I kinda get it. Recently I watched this movie for the first time and I found that part to be a beautiful scene. Beautiful yet not mind-blowing or anything. But then I read the film's Wikipedia entry and wow, do people overhype those couple of lines. I mean apparently it's regarded as the best death soliloquy in movie history by some.
Sorry, but it was really the backbone of the movie and thus it is so Iconic and mind blowing. The monologue was not hyped (same like the movie) at release because most of the people had not got the real idea behind the movie, but this single scene made the movie so Iconic. It was first time that we are introduced to a replicant who is more humane than humans and this monologue established there little desire which is to survive longer, shattered by reality. One sin should have taken off for this great monologue..
That scene is the only reason this movie has any credibility in the first place. The film’s visual effects and that scene singlehandedly convinced everybody that this movie was genius
Eri Dickulous really?.2 qualities and only 2 give it it's cult following for the past 30 years?. Man, I would absolutely love too hear your opinion on other loved movies,so you could tell us why were wrong. Your Def a cinema sins fan.
I personally found the "tears in the rain" scene to be nonsensical and convoluted, IMO. It sounds "deep" but actually isn't, bec. the build-up from the rest of the movie was also nonsensical and convoluted. So the supposed pay-off in "tears of the tain", doesn't resonate with me personally. I think people tend to read to much into it and act like it is the end all, be all of movie death scenes.
I'm on board with everyone who thinks the "Tears in rain" speech should have got a sin knocked off. The lines, their delivery, the cinematography, the music, even Deckard's disbelief - it all fits together perfectly. It's one of my favourite movie monologues along with "The USS Indianapolis" from Jaws, "Your good bag and your cheap shoes" from The Silence Of the Lambs, and "The Gold Watch" from Pulp Fiction.
Here's the deal: these scene with he asian lady who just happens to have her own scanning electronic scanning microscope? Yeah, that's not a restaurant. It's the artificial animal district. It's like a flea market where people buy fake animals. Hence she's right next door to the fake snake stare, and they're running fake ostriches down the aisle and so on.
Also, the whole point of the universe building is that real snakes ARE more expensive than all the high tech stuff in her dressing room. Whatever we've done to the environment has made real animals (at least certain species) so rare that it's cheaper to make artificial ones.
The nail through the hand isn't a stigmata: Roy's time is almost up, so, he's spiking his adrenaline by shocking his system. You notice his hand seizing up, so, he hurts himself to force his biology's energy reserves; just like we do. Tyrell explains that the androids are biomechanical.
@@stephenlancaster2673 Yeah that part confuses me; if replicants are fully "biomechanical" and not actually metallic or robotic in any way, how are they even different to normal humans? They're just glorified test-tube babies?
@@GoatzombieBubba Judge Dredd "took inspiration" from a story from Metale Hurlant (Heavy Metal) a french comic. Pat Mills, one of the creators, said so on this very site.
The "really stupid moment" of Deckard climbing the stairs in the Bradbury Building is one of the most beautiful scenes in the movie. I think the narrator of this CinemaSins video must be a replicant.
Actually no, if they can do it in a natural way they're just as likely to take a sin off. But most movies fail at doing that since a lot of that information is something the characters would already know
@@anthonylongoria2638 in the bit at the beginning with the new colonies he sins it for exposition when it is literally a space ship with an ad being played on it, exposition would be a newspaper article reading "come to an off world colony" or some dumb narration
ultimate84610 if someone purposefully made you die, despite having the capacity to live forever. Idk, people saw tyrell deserving it, it was Sebastian who you are made to feel sorry for
As the text card at the very beginning of the film clearly states, the events in the movie take place starting in November 2019. So one can assume that a replicant “born” on January 8, 2016 would start to slowly fall apart during the timespan from November 2019 to the beginning of January 2020. To explain Roy Batty's "early" death.
K Val Still, they only show his exact date of birth once. Most people are unlikely to remember the month of his birth and, like me, would be left confused when a replicant born in 2016 dies in 2019 despite having a 4 year lifespan. They couldn't have just made his date of birth some time in 2015? Why go with 2016 at all?
Roy asks Tyrell why their lives can't be extended and is told, "the flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long...and you have burned so very very brightly Roy..."
@@TechnologicallyTechnical Originally the film took place in 2020, but they changed it to 2019. This was done after it was noticed that "2020" triggered too many associations with eye charts and the term "20/20 vision". -mentioned the book FUTURE NOIR
Okay but didn't Tyrell said that if he tried to force his capacities too much his lifespan would Short a lot? Probably Roy would have been able to live till 2020 if he didn't plan to kill Deckard. Well, maybe he decided to kill him and then die to at least try to avenge his "siblings"
I don't think that scene was creepy. He was being forward and aggressive because he didn't want her to walk out, and later on he's laying in bed wondering if he could have gotten her to stay if he'd only had some balls.
Personally that line gets my vote as one of the best in all of cinema. It could have been cheesy, but Hauer's delivery, that regretful half smile, makes it frinking awesome.
Roy put the nail through his hand to temporarily repair it, as it was clenching up due to his body approaching its end date. He was also overheating as a result, which is why he striped down.
I can't disagree too much. But it was iconic in its material and moral. Lord of the Rings, is NOT an easy read. Tolkien over-kills with flavor text. Yet the books are iconic.
F Britannia I agree. The film is great but the book is one of PKDs weakest efforts, the only book he wrote worse then the eventual movie adaptation of it tbh. Its an ok book but RS avoided its pitfalls when he made the movie (mainly by adding emotional depth to and expanding the characters such as Roy Batty and adding a darker more emotional storyline).
True. Deckard literally had a hit list of Replicants to retire, and Rachael wasn't on it. Towards the end of the movie however, Bryant adds her to Deckard's list.
me2olive I've been here for around 3 years. Almost everything he mentions in these videos is a joke. That's what the channel basically is. It's glaringly obvious.
Draukagrissah 'cyberpunk' is a term millennials use to describe everything made before 1990. A catch-all phrase used by the ignorant so as to make them appear intelligent to their equally-ignorant millennial friends.
JediPeaceFrog is trying to be edgy. Instead, he just reveals that he talks out his ass. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say it. Cyberpunk is science-fiction that portrays advanced technology during a time of social collapse and the breakdown of society.
(0:35) What planet are you from? Those are obviously flare stacks from an oil refinery, implying that's an industrial area. Those existed since before 1982 and we still have them today. Read a book!
horaciosi Yeh, it was one of those “sins” where it felt like he had to find something to (unsuccessfully) nit pick to move the critique along. It’s one of the “sins” that felt forced. Thanks for pointing this one out.
@Christina Reynolds I believe he said that specifically because she's a sexbot, not because she's a woman. What's the point of subterfuge in this instance?
Tyrell explained why Roy Batty's lifespan was so short, actually, if you're paying attention. "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long", and all that jazz. I'd say it's a sin for being a bit too buried in obscurity, but it's still in there. As for Decker being a replicant, like the synths of Fallout 4, it's just as easy to consider the possibility that Decker had already been replaced some time prior, and was already approaching the end of his own lifespan. It is also possible that Decker was a purchased tool of the LA police department, as a replicant built to hunt replicants, and like James Bond, simply gets replaced whenever he craps out. It could explain why Origami-silly-man knows of his particular issues, and why Decker's eyes do the reflective pupils thing on more than a few occasions in the film.
*I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tennhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain* Ok, *THIS* moment right here is worth at least two sins off. One for the writing and one for Hauer's performance.
In regards to it sounding like Roy always speaks in poetry, thats how Rutger chose to play him - as a philosopher and poet. Roy was only 4 years old so how is anyone to understand the way words form in his head? He had humanity above his design.
Thank you! I'm getting rather agitated at how he hates on wonderful films like this, and gushes over movies like "Get out." Not saying the movies are similar, but still.
This CinemaSins blatantly ignores all the dialogue about Blade Runner being a world with artificial animals. That is why the owl's behavior can be regulated, that is why people recognize snake-makers, and that is why there are random “animals” being herded around.
Pan-Am was one of the largest airlines in the US for over 50 years. It was also mentioned in another famous sci-fi movie you may have heard of, 2001: A Space Odyssey. And even though the company is now gone, it was mentioned in Blade Runner 2049 - likely more for continuity than anything else.
Smoke while not smoking. Don't U know that there are idiots who light cigarettes & leave them smoking in the tray w/out actually putting them to the lips?
That Tears in Rain scene removes at least 10,000 sins. Best fucking scene in film history. And as if CinemaSins says the Hauer overacts in the film smfh. Absolutely legendary performance.
I remember seeing this in 82 in Seattle, Wa. I just loved it. Movies are supposed to take you somewhere and this movie sure did. All those slow moments and, according to this critic long wasted shots of the city from above are why i love this movie. I cannot believe he does not feel these things when he watches movies like this. Especially one so far ahead of everything else for it's time. What does he feel? Can he feel? Maybe he is a Nexus 6! It would explain a lot! Definitely not a Roy model. More like a Fielding Mellish!
I agree completely. What I find annoying is how much Zoomers are enamored with the sequel when it looks totally flat and lifeless compared to this genius low-budget film. If you watch this one enough you can see they used the same city block over and over from different angles to create that whole world (not including the amazing flyover scenes). You end up seeing the same neon signs all the way through the movie.
I watched it for the first time yesterday. I love the world the movie takes place in. I hate the story and the acting from Harrison Ford is horrible. His voice-over thoughts are embarrassingly bad. The interrogation scene with Leon is beautifully shot. But, in this scene, Leon mentions that he's already been through an IQ test this year, but he was hired within the last 3 days. I never knew when the movie was going to end, as there was no build-up at all. He just kills the replicants - movie over. How come our MC isn't better at his job? Any worse and he would've died within the first day - If he's the best, it's because he's the only one left. Why are the replicants so much stronger than humans if they were created to be as close to them as possible? I might have missed this, but how did the MC figure out that the stripper was a Replicant? He was out drinking, tryna get the love-interest out to the bar - next scene he's annoying a stripper.
7:18 You add a sin because Deckard dreams of a unicorn, and you were not sure why. Actually, the choice of unicorn is important. Notice there is an animal reference to all the main characters: Tyrell = Owl (knowledge); Leon = Tortoise (Slow); Pris = Cat (affectionate but sometimes dangerous); Zhora = Snake; Rachel = Spider (spider mother is eaten by it's children, just as rachel's identity is erased by her memories being taken away); Roy Batty = Dove (wants to make peace with humans at the end, by choosing not to kill Deckard); And finally, Deckard = Unicorn, because that is a non-existent animal, hinting that he subconsciously knows he is not real. You should remove a sin for the subtle layer of animal symbolism.
I feel like you were a little over-critical on this one. Not because it's a perfect movie, it's got a lot of flaws, but some stuff is implied that you just glance over or maybe didn't notice. Like the "how much can a real snake cost?" A lot, apparently. The owl in Tyrell's office is artificial, and he's got berjillions of dollars. Or, like, the food cart lady with the electron microscope that IDs the scale? Yeah, that's obviously in a market where they make and sell artificial animals. We don't actually see anyone eating at the fish/shark food cart, I think it's just a shop that sells replicant fish for pets and what have you. The ostriches presumably are fakes, too.
I agree, I didn't think it was a food cart either. One thing he seems to imply is that it's the future and everything is still looking crappy. Yeah that's the point. Just because it's the future, the veiwer actually expects things to be perfect... everything must be shiny, chrome and clean and 😁? Yeah, like, in time, which sucked, or The Host, which also sucked. So what about the Terminator? That didn't take place in a shiny, clean, chrome future setting, neither did any Mad Max film, or Akira, or Ghost in the Shell, 1984, V for Vendetta, Snow-Piercer, Brazil, even in the Matrix everything is already destroyed! Maybe THAT'S the point. Maybe the director is trying to say that there is no future, at least not like the ones we imagined. If there is, it'll either be artificial or not real like the matrix, or that unicorn dream, (which maybe was a reflection of the implanted memories talk he had with the lady) or it is real, but it's out of the reach of the characters due to socioeconomic status affecting certain boundaries and lifestyles around the lower class and upper class because of all the things in the future, that system has become advanced enough to stratify the social classes. I mean this is basic world-building 101. I like cinemasins jokes and playful banter, but if he's just sinning a nior sci-fi film for not having enough big budget action set pieces, and big explosive junk in your face, then he's just gonna be shallow in things that just bother him, his jokes won't come off as smart, just mildly funny to those expecting a bit more from him, and hilariously genius to those who have no idea what is going on.
It is an earth ruined by nuclear war, there are almost no animals left and they are extremely expensive. There is a fucking book and people should read it before shitting on the blade runner world
Well when critiquing a movie adaption, you should not have to see/read the source material. Saying that they should have read a book first before seeing a movie is not a valid criticism.
this is considered critique? "So basically the movie doesn't suck as bad as it actually does because you made up a bunch of shit to explain it's suckiness?" sure... also the cinema sin video has many things that are simply not true, i can understand you not knowing the universe of blade runner, but if you are going to critique something that is 30+ years old you should get your facts straight, there is no excuse for not knowing
By the way, Roy saying Deckard's name comes from an early draft where Roy entered the LAPD department computers and somehow managed to learn who was tracking them. It has always bothered me, so good job sinning it!
I think it's easily implied in the movie that Roy knew about Deckard's identity through Leon' and Zhora's deaths on the same night, either their deaths made the news or he was snooping for informations about their deaths through talking to witnesses at the scene, so there's no need to even show how he got to know about Deckard's identity ... movies targeting intelligent viewers usually do not spoon feed such details as the director assumes it can be easily implied to thinking audiences without having to show it ...
+Xavier Conde Not to me ... going by your logic, all movies thats ever been made would be full of a hundred plot holes simply because the director decides not to show every little things that happen ... its an artistic choice not to include certain intervening events for the sake of dramatic style .. the movie is obviously not made for kids to watch ... Remember an earlier scene when Deckard was searching through Leon's apartment and found the photos of Zhora ? Leon knew he was there and told Roy about Deckard's presence, of course they would know Deckard's name at that point simply by talking to the landlord who let Deckard in ... In fact its illogical for anyone to think Roy should not have known or at least tried to find out who killed 2 of his dear companions .. when he met Pris, he said "there's only 2 of us now" ... if he was not at the scene of Zhora and Leon's death, he must have got to know about their deaths from the news or from the streets, it would be crucial for him to find out who killed them so that he could guard himself better ...
@@88feji yes, movies are full of plot holes. Sometimes screenwriters don't know how to move the plot forward. Blade Runner is a good example. There are several well known plot holes. It's not a bad thing in itself, since movies have to be very concise. For instance, why did Holden vk-test Leon? Deckard new the name (Leon Kovalski) and a photograph of Leon. So how could Holden not recognize Leon? And why would a fugitive use his real name and real address? Plot holes needed to move the plot forward. Of course one can always think of hidden reasons or possible reasons that are consistent, like "Holden wasn't given that information yet, it arrived afterwards". Or maybe is a plot hole.
@@88feji And regarding the scene were Deckard visits Leon's apartment. Originally Leon was supposed to be hiding in the roof of the bathroom,hence hearing Deckard and Gaff. However a new scene was inserted were an actor (doubling for Ford) finds a snake scale. The deleted "Leon in the roof of the bathroom" scene can be found in dvd. So how did Leon find out about policemen in his apartment? In the original scene, he knew because he was hiding in the bathroom. In the revised scene, we can only suppose he talked to the landlord.
"This is why no one should ever be forced to wear a necktie. You just never know when a replicant stripper is going to suddenly try and choke you out." is officially my reason to refuse wearing a tie at work from now on.
In 1980, Ridley Scott, absolutely blasted on scotch, picked up a copy of Electric Sheep. He opened the book at random and read a couple pages, then sat down and immediately wrote a movie script in under 20 minutes. He then spent an obscene amount of money on visual effects for this movie, then spent 30 years editing it. Some of the resulting cuts of the film have been called a masterpiece, depending on who you ask.
Random American it died in one of the previous EWW vids. The one for Fast and furious 8 at the specific moment that The Rock singlehandedly diverted a missile with his hands
Plumes from buildings imply future, unknown tech. Maybe they use geothermal energy belching gas from way below ground. Pacing is fine, the director is a visual artist.
Luf knuht OMG. If you're going to post 30 freaking posts at least get your facts straight. That's a refinery and the plumes of fire are off-gassing. It's a normal process
I highly agree as a sci fi fanatic, I found this video slightly offensive. But hey, people have different opinions right? Overall, my dad loves the movie and I do too. Frickin love the cars too!!
The "Purge" computer graphic at 2:01 is the same one used in the original Alien movie when the escape-pod separates from 'Mothership'. Computer graphics at the time must have been expensive and had to be recycled! ;)
"It's super advanced AND super dilapidated at the same time!" Almost like it's part of an ENTIRE GENRE CALLED CYBERP- ah, forget it. Look, I know this is a comedy channel, and not to take it seriously, but the tendency to sin things that aren't sins, you just don't get what's going on, is becoming abrasive lately.
The bit of music that inspired you to compliment Vangelis is not by Vangelis. It's a traditional Japanese song, "Ogi No Mato," from the album "Traditional Vocal and Instrumental Music." It's diegetically part of Deckard's world (it's being broadcast from the blimp) and so not technically part of the soundtrack.
"Centering" something brings it to the exact middle based on the dimensions of the image. Pulling back means to zoom out. Those seem like pretty straight forward actions for a voice activated technology to comprehend.
You only watch for the UA-cam poop style ending? The "criticisms" are never meant to be taken seriously and are often quite funny e.g. the questions sin in this video.
Don't bring UA-cam poop into this. That style of editing is pathetic mostly and a waste of time. The end card stuff is just changing out audio, nothing else.
No, the old generation of replicants felt emotion and couldn't deal with it, especially the horror of only living 4 years of instantly adult life. They gave them memories so they could process those emotions and live as happy little slaves.
They forgot to.mention that screen was used in alien!! And what's wrong with newspapers?? You can read any newspaper now virtually online but you can still buy printed version?!
Honestly, I think the only reason that scene becomes a bit "rapey", and loses much of the "a replicant exploring her humanity", is because of Ford's acting.
But he'll sin the Hades landscape. The destructive nature of humankind, asserting dominance over a beautiful world it doesn't own. > "Some flimsy reason" pfft
Did it ever occur to you that there WAS a real life Deckard who was replaced by a replicant? After all, replicants get their memory implants from real people, and Deckard was supposed to have been off the job for a while. In the sequel, it's implied that he was always supposed to meet Rachael and programmed to fall in love with her. He's also supposed to be from the newest, most experimental line of replicants at this time, which means he couldn't even be a few years old by this point. It makes more sense that they replaced the real Deckard with a few month old replicant that has all of his memories than to say that everyone in the police force is in on it.
In the book when Deckard is VK testing Zhora she says, "Maybe there was once a Human who looked like you and somewhere along the line you killed him and took his place. And your superiors don't know." Actually, there's several bits like this in the book, but since it never states plainly that Deckard is anything but Human, everybody misses/ignores it.
Vlad Dascaliuc Fate of the furious movie had so many sins and had so much bs in it the sin counter broke. All logic goes out the window when four+ cars can block a nuclear residual explosion from hitting one man
I think the implication is that all bladerunners are replicants (So that's why the LAPD was in on it) and the Deckard is special because Tyrell secretly made him a next gen replicant.
0:33 Gas pipelines blowing fire IS realistic. I live in LA and that's my view out of my bedroom window. Sometimes the fire is different colored like green, nothing wakes you up like a green fireball at night.
Because massive futuristic urban sprawl? There are oil fields in urban LA, just not as spectacular because they're in the suburbs - www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fields-of-los-angeles/100799/
SpikeXtreme: Not to be a prude about details, but it's actually the opposite way around; the 1982 ORIGINAL actually has Batty deliver the line as "Fucker", the 2007 director's cut has it changed to "Father" (I have no idea what the earlier 1992 director's cut does for this line since I've never seen it; not to go off-topic, but does anyone know why the fuck "Prometheus" includes a parody of this line besides the fact it was also directed by Ridley Scott!?). Also, if haven't figured it out already, this EWW was based on the 2007 director's cut- this is screamed at slightly by the inclusion of the Unicorn dream scene. For whatever reason, with the director's cuts of this film, Scott decided to go down the path of "Fewer obscenities, more violence". Also, nobody ever talks about this, but for those paying attention, they cut out the Engrish with the sushi maker for '07 cut as well ("You Blade Runner!" is no longer mispronounced as "You BRAID Runner!" in this version after he tells Dekard that Gaff is arresting him in the beginning of the film).
Its on top of my all time list of Greatest Movie EVER Made too ... its one of the rare movies I never got tired of rewatching for decades and even till now I still manage to find new symbolic details the director intentionally hide in the movie that no one else (not even fans) mention anywhere ... Like I've never heard anyone talk about the elephant foot lamp shade made of Cpt Bryant's photos sitting on his office desk ... that implies that he is possibly a replicant too like Deckard ... no one mention this suspicion anywhere ! (replicants like Deckard, Roy and Rachel all share a strange obsession with photographs in the movie ...)
15:51 - I actually thought the reason Roy was toying with Decker was because he never really intended to kill (or even mutilate) him; he even saves him from falling at the end. I thought the ending was trying to make him out to be less a stereotypical villain and more a tragic anti-hero who teaches Decker to value all life & live it to the fullest.
Hahahaha...HAHAHAHA! No...it won't. Pretty much every sequel/reboot/remake based on a pre-2000 movie of the last decade was horrible. I bet even the wonderful visuals of this fine piece (don't forget that this movie was made in 1982) will be replaced with horrible CGI.
" *ERMAHGERD!!! WhY iS tHiS mOvIe So SlOw!!!!* " It's called ambience, setting the mood and visual storytelling, *CINEMA* Sins. Three of the many reasons why this movie is considered a masterpiece.
Its a very bad movie. The only people who like it aren't seeing it now for the first time. Just like the first star wars is a bad movie, but no can seem to realize that because of the visuals.
The Deckard replicant theory is just mid-wits missing the forest for the trees. The heart of the film is that Rachel is a machine who behaves like a human, and Deckard is a human who behaves like a machine. If they’re both replicants, the film is far less interesting.
Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most visually outstanding films I have ever seen to date. A faithful sequel... its incredible. GO watch it in 3D while you can!
The story of Blade Runner is even more meh, I mean... COME ON! The only good thing about the story is the set up of the universe (with many of the concepts already set up in Alien), then the story of the actual movie is super stupid.
Flying cars but no smart phones. I have not seen one movie which depicts the future of everyone with their heads in smart phones, like how it actually is, but they show flying cars and things like electronic newspapers in other movies. Writers didn't make the logical connection of large computers, (which were around at the time) becoming smaller and portable
No taking off a sin for the tears in the rain bit? That bit was iconic.
I kinda get it. Recently I watched this movie for the first time and I found that part to be a beautiful scene. Beautiful yet not mind-blowing or anything. But then I read the film's Wikipedia entry and wow, do people overhype those couple of lines. I mean apparently it's regarded as the best death soliloquy in movie history by some.
Sorry, but it was really the backbone of the movie and thus it is so Iconic and mind blowing. The monologue was not hyped (same like the movie) at release because most of the people had not got the real idea behind the movie, but this single scene made the movie so Iconic. It was first time that we are introduced to a replicant who is more humane than humans and this monologue established there little desire which is to survive longer, shattered by reality. One sin should have taken off for this great monologue..
That scene is the only reason this movie has any credibility in the first place. The film’s visual effects and that scene singlehandedly convinced everybody that this movie was genius
Eri Dickulous really?.2 qualities and only 2 give it it's cult following for the past 30 years?. Man, I would absolutely love too hear your opinion on other loved movies,so you could tell us why were wrong. Your Def a cinema sins fan.
I personally found the "tears in the rain" scene to be nonsensical and convoluted, IMO. It sounds "deep" but actually isn't, bec. the build-up from the rest of the movie was also nonsensical and convoluted. So the supposed pay-off in "tears of the tain", doesn't resonate with me personally.
I think people tend to read to much into it and act like it is the end all, be all of movie death scenes.
I'm on board with everyone who thinks the "Tears in rain" speech should have got a sin knocked off. The lines, their delivery, the cinematography, the music, even Deckard's disbelief - it all fits together perfectly.
It's one of my favourite movie monologues along with "The USS Indianapolis" from Jaws, "Your good bag and your cheap shoes" from The Silence Of the Lambs, and "The Gold Watch" from Pulp Fiction.
You picked all of my favorite monologues! Nice.
Especially considering Rutger adlib'd that line.
Here's the deal: these scene with he asian lady who just happens to have her own scanning electronic scanning microscope? Yeah, that's not a restaurant. It's the artificial animal district. It's like a flea market where people buy fake animals. Hence she's right next door to the fake snake stare, and they're running fake ostriches down the aisle and so on.
Also, the whole point of the universe building is that real snakes ARE more expensive than all the high tech stuff in her dressing room. Whatever we've done to the environment has made real animals (at least certain species) so rare that it's cheaper to make artificial ones.
Bruce Woodcock Yes, precisely. Even in Tyrel corp: "your own is artificial?" "Of course."
Mahatma Randy Thank you.
wow I didn't know that
O
Interesting that Rutger Hauer passed away in 2019. Rest in peace.
… Like tears in the rain.
@Nate Olson wouldn't believe*
Still crying.
Oh fuck, really? How the hell did I miss that? :(
Dang, now that's one hell of a coincidence.
The nail through the hand isn't a stigmata: Roy's time is almost up, so, he's spiking his adrenaline by shocking his system. You notice his hand seizing up, so, he hurts himself to force his biology's energy reserves; just like we do. Tyrell explains that the androids are biomechanical.
Pretty sure it's both
People are biomechanoid, bone calcium s metalloid.
@@stephenlancaster2673 Yeah that part confuses me; if replicants are fully "biomechanical" and not actually metallic or robotic in any way, how are they even different to normal humans? They're just glorified test-tube babies?
@@saeedbaig4249 that's whole point. What makes a human.
Replicants are cellular organisms just like humans, but genetically engineered.
A lot of cliches become so BECAUSE of blade runner
Ah ... no ... none of them actually; they're all pretty standard Noir cliches...
Stephen Smith yeah but that movie didn’t come out til the 90’s so I don’t think so
@Stephen Smith The Bladerunner book came out in 1974 so Judge Dredd comics copied The Bladerunner Book....
@@GoatzombieBubba Judge Dredd "took inspiration" from a story from Metale Hurlant (Heavy Metal) a french comic. Pat Mills, one of the creators, said so on this very site.
@Stephen Smith Dredd was full of clichés too. And an awful ending. People think the Stallone version was bad. I don't.
"Alexa will be old news in 2019"... News in 2019: Alex passes 100 million sales... yeah... don't think that one aged well.
Unfortunate truth...
Also: Hi, didn't expect to see our main oddheads specialist here.
The "really stupid moment" of Deckard climbing the stairs in the Bradbury Building is one of the most beautiful scenes in the movie. I think the narrator of this CinemaSins video must be a replicant.
Not to mention, what's stupid about Deckard climbing some stairs? It really feels like Jeremy is desperately scrambling for things to complain.
@@horaciosi this channel has been shit from the begining
numerous times you sin the movie for not explaining something, however had the movie explained it you would have sinned the movie for expositing
Welcome to CinemaSins!
Actually no, if they can do it in a natural way they're just as likely to take a sin off. But most movies fail at doing that since a lot of that information is something the characters would already know
He has to make videos. All these sins things a lower common denominator junk.
@@anthonylongoria2638 in the bit at the beginning with the new colonies he sins it for exposition when it is literally a space ship with an ad being played on it, exposition would be a newspaper article reading "come to an off world colony" or some dumb narration
That’s how it works. Cinema Sins mixes actual sins with comedy, don’t take it too seriously
How were 10 sins not removed for the final monologue from Roy?
Because narration.
ultimate84610 if someone purposefully made you die, despite having the capacity to live forever. Idk, people saw tyrell deserving it, it was Sebastian who you are made to feel sorry for
Especially since most of it was ad libbed!
Because it was shit.
@@TornadoCreator You're an idiot.
9:22 "...it's super advanced AND super dilapidated... all at the same time!"
Hmm... almost... like a Cyberpunk movie?
Well... yes. Bladerunner is a cyberpunk movie. Are you saying he's pointing out the obvious?
Yes he is pointing the obvious because cyberpunk is "high tech low life".
Lol was thinking same thing
but it also has lots of weirdly clashing motifs, like the candles in that CEO's place and lots of dated tech made to look cutting-edge.
Or many cities around the world
As the text card at the very beginning of the film clearly states, the events in the movie take place starting in November 2019.
So one can assume that a replicant “born” on January 8, 2016 would start to slowly fall apart during the timespan from November 2019 to the beginning of January 2020. To explain Roy Batty's "early" death.
2017 and still no flying cars at least we got androids and robots.
K Val Still, they only show his exact date of birth once. Most people are unlikely to remember the month of his birth and, like me, would be left confused when a replicant born in 2016 dies in 2019 despite having a 4 year lifespan. They couldn't have just made his date of birth some time in 2015? Why go with 2016 at all?
Roy asks Tyrell why their lives can't be extended and is told, "the flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long...and you have burned so very very brightly Roy..."
@@TechnologicallyTechnical Originally the film took place in 2020, but they changed it to 2019. This was done after it was noticed that "2020" triggered too many associations with eye charts and the term "20/20 vision". -mentioned the book FUTURE NOIR
Okay but didn't Tyrell said that if he tried to force his capacities too much his lifespan would Short a lot? Probably Roy would have been able to live till 2020 if he didn't plan to kill Deckard. Well, maybe he decided to kill him and then die to at least try to avenge his "siblings"
I'm surprised there was no mention of that creepy scene where he slams the door shut, and forces her to tell him she loves him.
NPThirteen I know, I was like "no sins for the fucking sexual assault scene? Really?"
NPThirteen and rapes her
+99bulldog With your wang.
NPThirteen thats rapie
I don't think that scene was creepy. He was being forward and aggressive because he didn't want her to walk out, and later on he's laying in bed wondering if he could have gotten her to stay if he'd only had some balls.
No sins taken off for Rutger Hauer's improvised 'Tears in the rain' speech.
Words cannot express how disgusted I am.
Personally that line gets my vote as one of the best in all of cinema. It could have been cheesy, but Hauer's delivery, that regretful half smile, makes it frinking awesome.
I was going to say the same, well done friend
At least 10,000 sins removed for that scene. Best scene ever in a film.
I was thinking the exact same thing. That monologue is considered to be one of the best in film, but no sins taken off for it? Like what?
Jack Healy you clearly don't get this movie, then. No hostility.
Roy put the nail through his hand to temporarily repair it, as it was clenching up due to his body approaching its end date. He was also overheating as a result, which is why he striped down.
Michael Tótin Finally! Someone who understands this movie! Thank God, and thank YOU sir!
It's not a complicated story. Unfortunately the director didn't seem to understand the source material. Still a fantastic film.
To be fair the original book isn't very good, it's not bad, but it is my most humble opinion that the film is better.
I can't disagree too much. But it was iconic in its material and moral.
Lord of the Rings, is NOT an easy read. Tolkien over-kills with flavor text. Yet the books are iconic.
F Britannia I agree. The film is great but the book is one of PKDs weakest efforts, the only book he wrote worse then the eventual movie adaptation of it tbh. Its an ok book but RS avoided its pitfalls when he made the movie (mainly by adding emotional depth to and expanding the characters such as Roy Batty and adding a darker more emotional storyline).
He killed Zhora and not Rachael was because Rachael wasn't one of four are on Earth illegally. Duh
True. Deckard literally had a hit list of Replicants to retire, and Rachael wasn't on it. Towards the end of the movie however, Bryant adds her to Deckard's list.
I think the detail of her being added later is pointed out better in the book... but gods the book is awful.
tirsden the book isn’t anything like the movie tho
Thing is, if we want to follow correct procedure. Replicants were banned from Earth. The sentence was: Death. This was called...
AudieHolland RETIREMENT
1:16 Hate to break it to you but Tower Records actually still exists in Japan :D I know... I was stunned too
So.. Un.. Fair...
And in Ireland ;)
me2olive
Dude it's a joke. He even sinned Coca Cola for not having modern logo.
me2olive
I've been here for around 3 years. Almost everything he mentions in these videos is a joke. That's what the channel basically is. It's glaringly obvious.
so does Zima
5:52 *The power of booty is greater than the power of duty.
Carl Catron yES
Maybe there should be a "Tour Of Booty" game, where you have to navigate the mean streets, avoid pimps and other calamities, to get to the prize?
"But the prize"...ua-cam.com/video/rh2br8CUWbM/v-deo.html
The power of booty is greater than the call of duty.
Who thinks Rachael is hot?? Cuz i do ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I'm going to have to sin you for not taking some sins off for the tears in rain speech
Agreed. The genius and iconic stature of that line deserves at least 5 sins off.
I concur. That soliloquy is classic cinema. ~_~
Yeah, I was waiting to see what he would have to say about that scene and was disappointed
Agreed
Especially since it was improvised...
1 million sins added to Cinema Sins for sinning Blade runner.
Blade runner is one of the most ridiculous movies I ever watched lol
@@Hegemonicmarxism By ridiculous you mean good or bad?
@@shibinmathew1557 I didn't like it.
@@Hegemonicmarxism Mee too. Overrated, boring. Absolutely hated it
@@shibinmathew1557 Agree, it'ss one of the very few movies I couldn't watch until the end. Very boring!
That moment where Deckard is drinking from the shot glass (12:30) and some blood mixes into the drink deserves a sin off!
7:44 if it is the first time in cinema, then is not a cliché
I'm pretty sure he was aware of that.
The first instance of a sin is possibly the greatest sin of all. Since it is the source.
Your grammer should be a sin
hahaha... yeah
Well that's not in the least bit ironic.
9:29 Cinemasins describes cyberpunk in a sentence and calls it a sin for a cyberpunk movie to... be cyberpunk.
Ding.
Draukagrissah Cyberpunk is a seriously awesome genre, and it seems a realistic vision of the future to me.
Draukagrissah 'cyberpunk' is a term millennials use to describe everything made before 1990. A catch-all phrase used by the ignorant so as to make them appear intelligent to their equally-ignorant millennial friends.
JediPeaceFrog hmm i don't think you know the definition of cyberpunk
Pixl Reality cyberpunk is an "aesthetic" for a movie/novel etc. similar to film noir.
JediPeaceFrog is trying to be edgy. Instead, he just reveals that he talks out his ass. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say it. Cyberpunk is science-fiction that portrays advanced technology during a time of social collapse and the breakdown of society.
While I often agree with a Cinema Sins, half of these “sins” seem to miss the point of the film direction.
Jonathan Garcia Yup! I thought so, too.
That's something I noticed about all of their videos recently.
What? No sins removed for that beautiful little monologue Roy had at the end? That scene is so nicely played it deserved at least 5 sins removed.
Because narration. They always sin narration.
All dialogue is narration to CS. Sin the exposition! Sin the poetry! Wait why is a chatacter doing a thing?
Also, sin the mimes.
Rutger Hauer deserved everything for that.
Cinemasins has seen things you people wouldn’t believe
Shitty insults on the shoulder of the coment section
Films so bad, they deserve their own parking space.
Quite an experience to finds sins isn’t it? That’s what it is to be an asshole!
Lucas de Abreu like a video in the sea of content
Like piss in rain
(0:35) What planet are you from? Those are obviously flare stacks from an oil refinery, implying that's an industrial area. Those existed since before 1982 and we still have them today. Read a book!
You can also see them at the beginning of "The Blues Brothers."
horaciosi Yeh, it was one of those “sins” where it felt like he had to find something to (unsuccessfully) nit pick to move the critique along. It’s one of the “sins” that felt forced. Thanks for pointing this one out.
I’ve seen them in New York lol
@@northshore1000 bruh almost every sin here feels forced
Well it can be said that cinema sins missed the point of blade runner entirely.
Are the sins explained in the movie?
Seems like it can be said that you missed the point of cinema sins too *ding*
@Christina Reynolds I believe he said that specifically because she's a sexbot, not because she's a woman. What's the point of subterfuge in this instance?
reading through these comments people seem to be dunces....i mean cinemaSIns I think is obviously in the vein of humor not fucking film critique.
I think he's right about the Deckard being a replicant thing.
"so advanced and so dilapitaded"
thats basically what cyberpunk is defined by
Tyrell explained why Roy Batty's lifespan was so short, actually, if you're paying attention. "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long", and all that jazz. I'd say it's a sin for being a bit too buried in obscurity, but it's still in there. As for Decker being a replicant, like the synths of Fallout 4, it's just as easy to consider the possibility that Decker had already been replaced some time prior, and was already approaching the end of his own lifespan. It is also possible that Decker was a purchased tool of the LA police department, as a replicant built to hunt replicants, and like James Bond, simply gets replaced whenever he craps out. It could explain why Origami-silly-man knows of his particular issues, and why Decker's eyes do the reflective pupils thing on more than a few occasions in the film.
Not a bad theory
*I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tennhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain* Ok, *THIS* moment right here is worth at least two sins off. One for the writing and one for Hauer's performance.
Wasn't in the final script. But yes, one of the best monologues in movie history.
Hauer also wrote most of the speech himself.
Guys, I know. hence the "at least two sins off". :) He wrote it (writing) and delivered it (performance)
...and another one for the track playing.
Would have been better to, you know...see the things he saw rather than be named dropped a bunch of irrelevant and meaningless allusions.
01:28 Movie Critic criticizes physical newspaper as being outdated and unrealistic when physical newspapers were still used in November 2019.
In regards to it sounding like Roy always speaks in poetry, thats how Rutger chose to play him - as a philosopher and poet. Roy was only 4 years old so how is anyone to understand the way words form in his head? He had humanity above his design.
izziemercury 3 years old*
Thank you! I'm getting rather agitated at how he hates on wonderful films like this, and gushes over movies like "Get out." Not saying the movies are similar, but still.
CinemaSins is being deliberately obtuse.
*Holy shit that guy has an EAGLE ON HIS HEAD*
This CinemaSins blatantly ignores all the dialogue about Blade Runner being a world with artificial animals. That is why the owl's behavior can be regulated, that is why people recognize snake-makers, and that is why there are random “animals” being herded around.
Pan-Am was one of the largest airlines in the US for over 50 years. It was also mentioned in another famous sci-fi movie you may have heard of, 2001: A Space Odyssey. And even though the company is now gone, it was mentioned in Blade Runner 2049 - likely more for continuity than anything else.
"This movie thought Pan Am would still be a thing in 2019."
Blade Runner 2049 thought Pan Am would still be a thing in 2049.
It also thought Atari would be a thing in 2019. But that one didn't get sinned for some reason.
I can't believe you did not take sins off for that "Tears in Rain" monologue.
Jonathan Caro Cinnamon Sins doesn't know good cinema obviously.
Right!!!! I was waiting for it
Scott Reacher they have said they have sined some of their fav movies. Its all in good funm
I came here to comment the same thing
Jonathan Caro What is that?
1:17 That one didn't age quite so well
Smoke while not smoking. Don't U know that there are idiots who light cigarettes & leave them smoking in the tray w/out actually putting them to the lips?
I'm guilty of that when I'm playing video games lol
This was more common in 1982, when cigarettes were less expensive
"Hurr Durr theres no point with Roy toying with Decker." Except maybe he wants Decker to feel hunted like an animal?
Asuka Langley Deckard
Paraphrasing here:
Quite an experience to live in fear...
Now you know how it feels to be a slave.
He's forcing Decker to experience what it feels like to be hunted and live in fear.
That Tears in Rain scene removes at least 10,000 sins. Best fucking scene in film history.
And as if CinemaSins says the Hauer overacts in the film smfh. Absolutely legendary performance.
No
it doesn't.
The dialogue
is so
in-
I remember seeing this in 82 in Seattle, Wa. I just loved it. Movies are supposed to take you somewhere and this movie sure did. All those slow moments and, according to this critic long wasted shots of the city from above are why i love this movie. I cannot believe he does not feel these things when he watches movies like this. Especially one so far ahead of everything else for it's time. What does he feel? Can he feel? Maybe he is a Nexus 6! It would explain a lot! Definitely not a Roy model. More like a Fielding Mellish!
I hated it the first time I saw it; now it's my favorite film.
I agree completely. What I find annoying is how much Zoomers are enamored with the sequel when it looks totally flat and lifeless compared to this genius low-budget film. If you watch this one enough you can see they used the same city block over and over from different angles to create that whole world (not including the amazing flyover scenes). You end up seeing the same neon signs all the way through the movie.
I watched it for the first time yesterday. I love the world the movie takes place in. I hate the story and the acting from Harrison Ford is horrible. His voice-over thoughts are embarrassingly bad. The interrogation scene with Leon is beautifully shot. But, in this scene, Leon mentions that he's already been through an IQ test this year, but he was hired within the last 3 days. I never knew when the movie was going to end, as there was no build-up at all. He just kills the replicants - movie over. How come our MC isn't better at his job? Any worse and he would've died within the first day - If he's the best, it's because he's the only one left. Why are the replicants so much stronger than humans if they were created to be as close to them as possible? I might have missed this, but how did the MC figure out that the stripper was a Replicant? He was out drinking, tryna get the love-interest out to the bar - next scene he's annoying a stripper.
@@IBreatheIngame the stripper had the tattoo on her face, like the girl he zoomed in on in the photo. Trying to kill him I guess was confirmation...
@@IBreatheIngamefool
Watched this again today in honor of Rutger Houer. RIP
7:18 You add a sin because Deckard dreams of a unicorn, and you were not sure why.
Actually, the choice of unicorn is important. Notice there is an animal reference to all the main characters: Tyrell = Owl (knowledge); Leon = Tortoise (Slow); Pris = Cat (affectionate but sometimes dangerous); Zhora = Snake; Rachel = Spider (spider mother is eaten by it's children, just as rachel's identity is erased by her memories being taken away); Roy Batty = Dove (wants to make peace with humans at the end, by choosing not to kill Deckard); And finally, Deckard = Unicorn, because that is a non-existent animal, hinting that he subconsciously knows he is not real. You should remove a sin for the subtle layer of animal symbolism.
he should really remove his channel and scratch around in the desert with the Palestinians.
I feel like you were a little over-critical on this one. Not because it's a perfect movie, it's got a lot of flaws, but some stuff is implied that you just glance over or maybe didn't notice. Like the "how much can a real snake cost?" A lot, apparently. The owl in Tyrell's office is artificial, and he's got berjillions of dollars. Or, like, the food cart lady with the electron microscope that IDs the scale? Yeah, that's obviously in a market where they make and sell artificial animals. We don't actually see anyone eating at the fish/shark food cart, I think it's just a shop that sells replicant fish for pets and what have you. The ostriches presumably are fakes, too.
yea, generalizing on an opinion based on facts is a lot smarter. good noggin-thinkin strokergoon
I agree, I didn't think it was a food cart either. One thing he seems to imply is that it's the future and everything is still looking crappy. Yeah that's the point. Just because it's the future, the veiwer actually expects things to be perfect... everything must be shiny, chrome and clean and 😁? Yeah, like, in time, which sucked, or The Host, which also sucked.
So what about the Terminator? That didn't take place in a shiny, clean, chrome future setting, neither did any Mad Max film, or Akira, or Ghost in the Shell, 1984, V for Vendetta, Snow-Piercer, Brazil, even in the Matrix everything is already destroyed! Maybe THAT'S the point. Maybe the director is trying to say that there is no future, at least not like the ones we imagined. If there is, it'll either be artificial or not real like the matrix, or that unicorn dream, (which maybe was a reflection of the implanted memories talk he had with the lady) or it is real, but it's out of the reach of the characters due to socioeconomic status affecting certain boundaries and lifestyles around the lower class and upper class because of all the things in the future, that system has become advanced enough to stratify the social classes. I mean this is basic world-building 101. I like cinemasins jokes and playful banter, but if he's just sinning a nior sci-fi film for not having enough big budget action set pieces, and big explosive junk in your face, then he's just gonna be shallow in things that just bother him, his jokes won't come off as smart, just mildly funny to those expecting a bit more from him, and hilariously genius to those who have no idea what is going on.
It is an earth ruined by nuclear war, there are almost no animals left and they are extremely expensive. There is a fucking book and people should read it before shitting on the blade runner world
Well when critiquing a movie adaption, you should not have to see/read the source material. Saying that they should have read a book first before seeing a movie is not a valid criticism.
this is considered critique? "So basically the movie doesn't suck as bad as it actually does because you made up a bunch of shit to explain it's suckiness?" sure... also the cinema sin video has many things that are simply not true, i can understand you not knowing the universe of blade runner, but if you are going to critique something that is 30+ years old you should get your facts straight, there is no excuse for not knowing
Birthed by jared leto. So much wrong with that sentence
Starting with... it's not a sentence.
Aiden A
"Birthed by Jared Leto" can be a sentence I think. The subject is implied.
...in character from his role in "Dallas Buyer's Club"! :D
By the way, Roy saying Deckard's name comes from an early draft where Roy entered the LAPD department computers and somehow managed to learn who was tracking them. It has always bothered me, so good job sinning it!
I think it's easily implied in the movie that Roy knew about Deckard's identity through Leon' and Zhora's deaths on the same night, either their deaths made the news or he was snooping for informations about their deaths through talking to witnesses at the scene, so there's no need to even show how he got to know about Deckard's identity ... movies targeting intelligent viewers usually do not spoon feed such details as the director assumes it can be easily implied to thinking audiences without having to show it ...
@@88feji sometimes it's just a script hole.
+Xavier Conde
Not to me ... going by your logic, all movies thats ever been made would be full of a hundred plot holes simply because the director decides not to show every little things that happen ... its an artistic choice not to include certain intervening events for the sake of dramatic style .. the movie is obviously not made for kids to watch ...
Remember an earlier scene when Deckard was searching through Leon's apartment and found the photos of Zhora ? Leon knew he was there and told Roy about Deckard's presence, of course they would know Deckard's name at that point simply by talking to the landlord who let Deckard in ...
In fact its illogical for anyone to think Roy should not have known or at least tried to find out who killed 2 of his dear companions .. when he met Pris, he said "there's only 2 of us now" ... if he was not at the scene of Zhora and Leon's death, he must have got to know about their deaths from the news or from the streets, it would be crucial for him to find out who killed them so that he could guard himself better ...
@@88feji yes, movies are full of plot holes. Sometimes screenwriters don't know how to move the plot forward. Blade Runner is a good example. There are several well known plot holes. It's not a bad thing in itself, since movies have to be very concise.
For instance, why did Holden vk-test Leon? Deckard new the name (Leon Kovalski) and a photograph of Leon. So how could Holden not recognize Leon? And why would a fugitive use his real name and real address? Plot holes needed to move the plot forward.
Of course one can always think of hidden reasons or possible reasons that are consistent, like "Holden wasn't given that information yet, it arrived afterwards". Or maybe is a plot hole.
@@88feji And regarding the scene were Deckard visits Leon's apartment. Originally Leon was supposed to be hiding in the roof of the bathroom,hence hearing Deckard and Gaff. However a new scene was inserted were an actor (doubling for Ford) finds a snake scale. The deleted "Leon in the roof of the bathroom" scene can be found in dvd. So how did Leon find out about policemen in his apartment? In the original scene, he knew because he was hiding in the bathroom. In the revised scene, we can only suppose he talked to the landlord.
How 'bout sinning Netflix Original movies?
The sin tracker would break. LOL
Also, more difficult to get a copy of if they’re not release on blu-ray
I only eat Brains, Dummy There would be a Sin Counter 3.0 lol
Stoatwarbler Mangrove They're not all THAT bad
No Everything Wrong With MLP Movie (1986) for the new one?
"This is why no one should ever be forced to wear a necktie. You just never know when a replicant stripper is going to suddenly try and choke you out." is officially my reason to refuse wearing a tie at work from now on.
"I'm still stuck inside this owl's brain, he gotta be thinking aww shit it's hunting time."😂😂
In 1980, Ridley Scott, absolutely blasted on scotch, picked up a copy of Electric Sheep. He opened the book at random and read a couple pages, then sat down and immediately wrote a movie script in under 20 minutes. He then spent an obscene amount of money on visual effects for this movie, then spent 30 years editing it. Some of the resulting cuts of the film have been called a masterpiece, depending on who you ask.
i saw in the theater and actually like the voice over version ...
I miss the old sin counter, straight from the go sin counter.
I haven't really been paying attention. What changed with the new sin counter?
Random American it died in one of the previous EWW vids. The one for Fast and furious 8 at the specific moment that The Rock singlehandedly diverted a missile with his hands
7:46 Blade Runner literally started the "zoom and enhance" cliche.
Plumes from buildings imply future, unknown tech. Maybe they use geothermal energy belching gas from way below ground. Pacing is fine, the director is a visual artist.
Luf knuht
OMG. If you're going to post 30 freaking posts at least get your facts straight. That's a refinery and the plumes of fire are off-gassing. It's a normal process
I’ve seen one in New York
This video should be zero seconds long.
Blade Runner is known as a severely flawed masterpiece.
I know it is my favourite movie of all time.i don’t know how they could criticise a masterpiece like this.
James Smith it should be all the seconds long this movie is trash
Jared Tucker you’re an idiot
I think if you watch the video, you'll find it shouldn't.
hard to enjoy this since we all frickin love Blade Runner....
earthwatcher2012 ) there is no film that everyone loves.
Watched Blade Runner thought it was just okay.
@@seang2700 I SPEAK FOR EVERYONE
I highly agree as a sci fi fanatic, I found this video slightly offensive. But hey, people have different opinions right? Overall, my dad loves the movie and I do too. Frickin love the cars too!!
The "Purge" computer graphic at 2:01 is the same one used in the original Alien movie when the escape-pod separates from 'Mothership'.
Computer graphics at the time must have been expensive and had to be recycled! ;)
"It's super advanced AND super dilapidated at the same time!"
Almost like it's part of an ENTIRE GENRE CALLED CYBERP-
ah, forget it.
Look, I know this is a comedy channel, and not to take it seriously, but the tendency to sin things that aren't sins, you just don't get what's going on, is becoming abrasive lately.
The bit of music that inspired you to compliment Vangelis is not by Vangelis. It's a traditional Japanese song, "Ogi No Mato," from the album "Traditional Vocal and Instrumental Music." It's diegetically part of Deckard's world (it's being broadcast from the blimp) and so not technically part of the soundtrack.
"Centering" something brings it to the exact middle based on the dimensions of the image. Pulling back means to zoom out. Those seem like pretty straight forward actions for a voice activated technology to comprehend.
You didn't understand what was wrong with the centring. Watch again.
Super advanced AND super dilapidated is literally the definition of Cyberpunk. You need to remove that sin there bud.
Something is the definition of something else so it's excusable?
wtf are you talking about?? Cyberpunk is high tech meets low life, are you going to sin LotR for being a fantasy?
Haha, no; he said "super" for a reason. I personally like the style, i'm saying that your argument doesn't hold up.
You only watch for the UA-cam poop style ending? The "criticisms" are never meant to be taken seriously and are often quite funny e.g. the questions sin in this video.
Don't bring UA-cam poop into this. That style of editing is pathetic mostly and a waste of time. The end card stuff is just changing out audio, nothing else.
A) RIP Rutger Hauer
B ) you nit picked the film terribly
This film was way ahead of its time. One of my favs
This is from a parody and entertainment standpoint, hes an asshole on purpose
Who's here in honor of Rutger Hauer's passing?
Right here. Can't believe Roy Batty died in 2019 and Rutger Hauer died, well... This is double sad.
CinemaSins doesn't understand cyberpunk and has no patience *ding*
No, the old generation of replicants felt emotion and couldn't deal with it, especially the horror of only living 4 years of instantly adult life.
They gave them memories so they could process those emotions and live as happy little slaves.
They forgot to.mention that screen was used in alien!!
And what's wrong with newspapers?? You can read any newspaper now virtually online but you can still buy printed version?!
“Not really about the movie but this reminds me of my wife’s grandmother...”
*sins anyways*
Wait, why isn’t this video 0 minutes long
Because no movie is without sin.
“Lemme tell you bout my mother..>:•D”
This guy must have the epitome of mommy issues! XD
13:00, you're not sinning the super rapey scene that comes right after?
Honestly, I think the only reason that scene becomes a bit "rapey", and loses much of the "a replicant exploring her humanity", is because of Ford's acting.
Katrina L: Let’s not short-change Scott’s direction when we’re thinking about what goes wrong in that scene.
JP Robson: Deckard relates to her as though she’s human, is the thing, and the movie treats replicants as people all the way through.
Deckard is really the bad guy, after all...
But he'll sin the Hades landscape. The destructive nature of humankind, asserting dominance over a beautiful world it doesn't own.
> "Some flimsy reason"
pfft
Did it ever occur to you that there WAS a real life Deckard who was replaced by a replicant? After all, replicants get their memory implants from real people, and Deckard was supposed to have been off the job for a while. In the sequel, it's implied that he was always supposed to meet Rachael and programmed to fall in love with her. He's also supposed to be from the newest, most experimental line of replicants at this time, which means he couldn't even be a few years old by this point. It makes more sense that they replaced the real Deckard with a few month old replicant that has all of his memories than to say that everyone in the police force is in on it.
In the book when Deckard is VK testing Zhora she says, "Maybe there was once a Human who looked like you and somewhere along the line you killed him and took his place. And your superiors don't know." Actually, there's several bits like this in the book, but since it never states plainly that Deckard is anything but Human, everybody misses/ignores it.
I can't wait for someone to start watching Cinemasins and go "wait why is it sin counter 2.0".
DeNile Reid Wait, why is it sin counter 2.0?
the sin counter died on the furious 7 vid
Marvin Carter It was not furious 7 it was fate of the furious (furious 8)
Vlad Dascaliuc Fate of the furious movie had so many sins and had so much bs in it the sin counter broke. All logic goes out the window when four+ cars can block a nuclear residual explosion from hitting one man
Mike Oye Yeah, just saw that. No wonder it survived the 50 Shades of Grey """"movie"""".
Jeremy, Holden wasn't killed by Leon. The chief tells Deckard later he's in the hospital in critical condition. I think in, like, a comatose state.
1:17 that “sin” aged just as poorly as your channel
I think the implication is that all bladerunners are replicants (So that's why the LAPD was in on it) and the Deckard is special because Tyrell secretly made him a next gen replicant.
This is one of those movies that I've only ever watched stoned. I've seen it a handful of time and I don't think I've ever been sober.
0:33 Gas pipelines blowing fire IS realistic. I live in LA and that's my view out of my bedroom window. Sometimes the fire is different colored like green, nothing wakes you up like a green fireball at night.
Because massive futuristic urban sprawl? There are oil fields in urban LA, just not as spectacular because they're in the suburbs - www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fields-of-los-angeles/100799/
Roy doesn't use the word Father when he addresses Tyrel,he say's Fucker in the Directors Cut
But there is more violence in the final cut.
The American attitudes toward violence and naughty language are bizarre.
SpikeXtreme: Not to be a prude about details, but it's actually the opposite way around; the 1982 ORIGINAL actually has Batty deliver the line as "Fucker", the 2007 director's cut has it changed to "Father" (I have no idea what the earlier 1992 director's cut does for this line since I've never seen it; not to go off-topic, but does anyone know why the fuck "Prometheus" includes a parody of this line besides the fact it was also directed by Ridley Scott!?). Also, if haven't figured it out already, this EWW was based on the 2007 director's cut- this is screamed at slightly by the inclusion of the Unicorn dream scene.
For whatever reason, with the director's cuts of this film, Scott decided to go down the path of "Fewer obscenities, more violence". Also, nobody ever talks about this, but for those paying attention, they cut out the Engrish with the sushi maker for '07 cut as well ("You Blade Runner!" is no longer mispronounced as "You BRAID Runner!" in this version after he tells Dekard that Gaff is arresting him in the beginning of the film).
he says fucker in every cut i've ever watched.
That's a lot of Sins...."Bladerunner" still the number one movie of all time on my list tho.
Number 1 huh. Ok I like your ranking. How do you feel about Shawshank Redemption though?
@whocaress no I'm not sure what claim you think I made lol.
@@TheStranger513 Shawshank is awesome, too. Any time I run across it on TV I have to finish watching it.
Its on top of my all time list of Greatest Movie EVER Made too ... its one of the rare movies I never got tired of rewatching for decades and even till now I still manage to find new symbolic details the director intentionally hide in the movie that no one else (not even fans) mention anywhere ...
Like I've never heard anyone talk about the elephant foot lamp shade made of Cpt Bryant's photos sitting on his office desk ... that implies that he is possibly a replicant too like Deckard ... no one mention this suspicion anywhere !
(replicants like Deckard, Roy and Rachel all share a strange obsession with photographs in the movie ...)
15:51 - I actually thought the reason Roy was toying with Decker was because he never really intended to kill (or even mutilate) him; he even saves him from falling at the end. I thought the ending was trying to make him out to be less a stereotypical villain and more a tragic anti-hero who teaches Decker to value all life & live it to the fullest.
There's a lot of channels I don't watch every video of, but I will always watch CinemaSins.
Do SpaceBalls
Commander Cody my life would be complete
There is nothing wrong with spaceballs
Commander Cody space jam
Making fun of a parody doesn't work well. The sins format and parody need something that takes itself seriously, to play off of, be funny.
Commander Cody Ask cinema*wins*... I kinda wanna imagine how it would be, but I dunno what the movie is about.
This review is like listening to someone complain that they hate Beethoven because they cant dance to it.
Are the sins explained in the movie?
In 2022 Brandon Fraser stars in a movie again :D
I love this movie so much and I don't even know why. I hope the sequel turns out to be just as good.
Hahahaha...HAHAHAHA! No...it won't. Pretty much every sequel/reboot/remake based on a pre-2000 movie of the last decade was horrible. I bet even the wonderful visuals of this fine piece (don't forget that this movie was made in 1982) will be replaced with horrible CGI.
Kyle Jackson its unlikely. I would not be surprised if the sequel to this awesome film totally blows.
Ethan Redding fury road?
Maybe it won't be as good, but it can still be very good
Ethan Redding 2049 Actually has tremendous reviews......
I keep seeing bladerunner videos EVERYWHERE LMFAO
No film is without sin.........
Polly Mahone no movie is without sins, they also use sarcasm for these sins
No sin for Deckard living on the 97th floor and having a balcony wall barely higher than his kneecaps?
" *ERMAHGERD!!! WhY iS tHiS mOvIe So SlOw!!!!* " It's called ambience, setting the mood and visual storytelling, *CINEMA* Sins. Three of the many reasons why this movie is considered a masterpiece.
Its a very bad movie. The only people who like it aren't seeing it now for the first time. Just like the first star wars is a bad movie, but no can seem to realize that because of the visuals.
Lmao, I have never even seen it. Only reason I would watch it is for Sir Han Solo himself.
@Projekt:Kobra Dude, come for Han Solo....stay for Han Solo. Harrison Ford is the man.
@Projekt:Kobra Hey man, beauty and handsomeness should be appreciated!
Too much thinking for the majority of Millennials who appear to have the attention span of a goldfish.
The Deckard replicant theory is just mid-wits missing the forest for the trees. The heart of the film is that Rachel is a machine who behaves like a human, and Deckard is a human who behaves like a machine. If they’re both replicants, the film is far less interesting.
You are where I go to when I’m bored!
Keep the good work
WolfgangLMclain I just wasted 20 second of my life reading your comment how about that
The reason Roy speaks poetry was a suggestion from hauer to show that Roy is almost human
Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most visually outstanding films I have ever seen to date. A faithful sequel... its incredible. GO watch it in 3D while you can!
T-Bone i didnt like the story. Nice visuals but stupid film for me
I enjoyed the film, but thought it was completely unnecessary; Blade Runner didn't need a sequel.
But the story... meh.
Even the director of photography recommended to watch it in 2D. 3D isn't the greatest way to appreciate the visuals of a movie..
The story of Blade Runner is even more meh, I mean... COME ON! The only good thing about the story is the set up of the universe (with many of the concepts already set up in Alien), then the story of the actual movie is super stupid.
Leon didn't kill Holden. "He can breathe okay so long as nobody unplugs him." - Bryant
The hair drier is an actual hair drier and was super common in the 1970s and 80s. (I used them weekly after swimming as a kid.)
Flying cars but no smart phones. I have not seen one movie which depicts the future of everyone with their heads in smart phones, like how it actually is, but they show flying cars and things like electronic newspapers in other movies. Writers didn't make the logical connection of large computers, (which were around at the time) becoming smaller and portable
No, know what, I'm not even gonna watch this one. I'm not gonna let you ruin my favorite movie. First Shrek and now blade runner? SMH
November, 2019 here, still waiting for our Replicant robots.. and flying cars, and hoverboards that actually hover.
Here's some requests:
1. Sin Spider-Man: Homecoming
2. Sin Transformers: The Last Knight
Both terrible movies, Do you really want the sin counter to die again?
I dont think he can do them till they get video releases
spanneraol transformers already does
It’s interesting hearing him saying “by 2019” and it’s now 2022…