Blade Runner

Usually I'd think that the Director's Cut is the better version, especially as I have deep respect for Ridley Scott and David Peoples.

However, I prefer the original release of Blade Runner, as I find it more ambiguous. Even the 'happy ending' is somewhat ambiguous, as Rachael might not necessarily get to live longer despite what Deckard was told, and I like the stock footage they use as they escape from the city... it's a great contrast to the opening footage that basically defines all of cyberpunk. Removing the voice-over from the ending though wouldn't be bad and leave Rachael's demise an open issue. In the Director's Cut, them simply leaving the apartment feels like a non-ending, rather than a nice ambiguous open ending. Important difference to me.

I like the voice-over in the beginning, as it has this 'hard-boiled' film noir 'dame walks into my office' thing that I think helps a lot in setting the tone of the movie.

But, the unicorn dream thing is retarded. Scott never should have come out and said that Deckard is a replicant (as he did in interviews). It's a lame idea- it's okay if vaguely alluded to, but the Director's Cut heavy-handed approach leaves me cold. It also means that Gaff's origami isn't just a personality quirk but an Important Plot Device. Not everything in movies has to mean stuff, folks.

I don't remember, but I think that part of the unicorn dream (maybe sans origami?) was in the original version too... my reading of that was Deckard's view of Rachael as a lovely Thing That Shouldn't Be or Thing That Will Never Be Again.

It's still a fucking great movie in any case. Perfect meld of film noir and sci-fi.

...

I just learned that 'Soldier', a Kurt Russell movie, is sort of a sequel to Blade Runner. Huh, no shit.