Blade Runner: 30 Years Later

Today marks the 30th anniversary of the film Blade Runner's release, and to celebrate I bought the deluxe 4-disc edition and watched the original U.S. theatrical cut of the film (my preferred version, with original voice over and happy ending intact). After thirty years, it holds up remarkably well.

For those who are not familiar, Blade Runner takes place in 2019 Los Angeles and tells the story of Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a detective who's job it is to hunt down and kill hyper-realistic androids called replicants who have escaped back to earth, where they are banned. I won't spoil the story for anyone who has yet to see the film, but the plot explores the implications of artificial intelligence and the question of what it means to be human. A blend of action, science-fiction, and film noir, the narrative deviates quite a bit from its source material, Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but still captures what I believe to be the true spirit of the book. Make no mistake, the film's vision of the future is not a happy one whatsoever, rife with 1980's pessimism, but as you already know or will see, everything fits.

Blade Runner, which would easily rank among my favorite films of any genre, is one that grows on you with time and subsequent viewings. This is evident by the fact that it was considered somewhat of a failure after its initial release, but gained a loyal following as time went by. A.F.I ranked it the 97th greatest movie of all time in 2007, if that's any indication. There is no CGI used in the film, which is why it holds up so well in my opinion. The special effects look legitimately real and you get lost in the look and feel of 2019 L.A., a result that was obsessively pursued by director Ridley Scott during pre-production and shooting.

In all honesty I could write for hours about Blade Runner (and did for one of my seminar term papers this past school year), but I suppose the one thing I will say on this 30th anniversary is that this film is more relevant than ever, and will continue down this path as long as man continues to push the boundaries of technology. Blade Runner has it all... action, romance, flying cars... and is truly movie-making at its best. Here's to thirty more years of appreciation.

Prometheus

With the 30th anniversary of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner coming up later this week (which I will be writing about), I thought it quite appropriate to see his new sci-fi thriller, Prometheus. Despite the ridiculous price, IMAX 3D was a must for last night's showing, and so after getting the full effect here is what I thought:

I'd been excited to see Prometheus for some time. In fact, when I first saw the trailer I thought to myself, "now here is Ridley Scott, gonna show James Cameron how its done, and no Pocahontas crap either." Needless to say I wasn't terribly far off. As a matter of fact I found the premise to this film absolutely fascinating. I don't know if it was an original screenplay or came from some book or other source material or what but its a fantastic idea to build a film around. With a core structure of steel already put in place, however, I feel they slapped on the facade in clay or plaster. The characters were somewhat flat and at times wholly irrational, to go along with acting that was just a tad unconvincing on occasion, and there were some rather large gaps in the plot. I for one didn't enjoy the enormous jump from 'we just found these cave paintings' to 'oh look, we've arrived at this planet a billion light years away' that happened in the span of about 2 minutes to the viewer with only limited explanation later. Clocking in at only a pinch over two hours, they could have elaborated on the back-story a little more.

My grievances now aired, I have to admit that I really liked this movie. The effects were absolutely gorgeous, as was Noomi Rapace (the original girl with the dragon tattoo), and Charlize Theron played a total bitch in the role I swear she was born for. I read somewhere that one of the main criticisms was that a lot of people left the theatre feeling confused, but I see this as a good thing. This movie doesn't spoon-feed you its themes. It wants to leave you thinking and asking the big questions, and there's  nothing wrong with that at all. I love a sci-fi film when its done right, and despite Prometheus' shortcomings its hard to mess up a film with a premise this intriguing. 3 stars out of 4, go see it.

*Also, having not seen Alien, I can't really comment on the similarities/differences/tie-ins etc.

The Cleve and I

Make no mistake, I am a Pittsburgh man through and through. As a sixth generation Pittsburgher, I will always call this city home no matter where I may ultimately end up. Accordingly, I am an active participant in our local pastime of hating on anyone and anything relating to our neighbor to the North, Cleveland. Last weekend, however, I entered the belly of the beast as it were to visit a good friend from Brown who lives there, and truth be told I wasn't expecting much. But, I have to give credit where credit is due, and I suppose that Cleveland is... somewhat deserving.

I won't go into details about the entire weekend because frankly that would bore even myself while proofreading, however I'll start by saying that I was very impressed by the Cleveland Museum of Art. With a rare original casting of Rodin's The Thinker out front, the museum has an enormous permanent collection. Pieces ranged from African and East Asian to Modern (the lot of which I find equally uninteresting), but the collection's high point for me was the impressive assortment of 19th Century European art, including an astonishingly beautiful Turner (The Burning of the House of Parliament), works by Frenchmen such as Gros, Ingres, David, and Millet, of the Barbizon School, and a very fine collection of paintings by the most notable Impressionist and Post-Impressionist masters, including a preliminary sketch by my personal favorite, Georges Seurat. If you have any fondness for art, or would like to gain some, the museum is a must-see.

That probably sounded pretty pretentious if you're not that familiar with art, so to move on, another highlight was the public beach we visited. I was able to lay out in the sand, swim in the relatively warm water, get sunburned, and do all the other stuff that I love to drive 500 miles for every summer, which I definitely did not expect to find in Cleveland. The skydeck atop Terminal Tower downtown afforded great views of the city and surrounding area, and of course the many attractions within the Rock and Roll H.O.F. need no introduction. Contrary to the very informative tourism video on youtube, which can be viewed by searching just that, I found most of the Cleveland neighborhoods I visited fairly pleasant, as opposed to looking like 'Scooby-Doo ghost towns', and crippling depression was at a (visible) minimum. One thing I was particularly surprised at was the vibrant nightlife I noticed downtown while going to see Greg Morton of Comedy Central at a club. By the time we left town at around midnight, the streets were still crowded and clubs were going full-tilt.

So, I suppose that Cleveland isn't so terrible after all. I had a good time at least, which is all I was looking for. Does it beat The Burgh though? Well, as Bryce Harper would say, "Thats a clown question, bro."

P.S. It was also great to get back to Pittsburgh because I missed my awesome girlfriend Lisa Liu. There's your shout-out, happy? :)

Impact of a Visionary

I was first introduced to the works of the late Ray Bradbury in 6th grade. I was 12. At the time, his collection of short stories titled The Illustrated Man were interesting side-notes to a class otherwise dominated by Jack London, Agatha Christie, and some random story about a high school baseball star raping a girl. I don't remember what that book was called, and I don't remember who the killer was on the Orient Express, but its amazing how those fantastic Bradbury stories of fantasy and future have stayed with me. Underneath the sci-fi themes were often lessons about the dangers of human nature, making the stories timeless, wherever the future takes us. 


That was Ray Bradbury's gift to the world. In a time of rapidly evolving technology, the horizons of human potential bursting at the seams, Bradbury had the courage to look ahead and imagine, and what he saw wasn't always pretty. Stories like The Veldt, Marionettes, Inc., and The City in particular warn against the improper use of technology, a subject that becomes more relevant every day. One of the most published science fiction stories of all time, A Sound of Thunder, echo's this tune. 


Of course, Bradbury is probably best remembered for his dystopian masterpiece Fahrenheit 451, named for the temperature at which paper will burst into flame. An oft misunderstood novel, its real purpose was to demonstrate the dangers of looking at snippets of information without context, a problem that plagues us in today's world of mass social media. I think it could be easily argued that Bradbury's works are more relevant today than they ever have been


Bradbury said not long ago that he wanted to be buried on Mars in a Campbell's Soup can. Somebody should make that happen. 

Iron Lady/Devil Inside

To mark the momentous occasion of my long awaited and much anticipated return to blog posting, I am doing something unique in the history of this esteemed publication. That is, I'm review two (that's right, two) new films in the same post. Please try to contain your excitement, and we will begin.

The Iron Lady

The Iron Lady, if you don't already know, is basically a biopic about the life and more important achievements of former British PM Margaret Thatcher. The film is composed of flashbacks into her early political career and time as PM, set into the framework of her life now as an aging and mentally fading symbol of British politics in the 1980's. Although the film has been criticized by some for its reliance on Thatcher's dementia as a core plot device, overall I think it is done in a justly sensitive manner and serves as a useful vehicle for the flashbacks.

One of the things I found odd about this particular film is that it depicts the life of a political leader so (relatively) recently after her time in office. For a major motion picture, I find this strange, because it seems as if this timing may trim the perspective audience. Personally, I could readily name several acquaintances who would forgo the film on principle, based on a dislike for the former PM and her policies. We mustn't forget that Thatcher is better remembered in the U.S. than other British PMs because of her close relationship with our president of the time, Ronald Reagan. In what is a very partisan country at the moment, a film chronicling a famous and controversial conservative leader is perhaps not such a good idea. Only some 20 years after her resignation, history has not yet judged the greatness of her achievements, and there are still a great many who do not think fondly of her time as PM at all.

That said, and being someone with a great interest in history, I found the picture quite enjoyable. Although the plot didn't reveal a whole lot about her early political career and rise to prominence, I thought it did do justice to her motives and principles. Of course as with any film of this nature, the lead must carry the load, and I think history has shown that you can't really go wrong with Meryl Streep. Her acting prowess is well known and there is no need for me to detail it here, so suffice to say that in that facet the film was excellent. I thought that the dialogue was, at times, spotty, and to be honest the film ends on a rather strange and slightly unfulfilled note, but overall the picture was a quality look into the life and times of a most famous and polarizing figure, and I'd recommend it if you have any interest at all in history or politics. Three stars our of four.

The Devil Inside

Now for this... attempt at a horror film. I have to admit, and some of you may be surprised to note, that this was the very first horror flick I've ever seen in theatres. I've just never had any intense desire to go see one, and even though this film only currently holds a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, I was invited to go with friends so I figured, why not?

Why not indeed...when I say this film was horrible, please do not underestimate the power of that word because it really and truly was an abominable attempt at a film. Meant to feel like a documentary (reminiscent of the Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, etc.) about a young woman who travels to Rome to see her mother, who had killed three people 20 years previous during an exorcism, this sad excuse for a horror film is not only terribly acted and written, but it is also utterly un-scary and sports one of the worst endings I have ever seen- and you do not want me to tell you how many movies I have seen. Produced on a budget of $1m, this movie was somehow picked up by Paramount, and somehow managed to gross over $46m so far, topping the box office its opening weekend.

I mean... I was actually going to type more about this movie but I just realized that I'm letting it waste even more of my time, so just listen. I don't care how much you value my opinion, but value it now, along with 94% of critics: this movie is an absolutely disgraceful waste of money and time. Try your best to forget it ever existed, as I will now begin to do. 1/2 a star out of 4.

Horrible Bosses

All right so it goes without saying that I've been a bit busy lately and haven't been writing as much as I'd like... but moving on I saw the aforementioned film the other night and thought I'd give a quick rundown of why I think its worth seeing. 

I had read reviews before the movie came out, and they were all fairly glowing, praising the acting and the clever plot, the USA Today, I believe it was, even billing Horrible Bosses as this generation's Office Space. Though I wouldn't go nearly that far, I would describe the movie as quite funny and entertaining. The plot, for those who are unfamiliar, is that three friends (Jason Sudeikis, Jason Bateman, and Charlie Day)  each work for bosses (Colin Farrell, Kevin Spacey, and Jennifer Aniston) who they despise, and feel that they could do well without. Eventually, the hypothetical death of these bosses becomes an actual plan, the attempted execution of which provides the bulk of the action. With clever writing and the benefit of an engaging plot coupled with a situation that audiences are able to relate to (having bad bosses, not killing them of course), I believe the movie deserves the praise that it is getting, and is an above-average summer comedy. 

The thing is though... its no Office Space. For one, the movie in large part relies on lewd language and overtly explicit sexual references to fuel its humor, all stuff that is good in moderation but can't constitute the bulk of an exceptional comedy. Its good for quick laughs, but isn't endearing by any means. Also, although one can certainly relate to the main characters (who's notoriety is pathetic compared to a supporting cast including Farrel, Aniston, Spacey, and also Jamie Foxx and Donald Sutherland), one also finds them somewhat loser-ish. Even though this adds to some of the humor, I found it hard to sympathize with the often naive and cowardly would-be murderers. But, those weak spots are only reason why I don't think this movie is a great comedy; its still a very good one, which I give 3 stars out of 4 and recommend seeing if you'd like some quality laughs.     

Well Done, Obama

Those that know me personally can attest to the fact that you won't hear me saying those words very often. In light of the recent killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, however, I have to take my hat off to the president and commend him for making the right call when it counted most. A lot of people on the far right, before the events of last weekend, were probably thinking that if given the chance, Obama would have attempted to capture bin Laden alive, bring him to the states, give him a civilian trial, grant him the rights of a U.S. citizen, etc, etc. Quite to the contrary, Obama ordered him killed, keeping U.S. forces from unnecessary danger and giving bin Laden what he undoubtedly had coming to him. I believe this sent a message, if it wasn't evident before, that keeping America safe is the President's top priority.


The main criticism of the operation is that U.S. forces moved into Pakistan to conduct the raid. To this, I would say that from the very beginning Pakistan has been somewhat of an unwilling ally in the war on terror. When the most wanted man on the planet is living thirty miles from a Pakistani military base, and mysteriously no one knows about it, something isn't right. It is quite obvious that there are members of the Pakistani government and military that were and are sympathetic to bin Laden's cause, therefore the only way to be sure of his elimination was to move in ourselves. 


So ya, like I said, good call Obama.    

The United States' Diplomatic Dilemma

As you have probably noticed, the Islamic world is in the midst of an exciting, violent, and uncertain period. Starting with protests in Tunisia, the fervor spread to Egypt, perhaps the most publicized case, and then to other countries like Bahrain, Libya, and most recently Morocco, Yemen, and Iran (did I miss any?). Opinions vary on  protesters' actions and government responses, but what I want to focus on is the difficult time the U.S. State Department is having with the recent developments, and in particular how the U.S. is balancing the need to appear fully behind democracy while still supporting its decidedly un-democratic allies in the region. 

Let's look for a second at Egypt. After the assassination of Anwar Sadat about thirty years ago, Hosni Mubarak took over and proved to be a consistent ally of the U.S. in a region where allies are few and far between, considering the situation with Israel. Now, a "president" does not stay in power for thirty years without some heavy-handed tactics at the polls, but where the U.S. would normally issue statements encouraging voting reforms and U.N. involvement in elections, we looked the other way in Egypt. Why? Because Mubarak and his corrupt, inefficient government were the only things standing in the way of Islamic fundamentalists taking control of the country. And why was this such a concern? Think about it; when your village is having trouble getting clean drinking water and the government won't lift a finger, the only group to turn to is your local Muslim Brotherhood chapter (this put into layman's terms). Now, perhaps I haven't explained it as eloquently as I could have, but the fact is that these groups are active in communities, getting things done for the people when the government bureaucracy is too inept. This wins them support that, despite their motives, is well earned. 

So, when protests for real democracy flare up in Egypt, what is the U.S. to say? Well, in the State of the Union Address, the president referenced the protests in Tunisia by stating that the U.S. supports democracy abroad, etc.. So the White House will immediately issue a statement in support of the protesters, right? Not so, for unlike in Tunisia, Egypt is in danger of falling into the wrong hands and borders Israel and holds control over the Suez Canal, a.k.a the place where all the oil comes through. In truth, the U.S. would much rather have had Mubarak stay than see a truly democratic Egypt. The White House walked the diplomatic tight-rope of not hanging Mubarak out to dry while also not appearing to discourage the protesters. Quite Bismark-esque, I would venture.   

The exact same situation seems to be happening in Bahrain. Protests there against the royal family turned violent recently as the government sent riot police in to crack down on the protesters, killing many in the scrum. Shame! Condemnation! But wait, the U.S. and the Bahraini royal family are great allies, and we have a large naval base in the country, our largest military foothold in the Persian Gulf! So, some ho-humming in Washington, a statement from the White House, not even a slap on the wrist really. Why? Because democracy, the great light of the world, is simply not in the U.S.' interests. 

It is also interesting to note that the exact opposite of this situation is true with the protests happening in Libya and Iran. The State Department, I believe it was, even went so far as to set up a Twitter account to send out revolutionary messages of support in Farsi to the people of Iran. They are all-for democracy in those places, because there is nothing the U.S. would like more than to see Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad get ousted. 

But all of that explaining aside, I suppose the main thing I'd like you to take away from this piece is that even though the U.S. more or less claims to support democracy over tyranny and corruption in all cases everywhere, It really doesn't, and I found that interesting and felt the need to point it out. This is no new revelation, I'm merely shedding some light on the more recent examples. Are the concerns of Egypt becoming a fundamentalist Islamic state like Iran well-founded? Perhaps..and perhaps not...this and other more opinionated matters, like should the U.S. actually support democracy unconditionally, or should we at least stop lying about supporting it, you may take up with me personally.