain Bolt)

# 7. Gordon (Glitter Glamour Gordon. Relnicht en held)

# 6. Nick Schilder (Nederlands beste zanger van dit moment; hij kreeg mij in ieder geval aan het huilen met zijn vertolking van ‘Halleluja’)

# 5. Ruben Nicolai (Knapste Lama, de prijs voor Leukste Lama gaat naar Ruben van der Meer)

# 4. André Rieu (muzikaal genie en meest succesvolle Nederlander in het buitenland)

# 3. Jan Mulder (maakt met zijn rauwe, sexy stem zelfs reclame weer leuk)

# 2. Rutger Hauer (fantastisch acteur..als kind was ik al verliefd op deze stoere ridder)

# 1. Daniël Boissevain (deze keuze behoeft naar mijn idee geen uitleg)

Wij vrouwen hoeven het niet ver te zoeken. Lang leve de Nederlanse man!

Mrs Pina Colada

Some days I think I’m radioactive because …

it feels like I’m living a half-life.

note: a candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, so a candle that burns twice as dim must burn twice as long … but why bother?

double note: an unlit candle lasts the longest but it’s kind of useless without a match.

triple note: when I think about images of loving life and wanting to squeeze out everyday of it … I think of Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty jamming that nail into his hand in Blade Runner.

.

notes to myself #55

You never have a cool hair style.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer 1992

Director: Fran Rubel Kuzui

Writer: Joss Whedon

Starring Kristy Swanson, Luke Perry, Donald Sutherlnad, Rutger Hauer, Paul Reubens, Hilary Swank, Natasha Gregson Wagner, Stephen Root and Candy Clark

    I am a big time Buffy fanatic, the TV show is one of the few shows I have the complete set on DVD.  I had not seen the original movie though, since I saw it in theaters in the summer of 92.  I remember it really being the only film of that summer that was really good.  But, after watching the show it always felt like I was cheating by going back and watching this.  I am sorry I took so long, because I think the film has aged very well.  It has bits of flourish that remind me of the show, but it really is a completely different animal.  And I think that is a good thing, it separates it from what the TV show was.  It is a light, fun and campy film, which works better in a film than it would on a TV series.  The cast is very good and the script is funny and flies by at no time at all.   Though, I would have liked to have seen what Whedon’s original script was really like.  This is probably the last vampire film I really enjoyed until 30 Days of Night.

    The plot basics are this, Buffy (Swanson) is your typical high school cheerleader, flighty, ditzy and more caring about her fashion sense than anything else.  She goes through life as usual until she meets Merrick (Sutherland) a strange man who tells her that she is the chosen one, the Slayer and she has a destiny to slay the undead, otherwise known as vampires.  He instructs her how to kill vampires and warns her of the coming of Lothos (Hauer) a ages old vampire who has killed many slayers and Buffy keeps having dreams about him.  She soon meets Pike (Perry) who has seen the vampires and soon becomes an ally with her.  It all leads to the school dance where Lothos attacks and Buffy must stop him once and for all.

    This was a good film.  The direction by Kuzui is very well done, it is directed with a very campy feel throughout the entire film and it really works with the material.  The script is great, Whedon has a great feel for great dialogue and it shows very well in here.  There is much humor in the film but it is more from the situations than the characters, which is always a better route to go.  The cast is great, Swanson is a very good protagonist and is very likeable.  Sutherland is great as the wise mentor and Hauer is a great main antagonist, he just oozes wickedness.  Perry also does a good job as the romantic interest, but I think the best performance is Ruebens as Hauer’s lackey.  He steals every scene he is in and I loved his death scene.  The SFX and the action sequences are done quite well, and I especially love the siege at the dance, that was pulled off really well.  This is a campy little horror comedy, that definitely improves with age and if you want to see how the show started you should see this film.

This one gets 3 stakes out of 5

Fino a pochi giorni fa indicavo in BASTA CHE FUNZIONI il miglior film degli ultimi mesi.

Ora non più. L’alleniana commedia ha perso il primato. Poi vi dirò chi ha preso il suo posto in cima alla classifica.

MA PROCEDIAMO CON ORDINE, partendo dal peggiore: dalle stalle alle stelle.

Ho visto (rimpiangendo i soldi spesi) BARBAROSSA, un fumettaccio particolarmente grezzo. Un sacco di euri male impiegati per celebrare Alberto da Giussano e la Lega lombarda. I buoni (i Leghisti) da una parte, i cattivi (i Tedeschi e i collaborazionisti) dall’altra. Alla fine si è costretti a tifare per Federico imperatore, anche perchè è Rutger Hauer (ne ho viste di cose che voi umani…), un vero attore.

Quanto al giussanese Alberto, è interpretato da Raz Degan: uno che (dopo Centochiodi) CREDE di essere un attore. Bisogna che qualcuno gli spieghi che per recitare in un film non basta pronunciare una o più battute: occorre dare un pizzico di credibilità alla propria interpretazione. In Alexander, Raz era re Dario; non diceva una sola parola e faceva la faccia spaventata. Era meglio fermarsi lì, evitandoci lo strazio di questa ciofeca leghista.

Salendo un paio di gradini, ecco una commediola leggerina leggerina: LE MIE GROSSE GRASSE VACANZE GRECHE. Si può vedere, se non ci si aspetta niente di speciale. Mi sono divertito a rimembrare anni lontani, quando partecipai a vacanze di gruppo. E’ proprio come si vede nel film: vacanzieri che comprano souvenirs ORRENDI, single di mezz’età che provano a rimorchiare, proteste continue per l’aria condizionata, le camere d’albergo ecc.

E poi c’è l’accompagnatore/animatore che si sforza di essere spiritoso. Qui è una accompagnatrice/animatrice: l’attrice Nia Vardalos che era molto più simpatica 7 anni fa, quando era più cicciotella.

SALENDO PARECCHI GRADINI, ecco Woody Allen che racconta se stesso. Un vecchio cervellone misantropo e superpessimista che non resta insensibile alla naifté di una bella oca.

All’inizio sembra Pigmalione; difatti lui borbotta “se il prof. Higgins avesse conosciuto questa scema si sarebbe buttato dalla finestra…”. Poi arrivano, dalle rive del Mississipi, prima la madre e poi il padre della fanciulla. La madre si accorge di essere una ninfomane, il padre di essere gay. Insomma il finale diventa farsesco.

Comunque la trama è solo un pretesto per una serie di sarcastiche battute. E quando Woody fa dire al protagonista “gli americani invidiano i negri per la lunghezza del pene e gli ebrei per la scintillante intelligenza” ti accorgi che lui (Woody) si sente davvero straniero anche a Manhattan. Come capitò, negli anni 50, a Charlie Chaplin.

INFINE il film che più mi è piaciuto. Sarà perchè mi riesce facile immedesimarmi in Carl, il protagonista. Non ho ancora 78 anni, ma l’idea di partire per il Sudamerica alla ricerca di favolosi animali semiestinti mi sembra buona. Magari usando mezzi più affidabili di migliaia di palloncini gonfi di elio.

Mi accorgo però che, per descrivere la poesia di questa incantevole favola, mi serve un post apposito. Perciò, alla prossima.

Non un obbrobrio, ma davvero pessimo.

La franquicia de Batman es una montaña rusa de ires y venires, de cómo la Warner Brothers se imagina sus episodios y de cómo cada uno de sus directores le apuesta a algo creativo (si es que se puede llamar creativo el vacío intento de Joel Schumacher en 1997 con su Batman & Robin).

Batman es la creación de Bob Cane, un norteamericano que se hizo millonario al venderle derechos patrimoniales de la franquicia a DC Comics, claremente aprendió de los errores de Joe Shuster y Jerry Siegel que inventaron Superman basados en la teoría del súper-hombre de Nietzsche y fueron estafados ingenuamente por la DC Comics. Cane aprovechó todo el potencial de su personaje y se hizo muy popular primero por la excentricidad del millonario que encarnaba y porque era el único súper héroe que no poseía poderes sobrenaturales.

Gracias a Frank Miller el excéntrico millonario dejó de ser colorido y extrovertido para convertirse en un hombre solitario, abnegado y lleno de miedos internos. Tim Burton en 1989 con Michael Keaton fue el primero en llevarlo al celuloide con Batman; su antagónico era el Joker interpretado por Jack Nicholson y como raro, una nominación al Oscar. El mismo Burton en 1992 repite con Michael Keaton y develan una segunda parte de la franquicia con Batman Returns esta vez los villanos eran Michelle Pfeiffer como Catwoman y Danny DeVito como el Penguin, acompañados de Christopher Walken un verdadero villano.

Todo pintaba a que la tercera parte de la saga la iba a hacer de nuevo Tim Burton pero la Warner dijo que se estaban haciendo demasiado oscuras estas pelis, que eso no era comercial, por lo cual le pasó la batuta a Joel Schumacher y en 1995 al lado de Val Kilmer como el nuevo Bruce Wayne sacaron Batman Forever. Lo positivo un excelente Edward Nygma, Riddler interpretado por Jim Carrey, acompañado por Tommy Lee Jones como Harvey Dent, Two Faces. Lo pésimo, la mala caracterización de Kilmer, la pobre presencia de Nicole Kidman y la terrible aparición de Chris O’Donnell.

No sólo fue mala, sino que le dieron una segunda oprotunidad a Schumacher y sacó en 1997 Batman & Robin. No tengo nada en contra de los homosexuales pero fue el Batman más gay de la historia de todos los hombres murciélago. Tomas cerradas a las nalgas de George Clooney, los pechos de Batman y Robin y una Alicia Silverstone de muy regular actuación. Uma Thurman actúa aquí pero pasa desapercibida el verdadero éxito de la peli Mr. Freeze interpretado por Arnold Schwarzenegger en un disfraz increíble.

Tuvieron que pasar ocho años, para que los fanáticos sanáramos nuestras heridas de decepción y repulsión para ver el nacimiento del nuevo Batman.

En 2005, con guión escrito por Christopher Nolan sale Batman Begins. Christian Bale es el nuevo Bruce Wayne, Michael Caine como Alfred, Gary Oldman como James Gordon y un reparto de lujo con excelentes actuaciones. La historia vuelve a las raíces de Frank Miller y se explora un súper héroe vulnerable que redefine sus miedos y los potencia para salir adelante. Una excelentente narración, un humor muy sofisticado, nos muestra un diamante en bruto, un batman en proceso de formación, de madurez, de realización personal.

La música es magistralmente dirigida por Hans Zimmer y James Newton Howard. Se aleja de la fanfarria caricaturesca de sus antecesores (a excepción de Danny Elfman que lo hizo formidablemente) y le imprime un aire de misterio perfectamente amalgamado con la historia.

El reparto, como lo decía antes, es un quita-aliento desde Morgan Freeman pasando por Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Rutger Hauer, hasta el fantástico Tom Wilkinson. Y lo más bonito es que aunque el protagonismo de los villanos es liderado por Ra’s Al Ghul los malos son realmente de la vida real como el mismo Bruce Wayne, a quién temerle más que a un puñado de locos que se acaban de escapar de un manicomio, auna camada de ciudadanos en plena histeria o a un grupo de vengativos mafiosos que se pasan la ley por donde mejor les parece.

Batman Begins es el retorno del hombre oscuro que toma la justicia por sus manos… Un paraco, si. Pero por ahora divertido y con una ética inquebrantable.

]]> http://funrunrecords.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/classic-movie-review-nighthawks/ Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:19:22 +0000 Charlie http://funrunrecords.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/classic-movie-review-nighthawks/

Welcome back to Classic Movie Review, where we dig up relics from the past and put them on the pedestal. This time we take a look at a popular, but largely forgotten piece, Nighthawks.

No no no. Not the painting Nighthawks, though that is considered a classic in its own right. But I’m not an art critic. I’m a movie critic. And I usually don’t consider them to be the same thing, unfortunately. No, for now I am talking about the film Nighthawks. The classic movie from . . .

NO! No, what is wrong with my images today? NO, I’m not talking about the 1978 British gay film. Please. I’m talking about the incredibly American not at all homo erotic buddy cop action film with Sly Stallone.

Really. No, that is what I’m talking about. Not the other one. No way. Not that there’s anything wrong with Richard Peck’s 1978 film about a gay man living a double life. No sir, nothing at all. It’s just not what I’m reviewing is the thing. It’s the Stallone Nighthawks. Seriously. 

Yes. Yes, that’s it. The “one man can bring the world to its knees” Nighthawks. The 1981 classic film that saw Stallone doing his best Serpico impression, teamed with Lando Calrissian, and fighting Roy Batty from Blade Runner. What a flick!

We start in New York, late 70’s or early 80’s. Either way the town is a total garbage dump in this era. Dirty subways, grimy streets, a tough town. The town that gave birth to Robert De Niro and Al Pacino ova’ here. You talkin’ to me? Attica! Attica!

We open on a lady walking down a very dangerous street. She’s confronted by some thugs, but just then, she strikes! Slamming her purse into thug number one, she whistles for help, and takes off her wig, revealing herself to be Stallone! In drag! What? This is what they make you do in vice now?

Stallone chases thug number two, while Billy Dee Williams cuffs the others. You see they’re partners, but there aint no way Billy Dee is getting into a dress. Stallone chases down the thug and whips him good. So there. Now you know our two hero cops, Stallone plays Deke De Silva and Billy Dee Williams plays Matthew Fox.

No! No no no no no. Goddammit! What’s going on here? No, Billy Dee Williams is Det. Sgt. Matthew Fox, not Lost star Matthew Fox. The hell?There we go. That’s it, blog. One more screw up from you and I’ll turn this post right around and go home.

We cut to London, and we’re given exact dates as if we care, where a bearded Rutger Hauer is strolling around a department store. But we know better. Somehow, we’ve already guessed he’s the bad guy. We sure know it aint Serpico, I mean Stallone.

He sets down a package, walks out, and sure enough – bam! The whole place goes up and he gets on a phone to tell the media, so image conscious this mad bomber.

Wait a minute Charlie, you’re thinking. This whole thing isn’t really sounding too classic at all. I’ve never heard of this movie, you say. In fact, so far it sounds completely formulaic, uninspired, down right contrived. What’s the deal?

It’s Hauer people. This was Rutger’s first American movie, the man was unknown. But he holds and even surpasses the star power of Stallone and Billy Dee with terrifying aplomb. He’s a cool character. Both a suave ladies man, and brilliant terrorist. He’s scary. Very scary, but with such a natural charm, it’s like he’s not even trying. Trust me on this. I really think this is the movie that got him the part in Blade Runner, his most iconic performance to date.

Ok so we’ve got the bad guy set up. All ready to go. Now the movie’s really going to pick up speed.

Cut to Stallone and Billy Dee busting up a drug house. Another exposition scene involving character development. Ok.

Cut to Rutger hiding out and escaping/ killing a bunch of policemen, or “bobbies” as you Brits would say. Alright, more character development I suppose.

Cut to Stallone and Billy Dee working vice in Central Park, more character development. C’mon now guys, we get it. There shouldn’t need to be this much set up.

Cut to Rutger, talking about how everyone is after him and he needs to go to America. Yea, we could have figured that out. After all, New York is where the story takes place.

Cut to Stallone and Billy Dee arguing with a police chief. Yes, you guys, we get it. They are both loose cannons, wild cards, impulsive, no nonsense cops, both of them. They are partners. Got it.

Cut to Rutger in New York. Movie, please speed this up.

"Somebody put me back in the fridge."

Cut to Stallone and Billy Dee, what is this? Are we just going to go back and forth forever? We’re almost forty minutes in, and nothing has happened to really advance this thing. I’m waiting…

Now we have Stallone and Billy Dee getting recruited to go on an anti-terrorism force specifically to go after Rutger, whose terrorist name sounds a little confused by the way. Wulfgar? Wulf-gar? Like a wolf? Or is it German? Kinda seems like a lazy name. Anyways. Stallone and Billy Dee literally spend ten movie minutes sitting in a room learning about Wulfgar, all of which is info WE ALREADY KNOW. Why are you recapping this thing for the characters, movie? Fucking get on with it.

It even get as tedious as this: Interpol guy lecturing them on Wulfgar tells them that Wulfgar likes nice clothes, women and clubs. Cut to Wulfgar in nice clothes, talking to a woman at a club! Tell or Show movie, not both. Not both! This is like when the teacher gave handouts in school and then read word for word the handout he or she had just given you. Either tell us or hand it out- there’s no need to read to us what is on the paper, no need.

This movie is starting to frustrate me. And you know what? Stallone feels the exact same way. He’s getting fucking pissed at this Interpol guy going on and on. “Why are we not looking for this creep?” Stallone asks. And he’s right. This movie is killing me right now? Why?

Finally, Stallone and Billy Dee get out on the streets where they belong, and they start tracking down zee Wulfgar. And just like that, they spot him. Could have done that ten minutes ago. Now the movie is starting to go somewhere. In a dance club, Stallone and Wulfgar share this massive stare down, with Stallone and Billy Dee looking about as conspicuous as any cop could look, and Wulfgar immediately figuring out whats going on. They shoot it out a bit, then run around the city, eventually leading to a tense moment on the subways. Now the movie is finally working.

Billy Dee gets hurt in the chase, leading to a tender moment with Stallone holding him and cradling his face. They look long into each others eyes. It would be touching if I hadn’t already seen these characters developing for an hour already.

What comes after that is a memorable scene involving the Roosevelt Island Tram and a hostage situation. Rutger Hauer plays the villain perfectly, while Stallone goes on yelling things at the top of his lungs like “You’re dead! You’re fucking dead!” The finale is something you’ll have to see, but suffice to say, there’s more cross dressing involved. (Spoiler? Is is possible to spoil a movie from 1981?)

So why Nighthawks? Well, there’s some great performances by actors in their prime, especially Billy Dee Williams, hearing he was in it is why I watched it. The man needs more work. And I’ve already gone on about Rutger. Love that guy. There’s also some good stuff at the end if you can stand getting there. It’s a mindless film trying to be more, and not really accomplishing it. But the effort is worth noting. The music is killer, a synthesizer epic from composer Keith Emerson. A good time overall. AAAANNNDDD, you can watch it for free on Hulu or IMDB, they’re just giving it away. And that’s how it should be. Nighthawks, bringing a whole city to its knees. Chick a wow wow.

-Charlie

Blade Runner – The Final Cut, 2007, Directed by Ridley Scott.

Contains Spoilers - For all versions of the film, and the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep“

Early in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL CORPORATION advanced Robot evolution into the NEXUS phase – a being virtually identical to a human – known as a replicant.

The NEXUS 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them.

Replicants were used Off-world as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets.

After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-world colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth – under penalty of death.Special police squads – BLADE RUNNER UNITS – had orders to shoot to kill, upon detection, any trespassing Replicant.

This was not called execution.

It was called retirement.

Bounty Hunter, 1992 A.D.

World War Terminus had left the Earth devastated. Through its ruins Rick Decard, bounty hunter, stalked in search of his renegade android prey. When he wasn’t ‘retiring’ then with his laster gun, he dreamed of owning a live animal – the ultimate status symbol in a world all but bereft of non-human life. Then, one bleak January day, Rick got his chance. He was assigned to kill six Nexus-6 androids, representing a total bounty of six thousand dollars.

But in Rick’s world, things were never that simple. His assignment quickly turned into a nightmare kaleidoscope of subterfuge, deceit – and the treat of death for the hunter rather than the hunted.

Blade Runner, like most Philip K. Dick adaptations, shares similar themes to the source material, however, scratch the surface and they’re really two different stories. Of course, Blade Runner wasn’t the first film to deviate from the source material – a recent example that springs to mind (mostly because I liked them both, and I’ve started working on my best of 2009 list) is the film adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvists’ 2004 novel Låt den rätte komma in (Let The Right One In).

In that instance the film choses to embrace most of the same themes as the original book, however a number of sub-plots involving supporting characters, are removed completely, so as to focus solely on the friendship between Oskar and Eli. And, to be honest, it works. You’re left (imo, obviously) with a wonderfully written book, and an equally as good, though different, film. It’s not the perfect adaptation, but it’s a good recent example of a book -> film adaptation, where despite the changes to the plot, the central theme of the book remains.

In the case of Blade Runner, the writers, Hampton Fancher & David Peoples, choose to maintain one of the central plot points of the book – Deckards being tasked with the ‘retirement’ of the Nexus 6 Replicants, and virtually change everything else. As a result, Blade Runner is a quite appalling adaptation of Dicks’ original book. Which, consequentially, pissed off a lot of Dick Fans (there’s a self-deprecating joke in that last part, It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I just can’t quite put my finger on it )

But, consequentially, is it a bad film? Of course not Blade Runner isn’t held up as one of the premier works of Sci-Fi due to a lack of alternate choices – it’s held in such regard, because it’s a brilliant, thought provoking, hugely influencial (not just on newer directors, such as the Wachowski Brothers, but directors from Scotts’ era, such as Spielberg – check out A.I. again, and imagine a slightly darker looking Rouge City) film that, even now, 27 years after it’s release, in it’s initial form (and you’d better believe there’s more on that later ) still continues to raise questions.

However, as someone who owns (runs off to bookcase) 47 Philip K. Dick books, I can’t really get intot the review of the film, without first discussing some of the differences between the film, and the book – especially as there are some very, very significant changes, not only to the background and the plot, but perhaps more importantly, the central character.

A brief overview of Blade Runner

Title: Blade Runner (words that never appeared in the novel)

Takes place in Los Angeles in 2019

The artificial humans are called replicants, who are much more resistant to being killed and retaliatory when confronted; in the film, the replicants’ full life span was deliberately curtailed by a four-year limit

The film’s theme is on the nature of humanity (what does it mean to be human?) and how to distinguish replicants from humans

Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is divorced, and a retired replicant hunter called ‘blade runner’ who is brought back into action to kill the returning replicants.

Rachael (Sean Young) is a replicant who is unaware she’s not human; she and Deckard fall in love

Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) is an exotic dancer, and Deckard shoots her in the back, and regrets it

Pris (Daryl Hannah) is an acrobatic replicant, completely different from Rachael; Pris and Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) (a major heroic figure in the film) are lovers

J.R. Sebastian is a mad-scientist genius (a top-level genetic engineer) who cannot leave Earth due to the Methuselah Syndrome

Deckard never takes the V-K test.

The head honcho over at Tyrell is Eldon Tyrell

A Brief overview of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

Title: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? – was an obscure reference to the fact that inhabitants lived in a society of the future where animals were virtually extinct and all but the rich had to substitute android replicas (such as an “electric sheep”) for real animals.

Takes place in San Francisco in 1992 (Reprints that were released following the films ’success’ change the date to 2021).

The artificial humans are called androids (“andies”), who live roughly four years because their cells cannot be replaced when they deteriorate.

The novel’s emphasis is on ecological themes, and the situation in which a nuclear world war caused life to be the way it is; key elements including the Penfield Mood Organ, the Empathy box, Buster Friendly, and Mercerism are not found in the film, as is the ever-present radioactive dust .

Rick Deckard is married to a wife named Iran, and he is an active android (also termed “andy’s”) or Sam Spade-style “bounty hunter” (the term ‘blade runner’ never appears in the novel); he also keeps an electric sheep (of the novel’s title) on the roof, wishing desperately he had the money to own a ‘real’ animal.

Rachael is known as Rachael Rosen – she is a schizophrenic human who cannot pass the V-K test. She is an android.

Luba Luft is an opera singer, and Deckard doesn’t kill her out of pity – another hunter does.

Pris is an android version of Rachael; Roy’s last name is spelled “Baty”.

JR is known as J.R. Isidore – he is a “chickenhead” idiot (radiation-brain damaged) not allowed to leave Earth due to his low IQ.

Deckard is proven by V-K test to be human.

Because the Tyrell Corporation is called the Rosen Corporation, the Character is known as Eldon Rosen.

So clearly, there are a few differences – the big stand out one I guess, being that in the novel, Deckard is proven to be a human (which allowed a further series of books to be produced after Dicks death, that continue Deckards story). One of the questions that’s raised, again and again, is that of Deckards humanity, or his lack of it – Is he human, or is he a replicant? It’s a question that’s been asked for years, and which wasn’t helped by the seemingly endless different cuts of the film. The list is near enough endless

Indeed, I suppose it’s fair to say that aside from being a renowned (now at least) Sci-Fi film, Blade Runner is just as famous for its rocky journey to the bigscreen – the initial reluctance of Philip K. Dick to sell the film rights, his initial rejection of the script, the lack of funding, the films initial reception, subsequent “editing”, and it’s revival over the years.

By the time the cameras started rolling on Blade Runner, back on March 9th 1981, it must have looked like an absolute box office cert. Although the adaptation of Dicks’ book had been down a rocky path upto that point – Scorcese had expressed an initial interest not long after the books release in ‘78 (according to Dick himself, though I’d take that with a pinch metric shite tonne of salt) before the film adaptation rights were eventually secured by Herb Jaffe in, If I’m remembering correctly (I’ll try and jump online before posting this to clarify some of the dates), 1972. According to reports and recolections, Dick hated the initial adaptation – I believe he wanted to know if the writer had sustained a head injury before starting, however, after that initial rocky start, the screenplay passed between different writers, before eventually arriving on the desk of Hampton Fancher, who wrote the draft that, in 1977 was finally given the greenlight.

By this point the producers had begun shopping the script around to potential directors, and through Michael Deeley, the script eventually entered Ridley Scotts radar. Initially, I believe, Scott declined the project, however, following his departure from the Dune adaptation, he eventually signed on the dotted line, and joined the project on February 21st 1980.

However, even then the film wasn’t ready to roll, despite pre-prodction costs continuing to rise. Philip K. Dick again raised concerns about the script, and the producers were having difficulty locking down a leading man, for the role of Deckard. The script had been developed with Robert Mitchum in mind, and producers had spent months wooing Dustin Hoffman, who eventually dropped out. In the end, after various other actors had been considered, such as Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman and Tommy Lee Jones, the producers eventually settled on Harrison Ford.

So flash forward to March 9th 1981, the day the cameras finally started rolling. As detailed above, the film had been on a bit of a rocky journey, but what could go wrong? At that point Ridley Scott had already made Alien, which speaks for itself. As for Harrison Ford? Well he was well on the road to worldwide super stardom, due to the success of Star Wars. The producers were no doubt further rubbing their hands, following worldwide reaction to Fords next film – Raiders of The Lost Ark. By the time the film started test screening, the producers must have been quietly expecting a near Star Wars-esque level of return…

However, the first test screening, in Denver & Dallas, was a near disaster. As a result the studio panicked, and ordred extensive changes, including the now infamous voice over, and the happy ending, in time for the films scheduled release, on June 25th 1982.

I guess it goes without saying, that the rest is history. Released on 1290 screens across the country, Blade Runner made $6.15m during it’s first weekend, compared to the $15m it had cost to get the film made. Audiences, who had perhaps been expecting a film more like Star Wars (due to Harriso Ford staring) were left dissapointed. The films box office was further damaged, by being released during the same period as Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, The Thing, and perhaps worst of all, the film that would go on to become the highest grossing film of all time – E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

However, despite the films poor box office return, the film did start to develop around it, a dedicated small fanbase., By the early 1990s, bootleg versions of the original, Denver / Dallas workprint began to surface, which further fulled the cult of Blade Runner. Although these bootlegs weren’t endorsed by Ridley Scott, the reaction to them lead to Scott screening his own 70mm projections of the “original cut”, which met with an enthusiastic response, and led, ultimately, to the development of a Directors Cut, which was eventualy released on VHS / Laserdisc, and then eventually, DVD (in a woefully bad Vanilla edition).

The 1992, 116 minute long Directors cut, saw the removal of Deckard’s voice-over, the re-insertion of the unicorn sequence, and the removal of the studio-imposed happy ending, and was developed with extensive input from Scott himself.

This version was classed as “the definitive version”, until around the middle of 2000, when Ridley Scott started working with Charles de Lauzirika on a true, final, directors cut of the film – the final cut. Scott and de Lauzirika worked on the project off their own initiative, and were forced to stop toward the end of 2001, due to legal issues surrounding the ownership of the film (due to the complexity behind the financing of the film, the actual rights were owned by different people and companies, and had subsequentially been sold, and re-sold, in the years since the films original release.).

Scott and de Lauzirika had wanted to release the film in 2002, to mark the 20th anniversary of the films release, however it wasn’t until 2006 that Warner Bros finally secured all the rights to the project, and announced a release date of December 2007, 25 years after the films original release.

So, what exactly are the differences between all the different versions? Below are various different reasons, copied from Wikipedia. I’ve put them inside an “InvisiText” tag, so that if you don’t wanna read it, you don’t have to

There are Seven different versions of Blade Runner have been shown, but the most well-known are the International Cut (1982), the Director’s Cut (1992)[1] and the Final Cut:

1. Original workprint version (1982, 113 minutes) shown to audience test previews in Denver and Dallas in March 1982. It was also seen in 1990 and 1991 in Los Angeles and San Francisco as a Director’s Cut without the approval of director Ridley Scott. Negative responses to the test previews led to the modifications resulting in the U.S. theatrical version, while positive response to the showings in 1990 and 1991 pushed the studio to approve work on an official director’s cut. It was re-released with 5-disc Ultimate Edition in 2007.

2. A San Diego Sneak Preview shown only once in May 1982, which was almost identical to the Domestic Cut with three extra scenes.

3. The U.S. theatrical version (1982, 116 minutes), known as the original version or Domestic Cut, released on VHS in 1983 and laserdisc in 1987.

4. The International Cut (1982, 117 minutes) also known as the “Criterion Edition” or uncut version, included more violent action scenes than the U.S. theatrical version. Although initially unavailable in the U.S. and distributed in Europe and Asia via theatrical and local Warner Home Video laserdisc releases, it was later released on VHS and Criterion Collection laserdisc in North America, and re-released in 1992 as a “10th Anniversary Edition”.

5. The U.S. broadcast version (1986, 114 minutes), the U.S. theatrical version edited for violence, profanity and nudity by CBS to meet broadcast restrictions.

6. The Ridley Scott-approved (1992, 116 minutes) Director’s Cut; prompted by the unauthorized 1990–1991 workprint theatrical release and made available on VHS and laserdisc in 1993, and on DVD in 1997. Significant changes from the theatrical version include: removal of Deckard’s voice-over, re-insertion of a unicorn sequence and removal of the studio-imposed happy ending. Ridley did provide extensive notes and consultation to Warner Bros. through film preservationist Michael Arick who was put in charge of creating the Director’s Cut.

7. Ridley Scott’s Final Cut (2007, 117 minutes), or the “25th Anniversary Edition,” released by Warner Bros. theatrically on October 5, 2007 and subsequently released on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray in December 2007 (U.K. December 3; U.S. December 18.) This is the only version over which Ridley Scott had complete artistic control as the Director’s Cut was rushed and he was not directly in charge. In conjunction with the Final Cut, extensive documentary and other materials were produced for the home video releases culminating in a five-disc “Ultimate Collector’s Edition” release by Charles de Lauzirika.

Workprint version (1982)

The full workprint version of the movie was released to the public on DVD as part of the five-disc boxed set containing the Final Cut, in 2007. It has the following differences:

* There is no voice-over, no “unicorn vision”, and no “happy ending”. However, Deckard does have a brief narration directly after Batty’s death.
* There is no opening crawl: a static screen of text, showing a dictionary definition of the word “Replicant”, replaces it.
* The scene in which Holden is shot by Leon (while giving the Voight-Kampff test) lasts slightly longer, and shows more of Holden after he is shot and comes to rest on the desk before it cuts to the next scene.
* In the scene at the Asian restaurant at the beginning, there is an insert shot of the dish Deckard orders. Also, we see Deckard eating his noodles (with great difficulty) while the waiter says “He say you Blade Runner”. In the Theatrical Release, we just see a cut to Deckard with his mouth extremely full of noodles.
* From Deckard’s arrival at the Bradbury building to the end of the film, the Vangelis music score is missing, presumably not yet composed at the time this version was made. It is replaced by placeholder music.
* Deckard is seen taking a few moments struggling to remove the tie that Zhora choked him with, before beginning to chase her.
* Batty addresses Tyrell as “father” (not “fucker”) when asking for more life, as in the Final Cut.
* When Batty kills Tyrell, the scene is a combination of the “violent” footage from the International Edition and the “non-violent” footage from the theatrical original. Batty still pokes out Tyrell’s eyes with his thumbs, but Tyrell is seen falling to the floor as in the original.
* When Pris attacks Deckard, the scene is again a combination of the International Edition and the original. Pris hits Deckard three times, and also holds him up by his nostrils. However, Deckard still shoots her only twice.
* The scene in which Batty pushes a nail through his hand is identical to the “non-violent” version in the Theatrical Release.
* There are no ending credits.

American Theatrical Release (1982)

The 1982 American theatrical version released by the studio included a “happy ending” (using leftover aerial footage from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining) and voiceovers added. Although several different versions of the script had included a narration of some sort, Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott decided to add scenes to provide the information; but financiers rewrote and reinserted narration during post-production after test audience members indicated difficulty understanding the film. It has been suggested that Ford intentionally performed the voice-over poorly, in the hope it would not be used, but in a 2002 interview with Playboy magazine, Ford clarified: “I delivered it to the best of my ability, given that I had no input. I never thought they’d use it. But I didn’t try and sandbag it. It was simply bad narration.”

Ford also stated in 1999: “I contested it mightily at the time. It was not an organic part of the film.”

International Theatrical Release (1982)

The International Cut, or “Criterion Edition,” is similar to the U.S. theatrical release but has more violence in three scenes:

* When Batty confronts Tyrell in his bedroom, in addition to crushing Tyrell’s face with his hands, Batty pokes out Tyrell’s eyes with his thumbs, releasing a huge amount of blood.
* When Pris has somersaulted onto Deckard’s back, rather than hitting him three times and then dropping him (as she does in all other versions), she hits him twice, then inserts her fingers into his nostrils and releases her legs, holding him up by his nostrils for a few seconds before he falls to the floor. The shot of him falling to the floor is identical in all versions. Deckard also shoots Pris an extra time, and the scenes of her thrashing spasmodically on the floor after having been shot are slightly extended.
* At the end of the film, Deckard hunts Batty, who pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely.

The violent scenes in the International cut were later inserted into the Final Cut.

The Directors Cut (1992)

n 1990, Warner Bros. briefly allowed theatrical screenings of a 70 mm copy of the workprint version of the film, advertising it as a “Director’s Cut.” These sell-out screenings ran for two weeks at the NuArt Theater in Los Angeles, and the Castro Theatre in San Francisco. Ridley Scott publicly disowned this workprint version of the film as a Director’s Cut, citing that it was roughly edited, and lacked the score composed for the film by Vangelis. In response to Scott’s dissatisfaction (and in part because of the film’s resurgent cult popularity in the early ’90s), Warner Bros. decided to assemble a definitive Director’s Cut of the film, with direction from Scott, to be released for the 10-year anniversary in 1992.

They hired film-restorer Michael Arick, who had rediscovered the workprint of Blade Runner, and who was already doing consultation work for them, to head the project with Scott. He started by spending several months in London with Les Healey, who had been the assistant editor on Blade Runner, attempting to compile a list of the changes that Scott wanted made to the film. He also received a number of suggestions/directions directly from the director himself. Three major changes were made to the film, which most people agree significantly changed the feel of the picture:

* The removal of Deckard’s explanatory voice-over
* The re-insertion of a dream sequence of a unicorn running through a forest
* The removal of the studio-imposed “happy ending,” including some associated visuals which had originally run under the film’s end-credits. This made the film end ambiguously when the elevator doors closed.

The original sequence of Deckard’s unicorn dream was not found in a print of sufficient quality; the original scene shows Deckard intercut with the running unicorn. Arick was thus forced to use a different print that shows only the unicorn running, without any intercutting to Deckard. This footage was inserted into what had previously been a continuous tracking shot. As mentioned above, the restoration of the unicorn scene suggested a completely different ending to the film: Gaff’s origami unicorn means that Deckard’s dreams are known to him, implying that Deckard’s memories are artificial, and therefore he would be a replicant of the same generation as Rachael.

The cut did not include much of the “extra violence” included in the “International” version of the film.

Scott has since complained that time and money constraints, along with his obligation to Thelma & Louise, kept him from retooling the film in a completely satisfactory manner. While he is happier with the 1992 release of the film than with the original theatrical version, he has never felt entirely comfortable with it as his definitive Director’s Cut.

In 2000, Harrison Ford gave his view on the Director’s Cut of the film saying, although he thought it “spectacular,” it didn’t “move him at all.” He gave a brief reason: “They haven’t put anything in, so it’s still an exercise in design.”

Originally released as a single-disc DVD in March 1997, with both pan-and-scan and widescreen versions on different sides, the Director’s Cut was one of the first DVDs on the market. However, it is of low quality compared to DVDs of later standards, due to it being produced in the early days of the format. Warner Home Video re-released it with a new transfer in 2006 as a “Digitally Remastered Version.” The 1997 stereo (2.0) audio track remained unchanged, however.

The All Important, Final Cut (2007)

Scott found time in mid-2000 to help put together a final and definitive version of the film with restoration producer Charles de Lauzirika, which was only partially completed in mid-2001 before legal issues forced a halt to the work. Although the Special Edition DVD was originally rumored to be released in 2002 to coincide with the film’s 20th Anniversary as a three-disc set, Warner Bros. delayed the “Special Edition” release after legal disputes began with the film’s original completion bond guarantors (specifically Jerry Perenchio and Bud Yorkin), who were ceded the copyright to the film when the shooting ran over budget from $21.5 to $28 million.

After years of legal disputes, Warner Bros. announced in 2006 that it had finally secured full distribution rights to the film, and that there would be a three-stage release of the film. First, a digitally remastered single-disc re-release of the 1992 Director’s Cut was released on September 5, 2006 in the United States, on October 9, 2006 in Ireland and the UK, and in the following months in continental Europe. Second, Ridley Scott’s “Final Cut” of the film began a limited theatrical release in New York and Los Angeles on October 5, 2007, in Washington, DC at the Uptown Theatre on October 26, 2007, as well as Chicago on November 2, 2007, in Toronto on November 9, 2007 at Theatre D Digital’s Regent Theatre, Melbourne, Australia on November 15, 2007 at The Astor Theatre, Boston at the Coolidge Corner Theater on November 16, 2007, and Austin, Texas on November 18, 2007. The third and final phase — a multi-disc box set — was released on the DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray disc formats. The set includes the workprint, the two 1982 original theatrical versions (U.S. domestic and uncensored International cuts), the 2006-remastered Director’s Cut, the 2007 Final Cut, and bonus features; which was released in Europe on December 3, 2007 and in the U.S. on December 18, 2007. Two-disc and four-disc sets were also released, containing some of the features of the five-disc set. On November 10, 2008, The Final Cut premiered on national television, broadcast on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Differences between The Final Cut, and The Previous ‘Directors Cut’

The Final Cut contains the following differences (in order of appearance) from the 1992 Director’s Cut:

1. The fireballs in the opening refinery shot are correctly synchronized with the associated light play on the smokestacks. Some of these had been off-sync in earlier versions.
2. The iconic close-up of an eye overlooking the Hades landscape is no longer the static image seen in previous versions. The eye’s pupil now reacts to the fireball and the eyelids move realistically. Also, the reflection of the cityscape below appears to move ever so slightly.
3. The shot of Deckard waiting to eat at the White Dragon has been shortened, its editing reminiscent of the workprint version of the shot. This was done due to the removal of the voiceover.
4. The cables lifting Gaff’s police spinner are no longer plainly visible. Cables were also removed from another shot of a spinner late in the film, just before Deckard enters Sebastian’s apartment building.
5. In addition to English the voices on police radio during Gaff’s and Deckard’s flight to the police headquarters can be heard speaking German, Japanese and Swedish.
6. A repeated visual effects shot showing the city outside Gaff’s Spinner has been adjusted very slightly: The once-obvious radar dish has been removed in the second use of the shot.
7. As Deckard enters Bryant’s office, Bryant’s statement “I’ve got four skinjobs walking the streets” is no longer obviously a spliced-in re-recording.
8. Bryant’s line “One of them got fried running through an electrical field” is changed to “Two of them…” to remove the numerical inconsistency later on.
9. Bryant adds a new line about Leon being able to “lift 400 pound atomic loads all day and night”. This is from the workprint.
10. A new cityscape horizon has been added to the shot of Gaff’s Spinner coming in for a landing at the Tyrell Corporation.
11. Additional Spinner air traffic has been added in the distance outside the large window of Tyrell’s conference room.
12. When Gaff and Deckard first appear at Leon’s apartment, the landlord now says “Kowalski”, another small bit originally from the workprint.
13. A background behind Batty when he is first introduced speaking to Leon has been changed. As the shot was taken from a later scene, this has now been corrected to appear as if Batty is actually in the phone booth as Leon finds him.
14. The matte painting establishing the cityscape down the street from the Bradbury Building has been adjusted for improved realism, including fixing the perspective of the Pan-Am logo on one animated billboard.
15. The original full-length version of the unicorn dream has been restored. This is a much different version than the one that appeared in the Director’s Cut, and has never been in any version seen by the public prior to this one. Deckard is shown to be awake; previously he was asleep or nearly asleep.
16. The Unicorn’s horn has been digitally stabilized to minimize the unrealistic wobble of the horn appliance seen previously.
17. The sequence at the fish booth now shows Deckard leaving.
18. Deckard’s conversation with the snake merchant Abdul Ben Hassan has been altered so that the dialogue is no longer out of sync; Ford’s son, Ben, lip-synched the spoken dialog and his mouth was digitally placed over his father’s.
19. A shot of the busy crowds in the streets was restored. Immediately after that, a shot of two strippers wearing hockey goalie masks was restored. Finally, there’s a shot of Deckard talking to another police officer just prior to Deckard entering the Snake Pit. These three shots had previously appeared in slightly different form in the workprint version.
20. During Deckard’s pursuit of Zhora, Joanna Cassidy’s face has been digitally superimposed over that of the stunt double, Lee Pulford. This scene was re-filmed specifically for the Final Cut. Although great effort had been undertaken to replace the stunt double face with Cassidy’s, the tan-colored protective suit Pulford wore to protect against glass cuts is still visible.
21. A scar on Deckard’s face after his “retirement” of Zhora has been removed. Originally, the scene in which Deckard meets Bryant after retiring Zhora was to take place after his encounter with Leon, explaining the scar. This was done prior to the removal of the “sixth replicant,” creating a continuity error. Due to the re-ordering, the scar was always present before Deckard had actually received it.
22. When Batty confronts Tyrell, he says, “I want more life, father” from the workprint version, an alternate take intended for but never used in television broadcasts of the film, as opposed to the original line “I want more life, fucker.” The line also has a noticeably deeper tonal quality than the previous versions.
23. After killing Tyrell, Batty says “I’m sorry Sebastian. Come. Come,” when in the original he merely approached the frightened Sebastian. This is also from the workprint.
24. As Deckard moves through Sebastian’s apartment, the once-obvious shadows of the camera crew have been digitally removed from the back wall.
25. As Deckard flees Batty, the matte painting with a TDK neon sign has been cleaned-up a bit to look more realistic and the TDK sign itself added to a subsequent shot for better continuity.
26. All the violent scenes in the International Cut that were deleted in the U.S. theatrical release and Director’s Cut including Tyrell’s death, the confrontation between Deckard and Pris and the nail through Batty’s bleeding hand are restored to the Final Cut.
27. After Batty releases the dove, it now flies up into a dark rainy sky instead of a clear blue sky. Also, the original building (the undressed side of a soundstage) has been completely replaced with a more appropriate retrofit apartment building. The background has also been enhanced with a cluster of circa-2019 buildings more in keeping with the film’s dark futuristic setting.

So those are the differences, however, as we all now know (’cause Ridley Scott told us),

The Final Cut, is exactly that – THE. FINAL. CUT.

I don’t really think there’s much more I can say really. As I’m typing this up, I’ve got no idea of what’s been discussed on the podcast, nor what anyone else thought, but I am aware, that I may have gone on quite a bit, even by my own usual level of waffle. However, I guess you can’t talk about Blade Runner, without making reference to the impact the film has made.

Whilst I personally think there’s an argument to be made that the film owes a debt of gratitude to the original novel (despite the changes), to me, there’s no doubt that Blade Runner has been an extremely influencial film – both in terms of future films, but also in the form of books – Some people, for instance, will tell you that Blade Runner was the main influence for William Gibson, as he was developing Neuromancer, and that as a consequence, the very development of Cyberpunk, as a genre, comes as a result of Blade Runner.

Now, whilst that’s inaccurate, there is an undeniable similarity, as Gibson is the first to admit:

“…About ten minutes into Blade Runner, I reeled out of the theater in complete despair over its visual brilliance and its similarity to the “look” of Neuromancer, my [then] largely unwritten first novel. Not only had I been beaten to the semiotic punch, but this damned movie looked better than the images in my head! With time, as I got over that, I started to take a certain delight in the way the film began to affect the way the world looked. Club fashions, at first, then rock videos, finally even architecture. Amazing! A science fiction movie affecting reality!”

“…Years later, I was having lunch with Ridley, and when the conversation turned to inspiration, we were both very clear about our debt to the Metal Hurlant [the original Heavy Metal magazine] school of the ’70s–Moebius and the others. But it was also obvious that Scott understood the importance of information density to perceptual overload. When Blade Runner works best, it induces a lyrical sort of information sickness, that quintessentially postmodern cocktail of ecstasy and dread. It was what cyberpunk was supposed to be all about.”

So it’s clear from Gibsons’ quote, that there are undeniable similarities between his seminal Cyberpunk work, and Scotts work. In fact, up until about 10 years ago, Blade Runner was considered to be one of the seminal Cyberpunk-esque movies, until films like Dark City, Ghost in the Shell, Akira, and of course, The Matrix were released, all of which, whilst being thematically similar to Blade Runner, also borrow a lot of “style” – In preperation for this I re-watched The Final Cut of Blade Runner on Blu-Ray, and then once it had finished popped in the blu-ray for The Matrix, and stylistically, there are a huge number of similarities. In fact, for a fascinating article that explains some of the similarities between Blade Runner, Neuromancer, and The Matrix, feel free to check out this link.

So then, in summary. As a book adaptation Blade Runner fails, in my opinion, as although the basic plot remains the same, I personally think they changed to much, for it to be considered a faithful adaptation. As a film, however, and specifically, with regards to it’s impact and influence, whilst I don’t quite think it’s up there with Star Wars (I might not be a fan, but I can understand the impact, both culturally and on the film industry), it’s not all that far behind.

It’s also a fascinating study in how a few seemingly small changes, can make a vast, vast change to the source – the original theatrical release, and the Final Cut may, on paper, only be different by a few minutes, however, thematically, they’re miles apart.

- Barbarossa – ♥  -

di

Renzo Martinelli

Parlare di Barbarossa, il nuovo film kolossal di Renzo Martinelli voluto tanto dalla Lega Nord, esulandolo dal dibattito politico e dalla sua produzione costata ben 30 milioni di dollari sarebbe impossibile perchè un film va anche giudicato per il suo lato produttivo e non solo come dice il regista brianzolo stesso “se da emozioni o meno”. Tanto per iniziare il titolo è la prima cosa che trae in inganno lo spettatore perchè ci si accorge ben presto che il vero protagonista non è Federico I Von Hohenstaufen detto il Barbarossa (Rutger Hauer) ma l’eroe milanese (peraltro leggendario) Alberto da Giussano (Raz Degan). E l’ intero film è costruito per rendere onore a quel personaggio che non si sa se sia davvero esistito ma che la Lega Nord tanto detiene a modello. Tecnicamente c’è decisamente molto rammarico guardando Barbarossa perchè ci si accorge che è realizzato sicuramente per essere un kolossal con immagini e sequenze di forte impatto visivo. Ma quale è il senso? Perchè viene continuamente ripetuto il motto di memoria Gibsoniana “Libertà” e perchè continuamente vengono propinate agli occhi dello spettatore bandiere di Milano o sottolineato il concetto che la Padania deve unirsi contro la tirannia dei padroni (nel caso del film l’ Imperatore, oggi Roma ladrona) se non a causa del loro significato politico? E’ noto a tutti infatti che nel medioevo di Barbarossa non esisteva nessun concetto di Padania. E’ molto facile quindi realizzare un film con sensazionali seppur scontati effetti visivi, combattimenti alla Braveheart o eroismi alla Giovanna d’ Arco. Ma se poi tutto questo deve finire per essere politicizzato allora che senso ha con il cinema? Ancor di più se i soldi utilizzati per realizzare questo progetto vengono dalla nostra Rai e quindi dalle tasche di noi contribuenti? Il Barbarossa di Martinelli è una continua metafora delle ideologie leghiste soprattutto nella sua sceneggiatura che è il vero tasto dolente dell’ intera opera. Uno script che contiene continui riferimenti alle politiche del Carroccio sia nelle frasi che nelle ricostruzioni delle location (quando Barbarossa arriva a Roma la trova afflitta dalla peste). Ne sono un esempio frasi come: “Milano è la porta per la Sicilia” o ” Non portateci via i nostri soldi richiesti per le tasse di Roma” o ancora” Dobbiamo unire la Padania in una lega che sia più forte degli stranieri che vogliono invadere le nostre terre” . Il film viene salvato dal totale tracollo solamente dalla presenza di un cast sicuramente al di sopra delle pretese sceneggiative che vanta la presenza di un Farid Murray Abrams (vincitore del premio Oscar per l’ Amadeus di Milos Forman) nei panni del milanese traditore , una Kasia Smutniak che risponde bene alla prova interpretativa di una donna al limite tra la follia e la stregoneria e un Raz Degan doppiatissimo nelle vesti dell’ eroe da Giussano. Ma tra tutti sicuramente il migliore è il noto Rutger Hauer nei panni dell’ imperatore tedesco che affronta con freddezza un ruolo che sicuramente non è caratterizzato come si dovrebbe. E’ infatti anche l’evoluzione psicologica dei personaggi che di certo lascia spazio a non poche perplessità. L’eroe milanese interpretato da Degan infatti scena dopo scena muta sempre di più da un personaggio semplice e pacato a un condottiero assetato di sangue (e di Libertà??!) che sfodera sguardi arcigni e occhiate piene di sete di vendetta. Nei combattimenti Martinelli dà sfogo a tutta l’ ira dei personaggi non badando assolutamente a porre freni alla crudeltà dei corpo a corpo o agli spargimenti di sangue. E se sono più crudeli tanto meglio. Esaltano di più la folla dei facinorosi padani. E purtroppo basta farsi un giro su youtube per constatare quanto questa esaltazione per la violenza, per la lotta e per il sangue sia in voga tra i militanti padani durante la presentazione del Bravehearth della Lega Nord (Barbarossa).

(Bandiere di Milano in bella vista un pò sempre)

( Uno dei frequenti sguardi arcigni di Raz Degan alias Alberto da Giussano)

Released a year before the final episode of the Star Wars trilogy, this is the best film Harrison Ford made in the early eighties (possibly ever), and has no need of cute little furry creatures to save the day or boost younger audience figures. In fact, this is not a film for the younger audience at all. Not because of the violence, which is minimal and, by modern standards, rather tame, but because it is not one of those ‘wham, whizz, zoom’ science fiction films usually pitched at teenagers. It’s a provocative and incredibly layered film, almost as complex as the Philip K. Dick novel which inspired it. (For my review of ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’ see The Planet Harris Book Blog.)

Ford is Rick Deckard, the Blade Runner landed with the job of ‘retiring’ (executing) a band of renegade androids, known as replicants, who have returned to Earth to seek their manufacturer and discover whether their inbuilt four year life span can be extended. The number of replicants is a matter of contention and the uncertainty about how many artificial humans are at large provides one of the eternal talking points about the film. Deckard’s boss initially says there are six replicants at large, one of which has been retired already. A few sentences later he mentions that four replicants remain to be taken down. Bad maths? Poor continuity? Or the first clue that Deckard himself is possibly a replicant? You decide.

Another replicant is thrown into the mix in the shape of Sean Young’s beautiful female character, Rachel, who, having been implanted with false memories by the Tyrell Corporation which makes the androids, is at first unaware she is not human. Deckard’s burgeoning relationship with her is either a new take on the ‘realistic’ sex doll, or further evidence of his own replicant status depending on your opinion of the narrative.

The most memorable scenes all contain Rutger Hauer, a newcomer to American audiences at the time. As the leader of the replicants, Roy Batty, he has to endure the retirement of his friends (which include a somewhat pneumatic Daryl Hannah) at Deckard’s hands. In their final showdown the camera flits back and forth between Deckard and Batty, emphasising the similarities between the two characters and allowing the audience to accept an empathetic replicant finally deciding to save the life of the blade runner, who is at the time hanging from the edge of a building.

The cinematography throughout is still striking and at the time must have been groundbreaking, certainly in terms of visual effects. Director Ridley Scott offers us a fully realised future world, one which is based on the foreboding streets of 40s and 50s film noirs, for all that it is set in the 21st century. Rain seeps into everything, decay is everywhere, darkness is barely diminished by slashes of light from slatted windows. The look and feel all imply that there is nowhere for the replicants to run. And yet there is still the ultimate question of whether Deckard is a replicant himself. Where is he running with Rachel at the conclusion of the film?

Earlier on Deckard dreams of a unicorn, a symbol of freedom, supposedly, and we are perhaps meant to interpret this as a deep rooted desire to get out of the blade running business and regain some control over his life. He is often ferried around by the bizarre figure of Gaff, one of the police chief’s main lackeys, it seems. Wherever they go Gaff leaves little origami figures behind. His final work of art is a unicorn made from silver gum paper. He clearly knows that Deckard and Rachel are trying to escape the city, even the country, despite the fact that Deckard has now been asked to retire Rachel too. Some wonder why he is letting them go: if he has been outside Deckard’s apartment and left the silver figure, he has decided not to prevent their escape. More pertinent, for me, is why he would leave a unicorn. Did Deckard ever tell him of his dream? Not on screen. Is Deckard a replicant with memories as false as Rachel’s implanted into him? Are his dreams merely the result of implanted data too? In the Director’s Cut, at least, these questions are left entirely open. Don’t bother with the original cinema release; apart from anything else, the studio insisted on a dreadful voice-over which takes all mystery from the ending. And if you like your dystopian science fiction to be a little more laconic, a little less po-faced, try Terry Gilliam’s Brazil.

I’VE SEEN FILMS in collaborazione con i Master in Progettazione e comunicazione del cinema e Analisi e progettazione del prodotto

televisivo dell’Università Cattolica Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano

presenta due Masterclass nei giorni 1 e 2 ottobre

Nella mattinata del 1° ottobre, alle ore 10.00, si terrà una Masterclass dal titolo ‘I Festival e la Promozione del Cinema e del Cortometraggio’ che tratterà delle varie problematiche dei filmmakers inerenti al copyright, alla distribuzione e diffusione dei loro lavori con l’utilizzo delle tecnologie cinematografiche più innovative. I relatori sarano Rutger Hauer, PierPaolo De Fina, Giancarlo Zappoli, Silvana Molino di Microcinema, Cinzia Masotina del gruppo milanese dei ‘100 Autori’, ed altri ospiti del Festival.

La giornata del 2 ottobre, sarà ricchissima di eventi: aller ore 10.00 si svolgerà la Masterclass ‘Where Art and Poetry Meet Film’ che vedra’ presenti Massimiliano Finazzer Flory, Rutger Hauer, Lech Majewski e Bill Bristow.  Entrambe le Masterclass dell’ 1 e 2 ottobre avranno luogo nella suggestiva Cripta dell’Aula Magna dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano. I programmi dettagliati sono i seguenti:

Milano, 1° Ottobre, 2009

Cripta dell’Aula Magna dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore – Largo Gemelli 1

I festival e la promozione del cortometraggio Il ruolo dei festival nella diffusione e distribuzione dei cortometraggi indipendenti tramite l’impiego delle nuove tecnologie.

A cura di PierPaolo De Fina e Giancarlo Zappoli

INGRESSO LIBERO

La Masterclass è in lingua italiana

La rivoluzione digitale ha aperto molte strade per la diffusione delle opere dei filmmaker indipendenti. Grazie alla tecnologia digitale e satellitare e’ possibile distribuire i contenuti nelle sale cinematografiche tagliando di fatto tutti i costi legati al trasporto fisico dei supporti oltre a quello dei supporti stessi.

Gli stessi vantaggi possiamo riscontrarli in Internet, dove inoltre e’ possibile visionare i film on demand in qualsiasi luogo e in qualsiasi momento.

Ma gli autori sono pronti per questa rivoluzione digitale? Cosa vogliono veramente gli autori? Mostrare le proprie opere ad un pubblico piu’ vasto possibile oppure trarre da queste gli introiti necessari per pagarne la produzione? La facilita’ nella diffusione mette a nudo una serie di problematiche legate al copyright. Gli autori sono preparati su questo argomento? I festival possono fare da guida oppure limitarsi a scaricare tutte le responsabilita’ legate al copyright sugli autori come molto spesso e’ avvenuto in passato?

I festival possono aiutare gli autori economicamente oppure in termini di prestigio creando collegamenti con il grande cinema?

Programma

10.00

Benvenuto ed introduzione

Andrea Bellavita – ALMED – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano

Rutger Hauer – Presidente ‘I’ve Seen Films’ -  Attore, Regista e Scrittore

Silvana Molino – ‘Microcinema Digital Network’

Cinzia Masotina – Gruppo Milanese dei ‘100 Autori’

PierPaolo De Fina – Coordinatore e Direttore Artistico di ‘I’ve Seen Films’

Giancarlo Zappoli – Direttore Artistico di ‘I’ve Seen Films’ e Critico Cinematografico

Il digitale e le sale. L’esperienza di Microcinema.

Silvana Molino – ‘Microcinema Digital Network’

Il cortometraggio tra i Festival e Internet. Diffusione e distribuzione.

PierPaolo De Fina – Coordinatore e Direttore Artistico di ‘I’ve Seen Films’

A che punto è la notte. Istanze e progetti per un nuovo circuito indipendente a tutela del prodotto d’autore.

Cinzia Masotina – Gruppo Milanese dei ‘100 Autori’

Corti in Festival. Per quale pubblico?

Giancarlo Zappoli – Direttore Artistico di ‘I’ve Seen Films’ e Critico Cinematografico

12.00 Dibattito

Milano, 2 ottobre 2009 Cripta dell’Aula Magna dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore – Largo Gemelli 1

WHEN ART AND POETRY MEET FILM

Il rapporto tra il cinema e la pittura; in che modo la letteratura e la poesia si possono fondere nella struttura filmica. A cura di PierPaolo De Fina

INGRESSO LIBERO

La Masterclass è in lingua inglese

“Sembra che il Cinema sia stato inventato per esprimere la vita del subconscio, le cui radici affondano profondamente nella poesia. Il Cinema sembra essere l’involontaria imitazione del sogno”. Luis Buñuel

Sin dagli albori della storia della cinematografia, filmmakers e registi hanno fatto innumerevoli riferimenti alle opere d’arte appartenenti a pittori, scultori, poeti e scrittori del passato. Questo specifico utilizzo della macchina da presa ha migliorato il messaggio artistico del Cinema ed ha aiutato un sempre maggior numero di persone a conoscere, attraverso il mezzo filmico, capolavori che altrimenti sarebbero rimasti confinati ai musei ed alle gallerie d’arte.

Negli anni, il collegamento tra la pittura ed il cinema ha favorito e migliorato lo scambio tra questi due linguaggi visivi. E’ significativo il fatto che alcuni dei registi ‘visuali’ siano, infatti, anche pittori: Lech Majewski, David Lynch, Taheshi Kitano, Win Wenders, Peter Greenaway, tanto per citarne alcuni.

Allo stesso modo, troviamo anche interessanti collegamenti tra la Poesia, la Letteratura ed il Cinema. Non solo sono stati fatti film importanti sulle vite di alcuni scrittori, o libri trasformati in sceneggiature, ma alcuni poeti hanno spesso usato i film o la tecnica cinematografica nei propri lavori: nello scrivere le loro opere, alcuni poeti usano chiaramente tale tecnica.

Il filo conduttore che unisce il Cinema, la Pittura, la Letteratura e la Poesia può risultare strettamente intrecciato, dato che tutte queste arti hanno la stessa origine: il desiderio degli artisti di convogliare la propria immaginazione, le proprie esperienze ed i propri messaggi in forma visiva e concettuale.

Programma

10.00 Benvenuto ed Introduzione Massimiliano Finazzer Flory – Assessore alla Cultura del Comune di Milano Andrea Bellavita – ALMED – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano Rutger Hauer – Presidente ‘I’ve Seen Films’ – Attore, Regista e Scrittore Lech Majewski – Artista, Regista, Compositore, Poeta e Regista Teatrale Bill Bristow – Produttore, Regista e Scrittore

Quando l’arte e la filosofia confluiscono nel Cinema; l’esperienza di ‘The Mill and the Cross’ Lech Majewski – Artista, Regista, Compositore, Poeta e Regista Teatrale

Recitare con le parole, la poesia e le arti visive Rutger Hauer – Presidente ‘I’ve Seen Films’ – Attore, Regista e Scrittore

Dalla letteratura saggistica al grande schermo Bill Bristow – Produttore, Regista e Scrittore

12.00 Dibattito 

Ulteriori dettagli sono disponibili sul sito www.icfilms.org

Il Media Partner del Festival è CNR Media, che tramite il proprio network di  radio, tv ed il sito web www.cnrmedia.com aggiornerà gli spettatori sulle ultime news della manifestazione.

Con un programma di 231 lavori da 70 Paesi e più di 100 anteprime, I’ve Seen Films è stato il primo festival di cortometraggi che, sin dalla prima edizione, ha permesso agli autori di vedere proiettati i propri lavori in alta definizione digitale: un chiaro punto di svolta e di innovazione nel mondo dei festival cinematografici.

I’VE SEEN FILMS – INTERNATIONAL SHORT FILM FESTIVAL – Milano

ORGANIZZAZIONE: The Rutger Hauer Starfish Association

ORGANIZZAZIONE TECNICA: CortoWeb Presidente : Rutger Hauer

Direttore: PierPaolo De Fina Direttori Artistici : Pier Paolo De Fina e Giancarlo Zappoli

Responsabile organizzativa: Flavia Costa Segrteria organizzativa: Angela Di Candia

icfilms@rutgerhauer.org  www.icfilms.org

Ufficio Stampa: Alessandra Izzo

Cell.:  335 6882776

Ufficio: 06 8186611
izzocomunicazione@gmail.com

Fondato dall’attore Rugter Hauer (Blade Runner, The Hitcher, Batman Begin) e diretto da Pier Paolo De Fina, realizzato con il Patrocinio del Comune di Milano, della Provincia di Milano,del Consolato Generale del Regno dei Paesi Bassi, del Consolato Generale della Repubblica di Polonia,dell’AGIS Lombarda e della Lombardia Film Commission, I’ve Seen Films Festival è un festival internazionale di cortometraggi, che si tiene a Milano, dal 24 settembre al 3 ottobre, su tre location diverse: il cinema Gnomo, il Centro Culturale Francese e lo spazio THECA.

Il  Festival ospita 231 lavori da 70 Paesi, più di 100 anteprime,  e può vantare una giuria internazionale composta da: il regista e produttore Ridley Scott; il regista e produttore Robert Rodriguez; il regista e produttore e compositore Lech Majewski; l’attrice Miranda Richardson; il regista, produttore e scrittore Paul Verhoeven; il regista e produttore Eugenio Cappuccio; il fotografo, regista produttore e scrittore Anton Corbijn; l’autore, produttore e regista Christopher Nolan;  il regista, produttore e scrittore Bill Bristow; la saggista cinematografica ed autrice televisiva Daniela Catelli; la direttrice artistica di festivals e scrittrice Teresa Cavina; il critico cinematografico, docente universitario e scrittore Roberto Nepoti; e Rutger Hauer.

Una delle peculiarità del Festival è quella di aver consentito, sin dalla prima edizione, agli autori di vedere proiettati i propri lavori in alta definizione digitale.  

I’ve Seen Films Festival è anche un luogo di riflessione sul ruolo del cortometraggio all’interno del sistema industriale e produttivo contemporaneo.

Per questa ragione, nell’edizione 2009, i Master ALMED in Progettazione e Comunicazione del Cinema e MAPpt – Analisi e Progettazione del prodotto televisivo, partecipano all’organizzazione di due Masterclass di approfondimento e confronto, aperte al pubblico.

Nella mattinata del 1° ottobre, alle ore 10.00, si terrà la prima Masterclass dal titolo ‘I Festival e la Promozione del Cinema e del Cortometraggio’ che tratterà delle varie problematiche dei filmmakers inerenti al copyright, alla distribuzione e diffusione dei loro lavori con l’utilizzo delle tecnologie cinematografiche più innovative. I relatori sarano Rutger Hauer, PierPaolo De Fina, Giancarlo Zappoli, Silvana Molino di Microcinema, Cinzia Masotina del gruppo milanese dei ‘100 Autori’, ed altri ospiti del Festival. Nella giornata del 2 ottobre, sempre alle ore 10.00 si svolgerà la Masterclass ‘Where Art and Poetry Meet Film’ che vedra’ presenti Massimiliano Finazzer Flory, Rutger Hauer, Lech Majewski e Bill Bristow.  Entrambe gli appuntamenti avranno luogo nella suggestiva Cripta dell’Aula Magna dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano.

I temi trattati nelle due Masterclass sono particolarmente vicini al percorso formativo attuato dai due Master ALMED: le problematicità del trattamento e della “collocazione” di un testo breve come il cortometraggio costituiscono uno degli snodi più interessanti nell’ambito dell’organizzazione dei Festival Cinematografici, della distribuzione in sala, ma anche delle potenziali strategie di collaborazione tra cinema e televisione. Promuovere e far conoscere il cortometraggio, in particolar modo alla luce della diffusione del formato digitale HD, diventa una priorità sempre più urgente nel sistema di promozione cinematografica, ma anche in un’ottica di costruzione, e valorizzazione, del palinsesto televisivo.

Allo stesso modo, è il tema della seconda giornata di studio, è sempre più rilevante riflettere sulla “artisticità” del cortometraggio, non soltanto in termini assoluti (il cinema come forma d’arte), ma anche riguardo alle ibridazioni che il testo breve può avere con le altre forme di produzione artistica (poesia, arte contemporanea, visual culture). In un sistema di reciproca relazione tra i mezzi di comunicazione, a partire dalla centralità di cinema e televisione, il cortometraggio può costituire un importante pivot di circuitazione e scambio di competenze e professionalità.

It’s that time again! The Nederlands Film Festival begins it’s 10-day run tomorrow. As I type, they’re setting up the Golden Calf in front of the Stadsschouwburg over on Lucabolwerk. They’ve had some of the posters up for the past few days, but the Golden Calf wasn’t there and I was worried it had been a one-off thing last year. As I took Pippo out this morning, I was thrilled to see a flash of gold through the trees. Jahoe!

Sadly, no Rutger Hauer this year, at least not publicized; he received a special award last year. That was when I found out he was Dutch. I’d always thought he was German or Scandinavian. How embarrassing! Despite being a fan of his for years, I’d never been sure of his nationality. I blame it on the fact that we couldn’t just Google any celeb we were curious about back in the day, so the reality was I knew next to nothing about Hauer except for the fact that he made some very cool films.

This year, they’re focusing on Dutch filmmakers who have gained some popularity in the international market, but haven’t really been well-known domestically. The title of the theme is The Dutch Angle, a bit of a pun, since that is also a technical term for a particular type of angle or perspective in filming. The Wikipedia entry gives a good example, since it doesn’t make as much sense when just described, at least not to me.

Oh, and for the record, the Golden Calf is the award statuette that is given to the winners on the final night of the festival. Sort of like the Oscar.


Pippo checking out the recently installed film festival set-up at the Neude. He approves the color choices.

The Resistance, the new album from Muse is quite nice. A mix of drama, musicianship and brilliant sensibilities, the work is best described as the soundtrack to one of the sweetest movies never made. Perhaps the best way for me to give you a sense of the album is to give you a sense of the movie. Really, the lyrical and musical content of the album has NOTHING to do with the following story, I’m just trying to capture the intangible nature of “sweetness” here ::

The film opens in a misty graveyard at night where we find the seven tribes of the Space Vampire family known as “The Kith” raving. Raving VERY hard. We see sweaty, slow-mo shots and a mix of foppish Edwardian clothes and leather abounds. Atop a really large gothic gravestone is the impossibly rugged and handsome leader of The Kith, Adrich Nightbrynger (portrayed by a very young Clark Gable), surrounded by strong-but-intelligent and fiercely indedpendent goth hotties with a striking resemblance to Vampirella. The fiercest and most hauntingly beautiful, Lady Teela Chamonbord (played by Bettie Page at her naughty best), is quite clearly his special lady friend. A lucky man.

Suddenly, shock troops burst into the rave, shattering the night. It’s the Thought Police. A voice rings out above the chaos: “Members of the Kith, you are in direct violation of over 60 interstellar space statutes including the Rave Law of 2022 and Anti Human Harvesting Act of 2063. Your groove is broken and your run has come to an end.” Vampires scatter. Nightbrynger is surprised and sent running only to see Lady Chamonbord torn from his side and subdued. He fights, but knows that there is no way to defeat troops armed with “Sun Guns” — deadly to his race of nightwalkers. Reluctantly, he allows himself to be pulled aboard a cuiserbike and flown away to fight another day. And fight he must. His special lady friend needs him and if there’s anything we know about Space Vampires, they don’t let things lie. That goes double for members of The Kith. Quadruple for Adrich Nightbrynger.

In his hideout in the rings of Saturn, Nightbrynger reflects alone by candlelight. He muses over the love he has shared with his special lady. Gauzy black and white shots of the couple enjoying intimate times fill the screen. He shakes himself from this reverie enraged by the image of Lady Chamonbord being torn from him. His fingernails (which are covered in black nail polish like a real rock star) dig into his palms. He has a plan. It’s crazy. Crazier than any other plans he’s ever hatched, and he’s Adrich Nightbrynger, leader of The Kith. I mean come ON, this plan HAS to be crazy. Will it work? It might just be crazy enough to. But it means working with the most notorious duo of sonic guns for hire in three galaxies. Yes, we’re talking about The Liberati.

In a seedy bar on the 6th moon of Jupiter, Aldrich finds The Liberati (played by glam legends Freddie Mercury and Brian May). Spurred on by the injustice of the kidnapping and their hatred of the Thought Police, the duo readily agrees. High fives all around.

The three fly to the headquarters of the Thought Police, a huge brutish building on the surface of Uranus. Armed with their sweetness, skills and ability to rock they overwhelm the guards at the front entrance and storm the building. They burst into a large vaulted hall where a fancy dinner party is in fill swing. Tuxedoed guests scatter. Dishes shatter. One man stands at the end of the table unmoved. Lady Chamonbord is at this side in an absolutely gorgeous dress, chained under the table to the floor. It is Clive Boort, High Chief of the Thought Police (brought to the screen by Rutger Hauer on major steroids). He laughs a hearty, sinister laugh.

The fight begins. The large Boort springs into action, amazingly quick for his size. The Liberati attack with their epic blend of sonic guitar weaponry and vocal strikes. Nightbrynger attacks like an animal. Like an immortal creature of the night — the eternal night of space. Although Boort takes damage, he seems to have the upper hand. A truly epic battle ensues. Finally, Boort falls dead, but when the smoke clears, the Liberati have fallen, too. A bittersweet victory. The lovers are reunited and the film ends with perhaps the most amazing kiss in the history of cinema.

Though incomplete, that captures a measure of the sweetness of this album. I highly recommend it.

- – – – – – – – – - - – – – – – – – – - - – – – – – – – – - - – – – -

I Blade Runner (1982) tar regissören Ridley Scott med oss till ett futuristiskt och dystopiskt Los Angeles anno 2019. Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) är en bladerunner, han livnär sig på att jaga ifatt på replikanter och avsluta deras liv. Replikanter är artificiella människor med en livslängd på fyra år och de är överlägsna människan både gällande intelligens och styrka. Efter att replikanter har gjort uppror mot människorna är de inte längre tillåtna att vistas på jorden. Deckard får ett uppdrag där han ska terminera en skara replikanter som kommit till jorden för att möta sin skapare i förhoppning om förlängt liv. Saker och ting kompliceras av att Deckard kärar ner sig i en av replikanterna, Rachael (Sean Young). Blade Runner bygger löst på en av science-fiction författaren Philip K. Dicks verk och Ridley Scott har tillsammans med manusförfattarna skapat en film som när den kom 1982 bröt nya barriärer inom sci-fi genren.

Visuellt sett är filmen ett mästerverk, ett mörkt, skitigt och neondränkt Los Angeles är alldeles underbart att skåda, mycket av inspirationen till filmens miljöer härrör från Fritz Langs Metropolis (1927). Filmens miljöer och det utmärka soundtracket signerat Vangelis gör filmen närmast hypnotiserande på sitt vis. Även manuset håller hög klass, det finns gott om filosofiska och existentiella frågor att ta ställning till och man kan inte annat än att känna medlidande för dessa replikanter i deras sökande efter svar. Skådespeleriet håller även det hög klass och jag har aldrig sett Rutger Hauer (som spelar replikantledaren Roy Batty) vara så bra som han är i Blade Runner. Blade Runner finns i olika versioner, den jag har sett är Ridley Scotts Directors Cut som till skillnad från den version som gick upp på bio 1982 inte innehåller någon voice-over och har ett annat betydligt mer öppet slut fritt för tolkning. Blade Runner är en mycket bra film, som blivit stilbildande för sci-fi genren med sin suggestiva och hypnotiserande atmosför, helt klart en milstolpe inom sci-fi genren.

un irriconoscibile Mickie Rourke nella parte di Marv.

Hartigan è un anziano poliziotto onesto e integerrimo. Salva una ragazzina da un pedofilo sadico che si diverte a torturare e uccidere le sue piccole prede. Il pedofilo è però il figlio di un senatore. Hartigan gli trancia un orecchio, una mano e l’uccello, ma paga cara la sua azione.

Marv è un uomo grosso, muscoloso e forte dall’aspetto truce e dal volto brutto, quasi al limite della bestialità. Una prostituta, Goldie, gli dà una notte di fuoco come mai Marv avrebbe sperato. Si innamora follemente di lei ma al mattino la trova stesa morta al suo fianco. Le sirene annunciano l’arrivo della polizia. L’hanno incastrato. Catturare Marv però non è semplice. Usando la sua forza scappa e ricerca il vero colpevole uccidendo chiunque sia coinvolto a volte in modo crudele per farsi dire ciò che gli serve. Alla fine trova l’assassino, un ragazzino giovane, freddo e perverso. Egli uccide le sue vittime mangiandone poi le carni. Il ragazzino, Kevin, è protetto da un potente sacerdote che ne è letteralmente succube. Marv ucciderà entrambi lentamente e dolorosamente.

La città vecchia è una zona particolare. L’autorità lì è gestita dalle

il "Bastardo Giallo".

prostitute, belle e spietate signore che comandano sul quartiere. Chi entra e rispetta le regole ottiene piacere e sesso, chi le viola non esce vivo. In cambio di questa posizione dominante esse fanno un trattamento di favore ai poliziotti, non li uccidono se sgarrano ma li buttano semplicemente fuori dal loro territorio. Jackie Boy però insulta una prostituta e la minaccia. Viene ucciso brutalmente da una ragazza armata di Katana. Purtroppo è un poliziotto ma le ragazze lo scoprono troppo tardi. Devono far sparire il corpo per evitare che l’accaduto si sappia e metta in pericolo il concordato tra prostitute e poliziotti. Una di loro però tradisce e la malavita, che mira a schiavizzare le prostitute e a prendere il controllo della città vecchia, cerca di prendere il corpo del poliziotto, o almeno quel che ne resta. Non ce la faranno. Le ragazze vinceranno aiutate anche da Dwite, un omicida che si è rifatto la faccia e innamorato di una delle prostitute.

Cos’hanno queste storie in comune? Semplice: succedono tutte a Sin City.

Sin City è un film del 2005, tratto dall’omonimo fumetto di Frank Miller pubblicato dalla Dark Horse Comix. Il film è diretto da Robert Rodriguez con la supervisione di Miller. Come Special Guest Director troviamo Quentin Tarantino, che ha diretto una delle scene più belle del film per la cifra simbolica di un dollaro.

un'immagine del fumetto originale.

Lo stile del film si attiene a quello del fumetto. Le immagini sono in bianco e nero con rare ma efficaci pennellate di colore. Azzeccatissima e inquietante la scelta di fare giallo il nemico di Hartigan e rosso il sangue delle ferite che stride con il grigio della figura del personaggio.

Il cast del film è assolutamente eccezionale. Ricordiamo i personaggi principali: Bruce Willis (Hartigan), Mickie Rourke (Marv), Clive Owen (Dwite), Nick Stahl (Roark Jr./Bastardo giallo, il maniaco figlio del senatore), Rutger Hauer (cardinale Roark), Elijah Wood (Kevin), Benicio del Toro (Jackie Boy), Devon Aoki (Miho), Jaime King (Goldie). Molti altri sarebbero da ricordare ma vi rimando a wikipedia per l’elenco completo dei personaggi.

Un film truce e forte ma sicuramente bello.

Nel video il trailer.

Title: Blade Runner
Year: 1982
Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Hampton Fancher & David Webb Peoples, based on a novel by Philip K. Dick
Starring: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young
Music: Vangelis
Distinctions: currently #115 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 117 minutes (theatrical cut)
Synopsis: an ex-cop is forced to hunt down a group of androids
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday (original theatrical cut); also, the director’s cut, c. 2001
Subjective Rating: 7/10
Objective Rating: 7/10 (points off for story, pacing and music)

Great concept, but the movie is all atmosphere and relatively little story. There’s a hell of a lot of great atmosphere, though.  The theatrical cut is much better than the director’s cut; the voice overs might be corny, but a little iconic corniness is just what this movie needs. It takes itself way too seriously otherwise. And while it’s possible to follow the plot without the voice overs, it’s not easy, and this story isn’t nearly complex enough to justify having a hard time following it (although if you’ve only ever seen the director’s cut, you might think it is complex).

Cult. Tra un mese in sala il “Barbarossa” leghista di Martinelli. Intanto spopolano in rete i ridoppiaggi, figli dei fuori onda di Magnotta e Mosconi. Da “Ramboso” a “Pissio”, versione violenta di “Ufficiale e Gentiluomo”. Meno Storia, più pecoreccio: bestemmie, ubriacature e qualche «terroni!» di troppo.

«Bravi tosi, gavì fato un laòro coi fiochi!», «Grandi! sdazi, in mona tutti quanti!», «Mitico! sembra de esser a Belluno!», «Che monardi!!! me son pisá doss dale ghignade…saludi trentini!». Non sono ancora i commenti entusiasti al Barbarossa di Renzo Martinelli. Il kolossal leghista è atteso per il 9 ottobre nelle sale, anche se da qualche giorno circola in rete un lungo trailer di 8 minuti. I bravi tosi sono quelli di http://www.utobevareancati.com, autori di Ramboso, un Rambo in versione veneta. A doppiare invece il prode Alberto da Giussano, cioè Raz Degan, è il romano Adriano Giannini e il feroce Barbarossa impersonato da Rutger Hauer è Francesco Pannofino, il cui volto è diventanto celebre nelle vesti di Renè Ferretti da Fiano Romano, il regista degli Occhi del cuore, serie tv prodotta nella romanissima cinecittà, protagonista di Boris.

Questa estate Bossi aveva detto che «l’insegnamento del dialetto deve essere diffuso in tutta Italia e dovrebbe essere obbligatorio» e che se il dialetto non è un problema, semma lo sarebbe stato il metodo di insegnamento. «Mia moglie, che se ne occupa da anni, dice che deve essere legato alla musica, al ritmo, ai modi di dire, a qualcosa che abbia una cadenza quasi musicale». Va trovato un modo di insegnare il dialetto che sia «in qualche modo accattivante». E le differenze tra i mille campanili d’italia? «Non ti preoccupare, uno che parla milanese parla in tutta la Lombardia». Dichiarazioni estive anche per il ministro Gelmini nel senso che, come ha dichiarato l’altro ieri, «la polemica sul dialetto a scuola è sovradimensionata, è una polemica estiva. Credo che sia giusto studiare la storia locale e le tradizioni e in questo può rientrare il dialetto».

Intanto c’è chi anticipa i tempi dei programmi scolastici e, senza dover aspettare il Barbarossa ancora doppiato in semplice italiano, gioca per diletto su Youtube a ridoppiare i film celebri e di ogni genere, da Guerre Stellari a Grease, dal Signore degli Anelli a Full Metal Jacket, da 300 a Shining. Avvertenza: dal doppiaggio in veneto o lombardo al riadattamento il passo è immediato, e si finisce per cambiare le carte in tavola. Ci si imbatte subito nella parodia o nella violenza, come se il dialetto non reggesse altri registri, o almeno non suscitasse altre letture negli autori dei video.

Uno di questi celebri riadattamenti è appunto Ramboso, dove il reduce dal Vietnam è in realtà un barista di cocktail in cerca di lavoro, come spiega Stallone nella prima scena a una donna di colore intenta a stendere i panni: «So fare il B52, il Manhattan, So fare anche il Negroni, senza offesa, eh signora». L’epica del reduce respinto dalla società finisce in un trionfo di battute e lazzi sul bere e sul proibizionismo. Più che Roma, è ladrona Astemiopoli, la città analcolica di Astemiopoli, e Ramboso ci arriva proprio durante il periodo della fiera dell’acqua. Vallo spiegare allo sceriffo però. Il suo vanto è la patente sospesa per tre volte: «E ora, guida in stato de ebbressa uno, guida in stato de ebressa due, e guida imbriago marso, e là go pagà da bever a tutti».

Un’altra mancanza alcolica (sempre in attesa del liberatore Alberto da Giussano di Martinelli) terrorizza i bravi tosi. Quella della birra: «E qui del patronato, i me voe far bere spuma e chinoto!», «Noooo! I me fa schifo!» urla la folla veneta ne gli Uoriors, il riadattamento dei Guerrieri della notte di Walter Hill. Anche per Uoriors l’affetto conterraneo arriva subito: «Ea bira nea ga ciavà i’tajani!!!» ma anche «can dal porco proprio beo sto video bravo canaia».

Quando si prova a tradurre un musical i dilettanti allo sbaraglio fanno fatica: il kitch impomatato di John Travolta in Grease, mentre osserva Olivia Newton John completamente cambiata, si risvolve in un «Cesira! ke figa dio te me tira al cuuuuuuucooo!!!!!!». Oltre agli applausi per le inevitabili battutacce, nei commenti su Youtube appaiono anche altre considerazioni. Un commento al femminile prova a ripararsi dalla pioggia fitta di parolacce e bestemmie: «Io sono veneta però una roba che non mi piace del mio dialetto è che si dicono tante bestemmie e parolacce… io non le dico ma sono contenta di essere veneta». Poi però nei commenti si passa agli insulti: «In Italia ghe xe tanti bei diaetti, a scomissiar dal veneto e dal romàn. ma el napoetàn fa proprio cagàr! Me par der sentir i marochini».

A rifare Grease sono quelli di http://www.pissio.it. Hanno un pubblico dove il meno entusiasta dei commenti per la lingua usata è «W i veneti! semo i mejo! fora l’italia dal Veneto!!!!!». La riprova è Ufficiale e gentiluomo con Richard Gere e Louis Gossett Jr. Si saveva che quest’ultimo, il black sergent Foley, fosse molto ufficiale e zero gentiluomo, ma non a questi livelli:«Negro dio can! A te staco na recia dioehh, a te dò na man de bianco dioehh!! A mi co vedo i negri a me gira i cojoni». E giù un plebiscito di commenti incattiviti contro i terroni.

Violenti o meno, i coloriti ridoppiaggi più che di Zanzotto o Meneghello si dichiarano figli degli sfoghi fuori onda ma in rigoroso veneto del pacato Germano Mosconi, storico giornalista e conduttore tv della veronese TeleNuovo. Erano gli anni 80, gli stessi del bidello abruzzese Mario Magnotta, i cui sacramenti nacquero ai tempi delle musicassette. Quindi nulla di nuovo. Meno male, comqunque, che l’israeliano Raz Degan sarà doppiato professionalmente.