Tarantino is just an Mtv generation nerd who makes films for other mtv generation nerds. That much is so true and is barely deniable even if you do like his movies.

But the Godfather is just plain boring; well acted, dramatic, impressive scope but ultimately uninteresting. Not actually god awful as that would be a description best held for something like Universal Soldier 2 but not worthy of it's reputation.

And Blade Runner is a very good lead actor performance mixed in with the odd compelling scene and alot of slow, tedious filler in between.

Actually, as I think about it some more, that could be a description for many movies directed by Ridley Scott.

Blade Runner has at least six or seven great performances in it. I suppose it's pretty heavy going but it's got enough quality to hang the self-seriousness on.

Ridley Scott's very hit and miss. Seems to jump on a lot of weak concepts and scripts.

6 or 7?

Yup: obviously Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer, but also Sean Young, guy who plays P.T. Barnum in Deadwood (can never remember his name), and guy who plays "Leon". Ok maybe only five

I would say one great and one good. I know that they are important but I'm not too hot on overanalysing the performances of lesser characters. Gladiator, for instance, is all about the Crowe/Phoenix dynamic even though there are some cracking turns from the support in that too.

Much like Blade Runner, Gladiator can be strangely dull and I didn't like it the first time I saw it but enjoyed it alot the second time. Some people say the same about Blade Runner, but i've seen that many times and just really don't enjoy it.

Your opinion of a proper movie can often be dependant on your mood which is why I give them another chance (in case anyone is wondering why I would watch a film I didn't like several times).

I know the soundtrack like the back of my hand but the reason why is a story for another day.

(unless of course we already had this conversation and you know full well why.)

Captain wrote:

I don't like Blade runner; one of those 'classics' that I just find rather boring. Not as much as Godfather which is a god awful trilogy of films in my opinion.

I don't think I've ever met anyone who's agreed with me on those two points before.

I'm not even entirely sure why I don't like them. Maybe it's because both of them are based on books that were written in a certain way that just didn't adapt well. They're both slow and boring without having enough depth in the plot to justify it at least. I can get why some people appreciate Blade Runner for its visual qualities, especially if you're interested in architecture (the Bradbury Building shot towards the end is amazing). Douglas Trumbull is definitely one of the biggest aesthetic geniuses the film business has ever seen. I recommended a movie of his a while back on A-M called "Silent Running" which people really should check out.

For me the entire world in Blade Runner became too peripheral though. It felt like it just passed me by in the background while Ridley Scott was more interested in zooming in on people's hands and making sure that he got the money shots right than he was in exploring the setting and the themes of the story. It's empty mise-en-scéne for a lack of a better phrase. The script is a bit of a disaster too which is probably down to the numerous rewrites and the fact that Scott didn't even read the novel. Sure it has several existential points but so does the book and that one managed to keep the slave theme intact because Dick didn't care whether he offended people with his liberal views on race. It was sort of the point with the story. I'm not saying an adaptaton must work exactly like the original material it's build upon, but in my opinion you either imitate something or you do somethine new altogether. Blade Runner does neither.

Reasons to like Blade Runner:

• some of the most quotable lines in sf film history
• the most influential mix of noir and sf aesthetics - cyberpunk's most important text
• brilliant actualisation of the classic cop / crim duality

Calling it "empty mise-en-scéne" is a bit absurd Klaus. It's a little short on characterisation - like most noir, so's Raymond Chandler after all - but it's thematically rich. The verisimilitude of the word is a peripheral item because it's a symbolic, not a documentary piece. To the extent that it's premise-based fiction the premise is explored philosophically, not materially - there's no interest in the "how" of a Nexus 6. It's not possible, nor is it a goal, to make the setting "real".

But it's dry and gruelling; five minute scenes seem to last for 20 and the middle portion of the film especially feels like it drags on for days.

Don't find that myself, but I'd agree it's got a fairly leisurely pace and that it's a serious-minded film that's hardly jam-packed with twists and turns.

As I've said it's a favourite of mine but I'm going to try not to fall into the trap of over-defending it over a difference of taste that's never going to be fixed anyway. Must have seen it at least a dozen times though and I think it holds up well to repeat viewing.

Burnwinter: I don't think I had a problem with anything you just mentioned. I just find it poorly executed and way too long with the lack of content in mind. I'd agree that the visuals are the strongest point but that's hardly Ridley Scott's making. Come think of it, it might just have ended up a better film with another director and a script writer who had a clue about continuity.

I think I was forced to watch this film at least half a dozen times when I studied film. There's always a handful of people who decide to write a thesis on it. I didn't really like it the two times I saw it on my own prior to that and, having heard all the academic arguments and absurd over-interpretations of themes that aren't really visible or there at all it was a view that just grew stronger in my mind. I guess it does come down to taste at some level, but then again I love a lot of movies that are very similar to Blade Runner and I'm a big science fiction fan in general. I just don't like this one.

I watched the last airbender the other day and towards the end I was thinking "this could have been a really good film if only the writer and producer had put more pressure on Shyamalan".

Not even five minutes later produced, directed and written by Shyamalan flashed up on the screen.

I thought the same thing when I first saw Signs, although I knew forehand that it was written and produced by him. Some directors just can't kill their darlings.

having heard all the academic arguments and absurd over-interpretations of themes that aren't really visible or there at all

I'm sure there's plenty of absurd navel-gazing about its thematic content but blind Freddie would agree that it is replete with relations to ideas of mortality, identity, self, consciousness, memory, pain, family etc., not to mention the religious side. I mean that's practically all it is, a giant thematic hammer.

I can appreciate that over-exposure to it in an academic setting could have sucked the joy entirely out of what was, for you, already a somewhat underwhelming experience.

Captain wrote:

Tarantino is just an Mtv generation nerd who makes films for other mtv generation nerds. That much is so true and is barely deniable even if you do like his movies.

But the Godfather is just plain boring; well acted, dramatic, impressive scope but ultimately uninteresting. Not actually god awful as that would be a description best held for something like Universal Soldier 2 but not worthy of it's reputation.

Well, if that's true, it must make me an Mtv generation nerd. I don't see myself as that, it also doesn't explain how generally well regarded most of his films are.

I think the Kill Bill films are pretty subject to that claim. They're spot-the-reference flicks where half the satisfaction derives from sharing his nerdy pleasure in niche cinema. They're also great for people with a short attention span because you're never required to think about one idea for more than about five or ten minutes.

Don't think it's a fair criticism of all of his work though. I thought for a while he was doomed never to better Reservoir Dogs, but I think Inglourious Basterds might just about get there, it's a very clever flick with a couple of really astoundingly good scenes.

Kill Bill 3 has been announced I see.

He's only ever directed two films that did very well at the box office and his films are generally well recieved by a very specific type of audience.

And no, it doesn't mean that you have to be an Mtv generation nerd to enjoy his movies, that is simply who they are pitched at and is his formula for success; Low budget, guaranteed audience, decent box office performance. He's a decent director and a very good writer but he doesn't make amazing movies.