Cinema Experts

“It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?”
This film is probably the most brilliant science-fiction film ever made and it works on many levels. The film is a view of a terrible society. The opening scene of Blade Runner is a brilliant vision of dystopia. Fireballs fly upwards from a bed of lights into a black sky, huge chimneys release pollution and neon lights light up huge advertisements. This oracle of the city of Los Angeles in 2019 appears more like hell than earth. It is a post-apocalyptic concept on excessive capitalism and the blunders of the technological age that reveals itself clearly in the representation of buildings as virulent growths. The street level is crowded, dirty, and congested and gives us a brilliant example of the often-questioned `cyberpunk' milieu. Punks, midgets and other weird and wonderful people wander the streets, a lot of them being Asian giving the impression of the technological Tokyo gone mad.
Blade Runner is a very philosophical film. Roy Batty, played by Rutger Hauer, leads a team of androids (or in the film's terms, replicants) who arrive in Los Angeles from the Off-World colonies in order to face the head of their manufacturer, the huge Tyrell Corporation. Replicants are limited to a four year life span and this group of them want to find a way to extend their intentionally restricted life-spans. Replicants are not allowed on earth under penalty of death. They are hunted by Rick Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, who belongs to a special police unit known as Blade Runners that hunt down replicants. The many questions it asks are, `What does it mean to be human?' `What separates humans from technology?' and ultimately, `What is the meaning of life?'. The film asks these questions but doesn't answer them (because these are unanswerable questions) and leaves the viewer to decide for himself.
In my opinion, the director's cut is the superior film. The `original' film (the director's cut is the true original, it was the film that was meant to be until they decided to add a voice-over and happy ending) is a lot less poignant and it forces the viewers to make decisions but it is still an excellent commentary on society.
Blade Runner is a sophisticated and complex film, memorable both in style and substance. It has so many aspects that can be discussed that I haven't gone through here such as the religious imagery, the iconography, the representation of race and the technology. The cinematography is so brilliant, each shot is good enough to be made into a poster, the acting is top notch, the inspired story is brilliant and a huge talking point and the Vangelis score works very well. It is an important film in the development of cinema, too, because it is the first identifiable `cyberpunk' movie and it has developed a massive cult following.
If you are not someone who naturally enjoys contemplating such themes, the film's brilliance may be lost on you. The climax involves a soliloquy that brings many of the themes together in a simple yet wonderfully poetic way. Anyone who "gets" the film should be moved by this; others will sadly miss the point and may prefer watching some mindless action flick instead.A masterpiece that deserves recognition and long remembrance in film history... 10/10

“Napalm, son. Nothing in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory…”
Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now is a pure example of method filmmaking. It is the true craftmanship of an essential filmmaker. The art direction, editing and sound effects are partially a small fragment which makes this film classical and memorable. What drives the integrity and semblance of the film is the storyline, acting and inner message. The inner message evidently enough is that war is hell, or in other words, hell is war. Not many directors have the ambition or the true courage to establish such a well-defined piece of art. European filmmakers wouldn't have the slightest problem of directing the film or throw in their personal feelings about the war. What is most interesting is that an American filmmaker spoke his style and the style of the film's collaborators through the continuance of the film.
The plot is fairly simple and brief, adapted by Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness. Martin Sheen plays the role of Captain Willard, a war-torn character who does not see any hope in life or humanity anymore. He has a mission and it is to capture a presumed Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has fabricated an army of existensial soldiers on the outskirts of the Cambodian jungle. Throughout the film we encounter astonishing sequences. The most unforgettable is the dawn helicopter attacks. Robert Duvall's character Colonel Kilgore is a steady and firm example of the basic American army brain: to search and destroy and then destroy some more if it includes yourself. The children walk about the playground, oblivious to any danger. The helicopters come into view from the dawning sea; millions of sprinkle reflect from the water, we hear the helicopter's engines roar from the horizon and soon enough we are stuck in a messy attack. Throughout the sequence we hear Wagner's 'Ride Of The Valkyries'. It is method filmmaking. The starting sequence is as fascinating as the rest of the movie; a beautiful scene of palm trees blowing in the ragged wind and seconds away from being inflamed with a carpet bombing. Let's not forget the scene where the soldiers of the boat in which Sheen travels in, stop an innocent upcoming boat, suspecting them to be VietCongs and carrying artilleries. Then they spark off a heavy scene of shooting in which all of the passengers of the boat are pulverised to pieces with their crops and food savaged in the atrocity.
This film has its famous moment, some better to be kept quiet about until they come through the screen. It doesn't require any intellectual understanding, although the film is intellectually remarkable. The American soldiers in the Vietnam War jumped into the land of a fresh governmental country, aiming to protect themselves and in the end only received death and chaos for their troops and for the majority of the country they were fighting against. It was a war gone mad, like all other wars, without purpose or dignity. It was a pure act of humanity: to destroy and restore their own greedy needs. This is a film in which there is no saviour, where it is hardly possible to find hope in the gloomiest corners and where all surroundings are plagued with the infatuations of greed, anger, foolishness and egoism. As Coppola once said about the film: 'This film isn't about Vietnam. This film IS Vietnam'. He was right to the date. During the current situations of the world, where they are trying to protect their own skin, the world should try to analyse this film as much as possible and wonder about what it is trying to represent. It is a film which does not ask for applause or damnation. It asks for realism… 10/10