Stranger Things: Season 1 Review

(DISCLAIMER: THERE WILL BE SOME MINOR SPOILERS BUT NOTHING TOO MAJOR!)

In 1997, entrepreneurs Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph created the DVD-by-mail rental service known as Netflix. After a full decade of operations, the company then established its own video streaming service in 2007, allowing customers to watch their favorite films and TV shows whenever they want. And while the video streaming service is still going strong today thanks to its vast library of distributed content, nowadays Netflix has become known for producing its own line of films and TV shows. Many of these ‘Netflix Originals’ have gone on to attract considerable critical acclaim and have also covered a wide array of genres that have been geared towards an equally wide range of audiences, from the prison-set dramedy Orange is the New Black to the numerous shows that have been produced in conjunction with Marvel Studios. And in the summer of 2016, Netflix debuted a show that has gone on to become one of their most popular projects to date, Stranger Things. Created by Matt and Ross Duffer, AKA The Duffer Brothers, Stranger Things is a supernatural sci-fi horror series that’s heavily influenced by 80’s pop culture, most notably the works of director Stephen Spielberg and author Stephen King. And thus, with the highly anticipated second season premiering this weekend, it’s time to take a look at this cultural phenomenon which does, indeed, live up to all the hype that has surrounded it.  

The year is 1983. On a quiet fall night in the town of Hawkins, Indiana, a young boy named Will Byers (Noah Schnapp) suddenly disappears under mysterious circumstances. The following day, a statewide search is initiated by Hawkins Police Chief Jim Hopper (David Harbour), and despite the growing amount of evidence that suggests otherwise, Will’s mother Joyce (Winona Ryder) and his older brother Jonathan (Charlie Heaton) remain optimistic about the chances of him being found. During this difficult time, Will’s three best friends, Mike Wheeler (Finn Wolfhard), Dustin Henderson (Gaten Matarazzo), and Lucas Sinclair (Caleb McLaughlin) also get involved in the search as well. And as the lot of them soon find out, Will is somehow trapped in an alternate dimension known as the Upside Down where he is being pursued by a vicious monster, which obviously puts more pressure on his friends and family to rescue him before it’s too late. While all this is going on, a mysterious young girl who calls herself Eleven (Millie Bobby Brown) escapes from a nearby government facility. Mike, Dustin, and Lucas end up befriending her and discover that not only does she possess special telekinetic abilities, but that she may also prove to be vital to the process of rescuing Will from the Upside Down.

Now, admittedly, because I wasn’t around during the 80’s, I think it’s safe to say that I don’t have as strong of a connection to the various facets of pop culture that are referenced in this show compared to others. And yet, even with that said, you don’t have to be an 80’s kid to fully appreciate this series for all the great things that it does. Because while it’s obviously influenced by the likes of Stephen King and Steven Spielberg, with a King-like supernatural premise and the kid-oriented narrative that’s often seen in Spielberg films, Stranger Things is ultimately bolstered by a highly engaging story that’s fully steeped in emotional poignancy. Oh sure, this show’s got mysterious alternate dimensions, badass telekinetic children, and terrifying demonic creatures to satisfy the science-fiction and horror crowds, but at the end of the day, this show is mainly about a young boy who goes missing as his friends and family do whatever they can to find him. This ultimately ties into one of the main things that made several of the films and stories that this series is influenced by so memorable; they inserted fantastical elements into a grounded human story, allowing us to connect to the characters even when they get into crazy scenarios. And thanks to a solid visual aesthetic and a deeply-layered plot, the Duffer Brothers manage to give us a story that feels incredibly fresh even when considering everything that’s come before it.

Sure enough, one of the best elements of this show is that you do end up being as fully invested in its wide array of well-layered main characters as much as you do with the main plot, and this applies to each of the show’s 3 age-based tiers of protagonists. Starting off with Stranger Things’ excellent batch of young protagonists, Mike, Lucas, and Dustin are quite the endearing trio and they have terrific camaraderie with each other as they band together to find their friend Will. Of the three, Mike is arguably focused on the most due to the strong bond that he develops with Eleven that even ends up spawning a sweet little bit of ‘young love’. But that doesn’t mean that Lucas and Dustin don’t get as much quality material to work with, as Lucas gets a nice character arc revolving around his initial distrust of Eleven, which ends up causing a rift in his friendship with Mike, while Dustin serves as the lovable ‘middle man’ of the group. Plus, he also gets some of the best lines of dialogue (“I'm just going to get some chocolate pudding! I'm telling you, lunch lady Phyllis hoards that s***!”). Speaking of Eleven, Millie Bobby Brown is easily the biggest standout of the entire show as the badass but tragically sympathetic telekinetic child who loves to eat Eggo waffles. Brown conveys so much despite only having around 42 lines of dialogue, which are mostly made up of one-word exclamations like ‘mouth-breather’.

Moving over to the main teenaged characters of the story, there’s Jonathan, who gets just as involved as his mother does when it comes to searching for his younger brother, and Mike’s older sister Nancy (Natalia Dyer), who ends up becoming tied to the whole ordeal when her best friend Barb (Shannon Purser; and yes, as everyone else on the internet has said, Barb is a memorable supporting character despite only appearing in about three episodes) disappears as well. The two of them eventually team up to deal with the situation, and despite that one creeper scene early on in the season when Jonathan takes pictures of Nancy and her friends while at a party (don’t worry, he improves after that…), they do share a nice chemistry that could potentially blossom into something else in future seasons. Finally, there are the two main adults of the series, Joyce Byers and Chief Jim Hopper. Admittedly, some of Joyce’s early ravings come off as being perhaps a bit too hysterical, but that does go away as the season goes on (e.g. the powerful scene in Episode 4, ‘The Body’, where she insists that Will is still alive even after a body is found). And if anything, Winona Ryder absolutely owns the role of a mother who’s fully devoted to finding her son no matter what. As for Hopper, David Harbour is great as well as the alcoholic police chief who, as we come to learn, suffered an immensely devastating personal tragedy a few years prior. Said tragedy is shown in the final episode of the season, ‘The Upside Down’, where it’s intercut perfectly with another highly emotional moment. In fact, there were a lot of great emotional moments in that episode, hence why it ended up being my favorite episode of the season.

Well, there’s not much else that I need to say about this series other than the fact that if you haven’t seen it yet, I highly encourage you to give it a watch. Like I said before, you don’t have to be an 80’s kid to fully appreciate everything that’s great about this show. With that said, though, if you are an 80’s kid, then this show delivers an excellent dose of 80’s nostalgia thanks in large part to the various bits of pop culture that it’s heavily influenced by. But at the same time, this show also delivers thanks to its strong and emotional story that’s mainly based around a down-to-earth plot of a young boy’s disappearance and the desperate search efforts made by his friends and family to find him. And this story is further elevated by a terrific ensemble cast portraying an excellent collection of likable characters that are just as well-developed as the plot. In short, it’s easy to see why this show has been such a hit amongst critics and audiences during a time where a nostalgic passion for classic films and TV shows is at an all-time high, and I look forward to seeing what happens next in the town of Hawkins, Indiana in Season 2.

Season 1 Rating: 5/5!

And that’s my review of Season 1 of Stranger Things. Thanks for following along and you can look forward to a review of Season 2 sometime in the next few weeks.

Battle of the Sexes (2017) review

In tennis, the term ‘Battle of the Sexes’ is used to describe an exhibition match that’s held between male and female tennis players. Since 1973, there have been various ‘Battle of the Sexes’ matches that have been played over the years, but only three of these have been primarily designated as such. And in today’s film of the same name, we get to see the true story of what is easily the most famous of these particular tennis matches, the 1973 nationally televised exhibition match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. King’s victory in the match proved to be quite a game-changer when it came to female tennis players earning more respect in the sport, and she would later go on to become the founder of both the Women’s Tennis Association and the Women’s Sports Foundation. And in this film, we learn the full story behind this milestone moment in her life thanks to the directing team of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris. This husband and wife duo has been responsible for some well-received films over the years, including 2006’s Oscar contender Little Miss Sunshine, which ultimately won two Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor for Alan Arkin, and 2012’s Ruby Sparks, a film written by its main actress, Zoe Kazan. And with their latest directorial endeavor, they give us a captivating true story drama with a well-executed feminist undertone and an outstanding lead performance from its leading lady in the role of one of the most famous tennis players of all-time.

In 1973, Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) is the top-ranked female tennis player in the world. At the same time, she’s also been quite an outspoken activist when it comes to male and female tennis players earning equal payouts from their victories. Unfortunately, she and her friend Gladys Heldman (Sarah Silverman), the founder of World Tennis magazine, haven’t been able to make much leeway on that front. At the time, male players were earning eight times more than female players which, as explained to the two women by US Lawn Tennis Association chief Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman), was because “the men are more exciting to watch”. In response to this, King, Heldman, and eight other players decide to hold their own tournament which ultimately becomes the Virginia Slims circuit, even though it also ends up getting them kicked out of the USLTA. While all this is going on, cocky former tennis star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell) comes up with a crazy idea. He gets in touch with Billie Jean and challenges her to an exhibition match with a purse of $100,000. Billie Jean declines, though, and Riggs plays her longtime rival, Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee), instead. However, when Court ends up losing to Riggs in an embarrassing blowout, Billie Jean decides to finally accept Riggs’ offer and compete against him so that she can redeem the reputation of female tennis players in the male-dominated sport.

Battle of the Sexes is a highly engaging sports drama, even when considering the fact that those going into the film most likely know the outcome of its story (I mean, heck, I kind of already spoiled it in the intro). But even with that in mind, the film’s focus is geared more towards the build-up to the main event and Billie Jean’s efforts to champion equal pay amongst her fellow tennis players than the actual match itself. And through it all, the best thing about this film is that by the time the iconic match finally occurs, we are fully behind Billie Jean because of how important it is for her to win. That and she also proves to be quite a likable protagonist with a solid emotional arc based partially around her growing relationship with her hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) despite her marriage to Larry King (Austin Stowell (disclaimer: not THAT Larry King)). It also helps that she’s played by one of the most charismatic actresses in the industry, Emma Stone, as this is easily one of the best performances of her career. Meanwhile, Steve Carell is great as well as he slips into the role of the loud-mouthed, self-promoting Riggs with ease. In short, Battle of the Sexes reminds me a lot of another sports film that came out last year, Eddie the Eagle. These two films, both of which were based on true stories, ultimately succeeded because of how effective they were in making us sympathize with their main protagonists in their athletic endeavors. And thanks to strong direction from Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, as well as an excellent ensemble cast highlighted by Emma Stone in what could potentially be another Oscar-winning performance for her, Battle of the Sexes is quite the rousing affair that couldn’t be more timely.

Rating: 5/5!

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) review

In 1982, director Ridley Scott released the second big science fiction film of his career, Blade Runner. An adaptation of author Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the film starred Harrison Ford in the role of Rick Deckard, a Los Angeles police officer tasked with hunting down humanoid robots known as Replicants in the year 2019. Upon release, the film didn’t do so well at the box-office and received a generally polarizing response from critics. A few years later, however, it started to attract a cult following that was paired with the release of different cuts of the film, which helped to provide new context to the narrative after the theatrical cut had been severely shuttered by studio-mandated cuts. Thus, this initially polarizing film has gone on to become one of the landmark entries in the sci-fi genre, and now, 35 years after the original, we finally return to the world of humans and Replicants with Blade Runner 2049. And as that long gap in time between these two films’ release dates suggest, this sequel was in development for many, many years. For a while, it seemed unclear if it would ever get made or if Scott and Ford would even be involved with it at all. But, ultimately, both are back for this highly-anticipated sequel, as Ford returns to the role of Deckard while Scott serves as the film’s executive producer. In the director’s chair this time around is Denis Villeneuve, who’s made quite a name for himself these past few years thanks to critically-acclaimed hits like 2015’s Sicario and 2016’s Arrival. And thanks to solid direction from Villeneuve, along with several of the things that made the original such a classic, fans of the original Blade Runner should be extremely satisfied with this long-awaited follow-up.

It’s admittedly rather hard to talk about this film’s plot as some of its elements delve into spoiler territory. Villeneuve even made a request to those who reviewed the film prior to its release to not reveal anything from the plot, and while this ‘embargo’ has technically been lifted now that it’s out, I’m still going to try and keep plot spoilers to a minimum in this synopsis. As the title suggests, this film takes place 30 years after the original Blade Runner in the year 2049. While the development of human-like robots known as Replicants has blossomed in the past few decades, several older models are still on the loose, requiring the continued need of special police officers known as Blade Runners to hunt them down and ‘retire’ them. One such officer is K (Ryan Gosling) who, after retiring a Replicant that’s been hiding out on a farm, stumbles across a fascinating discovery; the remains of a female Replicant who was pregnant despite it being theoretically impossible. Thus, K now finds himself on the search for this elusive child of the Replicant mother, who turns out to be none other than the former assistant of the original Replicant creator Dr. Eldon Tyrell, Rachael. This, of course, then leads to K crossing paths with Rachael’s lover, former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who’s been missing for several years. And soon, the two find themselves hunted by the current leader in Replicant development, manufacturer Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), who seeks to use the child to further advance the process of creating Replicants.

Just like the original Blade Runner, one of the first things to stand out in this film is its impressive visual/production design. While visual effects have obviously come a long way since the original film, which had been made back when the art of CGI wasn’t fully realized yet, this film still manages to maintain the great atmospheric feel of the original while also utilizing its larger effects budget to its full potential. That and the always fantastic cinematography from the legendary Roger Deakins, along with the completely mesmerizing score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, help as well when it comes to fully immersing you within this futuristic world. As for the main plot of this film, it manages to be a natural follow-up to its predecessor without ever feeling like it’s just a direct carbon copy of it. With that said, though, as was the case with the original Blade Runner, this film does maintain a slow and methodical pace throughout with a sparse amount of action sequences. This may once again prove to be problematic for some audiences, especially given that this film boasts a far heftier runtime compared to its predecessor at nearly three hours long (I think it’s safe to say that we won’t need a Director’s Cut for this one, unlike the original). And while I do think that the film is perhaps just a tad bit overlong, it still benefits from having a generally engaging story based around a solid cast of characters.

While the film does see the return of Harrison Ford in the role of Rick Deckard, it should be noted that he doesn’t actually appear in it until after the halfway point. Still, the character is well-utilized in his limited amount of screen-time and Ford once again does an excellent job as the gruff but emotionally conflicted former police officer. Ultimately, the film mainly belongs to Ryan Gosling in the role of K, who embarks on a very similar emotional journey compared to Deckard’s that yields equally fascinating results. But as for the film’s biggest standouts, that honor goes to its two main female leads. As Joi, K’s loving A.I. companion, Ana de Armas brings much warmth to this generally somber sci-fi story. Plus, she has great chemistry with Gosling and is arguably the most interesting character in the entire film given their relationship, which is ultimately the main source of the film’s emotional depth. Sylvia Hoeks, who plays Niander Wallace’s Replicant assistant Luv, is also great in a role that blurs the line between diligent assistant and a stone-cold killer. But as for Wallace, played by Jared Leto, he’s, unfortunately, one of the weaker parts of the film. And for the record, no, it’s not because of Leto’s trademark eccentric performance which, for many people, would’ve been a situation similar to his recent turn as the Joker in Suicide Squad. Instead, it’s more because he’s not in the film all that much… which, ironically, was also the case with Suicide Squad. While he does get to have a few effectively unsettling moments whenever he’s on-screen, the character feels vastly underdeveloped. I promise that I’m not spoiling anything when I say that there is absolutely no resolution for the character whatsoever.

Well, like the original Blade Runner, there’s not much else that I need to say about this film, and that’s because most of the internet has already done that for me. Also, I’m not going to be delving into any sort of diatribe about mainstream audiences’ apparent rejection of this film given its rather lackluster opening weekend at the box-office. If it just wasn’t their cup of tea, then that’s perfectly fine. And besides, the exact same thing happened to the original back in 1982… and look how that one turned out. At the end of the day, I bet that this film will go on to have the same kind of legacy that its predecessor has when all is said and done, and that is because Blade Runner 2049 is very much one of the best films of the year. Director Denis Villeneuve does an excellent job in giving us a film that serves as a fitting follow-up to its predecessor without losing any of the stuff that made the original such a classic in the first place. And while it is just as much as an undeniably slow burn as its predecessor, it also has its same great sense of visual/production design, strong storytelling, and layered characters that help to make it all worthwhile. In short, if you were a fan of the original Blade Runner, then you’ll be pleased to know that this film did manage to live up to most of the hype surrounding it.

Rating: 5/5!

Blade Runner (1982) review

(Disclaimer: As fans of this film know, there have been several versions of it that have been screened over the years. In total, 7 different cuts of the original Blade Runner have been known to exist. 5 of these can currently be found on the 30^th Anniversary Collector’s Edition Blu-Ray release. And while I’ll admit that my original plan for this film was to look at all 5 available versions of it, I soon realized that this would be too much to handle, especially in such a short period of time before the release of the sequel this weekend. Thus, today’s review will be of the film’s ‘Final Cut’, released in 2007, as this is director Ridley Scott’s preferred version. However, I will be addressing the major differences between all the various cuts after the review. Also, there will be spoilers, which are okay in this case given that the film came out in 1982. Still, I just wanted to put that warning out there for those who have yet to see this film.)

Sometimes a film manages to overcome its initially tepid critical and commercial reception to become one of the most beloved entries in its genre. That was exactly the case with Ridley Scott’s 1982 seminal sci-fi classic, Blade Runner. The film was an adaptation of author Phillip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and was Scott’s first big project after helming another sci-fi classic, Alien. However, upon its initial release, Blade Runner did not fare well at the box-office and was subjected to many a mixed review. It wasn’t until after its initial release that it would eventually go on to become a staple of the science fiction genre, touted especially for the production and visual designs that went into creating its futuristic setting. And, of course, this weekend sees the release of the film’s long-awaited sequel, Blade Runner 2049. While Scott is still involved as an executive producer, Denis Villeneuve, director of critically-acclaimed hits like Sicario and Arrival, takes on directorial duties for the sequel, set 30 years after the events of the original film. But before we see what happens next to Blade Runner Rick Deckard, it’s time to look back at the film that started it all and ask one simple question. Is the original Blade Runner truly the sci-fi masterpiece that everyone says it is? Well, based on my first viewing of its ‘Final Cut’, I’d say that yes, yes it is!  

In the year 2019, the Tyrell Corporation has revolutionized the field of bioengineering with the development of ‘Replicants’, life-like androids that possess superior strength and intellect over their creators. However, after an incident on an off-world colony, Replicants were then deemed illegal on Earth, requiring the use of special police officers known as ‘Blade Runners’ to ‘retire’ them (‘retire’ being the term used to describe the killing of a Replicant) if they ever trespassed there. One such Blade Runner is Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who, despite having retired from the job, is called back into action by his superiors. They then proceed to task him with the job of hunting down four trespassing Replicants; combat model and leader Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), nuclear-head loader Leon Kowalski (Brion James), ‘basic pleasure’ model Pris Stratton (Daryl Hannah), and murder squad model Zhora Salome (Joanna Cassidy). Due to the limited lifespan of their design (four years, to be precise), the four Replicants have arrived on Earth looking for a way to extend their lives. Thus, Deckard now finds himself on the hunt for these four Replicants before they can achieve their goal. Along the way, he also becomes romantically involved with Rachael (Sean Young), the assistant of Tyrell Corporation founder Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel), who is also revealed to be a Replicant.

Now, of course, one of the most iconic elements of this film is its visual/production design. In a time where CGI effects still weren’t fully realized yet, a lot of effort went into creating the futuristic landscape of 2019 Los Angeles in a practical manner, from matte paintings to models to having to film certain scenes several times with different lighting set-ups. Bottom line, these visuals still hold up incredibly well today,  and it’s easy to see why this film’s futuristic setting became the standard that many sci-fi films have borrowed from in the years since, like Ghost in the Shell and The Fifth Element just to name a few. But, of course, this film is much more than just a bunch of pretty visuals. It’s also a well-layered story with a lot of deep themes… which I won’t go into here because, simply put, there are people out there who can analyze this stuff far better than I can. Now, admittedly, this film is a bit of a slow burn, and although there are some good action sequences in it, they’re not exactly grand-scale affairs like most other films in the sci-fi genre. And yet, just like Scott’s other sci-fi classic, Alien, this film manages to keep you fully engaged throughout. Whereas Alien’s slow burn mainly helped to build up the suspense of its horror plot, Blade Runner’s slow burn allows the audience to become fully immersed in its world… that and it also gives you more time to appreciate the film’s gorgeous visuals.

Nowadays, Harrison Ford has generally been known for his rather grumpy behavior as witnessed in several interviews. Thus, you could say that this is what ultimately made him a perfect fit for the role of Deckard in this film, as the character is initially established as someone who’s forcibly pushed back into the business of hunting Replicants. All joking aside, though, Ford does do an excellent job as per usual in the role. Rutger Hauer is also quite excellent as the main antagonist, Roy Batty. Hauer commands the screen whenever he appears thanks to Batty’s calm and collected composure, especially during his iconic final monologue when he remarks about how the things that he’s seen will be forever ‘lost in time, like tears in rain’. And yes, as it’s been well-documented, Hauer himself wrote much of that monologue. As for the other members of Batty’s Replicant squad, admittedly they don’t get as much to work with by comparison (e.g. Joanna Cassidy’s Zhora only appears in one scene; an iconic one for sure but still brief) but they too do great jobs in their respective roles and they all have their standout moments. The same applies to the other main Replicant in the film, Rachael, played by Sean Young, as the overall conflict surrounding her having to come to terms with her identity as a Replicant that’s so advanced that she genuinely thinks she’s human provides the film with some of its best emotional moments.

In short, what more can be said about this film that hasn’t been said before? Blade Runner truly is a landmark entry in the sci-fi genre. It’s a film that countless others have taken inspiration from when it comes to creating a futuristic landscape. But, of course, at the end of the day, this film still holds up after all these years. Sure, it’s undeniably slow-paced, resulting in a more cerebral sci-fi thriller than an action-oriented one. However, thanks to Scott’s excellent direction and a strong ensemble cast, you’re fully invested in everything that’s going on in this film. Like any good film, it ends up leaving quite the impact on the viewer by the end of it, whether it’s through Roy Batty’s famous ‘tears in rain’ monologue or the final scene that has led to much debate over the possibility of Deckard being a Replicant himself, especially depending on which version of the film is being watched. And, of course, the film’s pre-CGI era visuals still stand as some of the best to ever come out of a science fiction film. Thus, Blade Runner is easily one of director Ridley Scott’s best films, and while the copious amounts of cuts that this film has may seem daunting to those who haven’t seen it, it’s still a masterpiece any way you look at it.

Rating: 5/5!

THE VARIOUS CUTS OF BLADE RUNNER

As we all know, Blade Runner has gone through quite a number of iterations over the years. After some disastrous test screenings, the film was edited down by the studio for its initial theatrical release against the wishes of Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford. In the years since, however, new ‘cuts’ of the film have been released that have provided audiences with some interesting new additions to this sci-fi masterpiece. In fact, some of these changes even alter the nature of the plot entirely, specifically during the ending. Ultimately, though, many argue that the film is always great no matter what version you’re watching. And today, we’ll be discussing the major differences between the 7 known versions of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

We start things off with the original Workprint cut of the film, which was shown to test audiences in March of 1982 in the cities of Denver and Dallas. However, the response to this version was mediocre at best, which then led to the various cuts that were made to the theatrical release. A few years later in both 1990 and 1991, this version was shown again in Los Angeles and San Francisco, where it was touted as a ‘director’s cut’. However, these screenings were unauthorized and Scott did not approve of the ‘director’s cut’ designation. Still, it did fare better with its audience this time around compared to the initial screenings, which then ultimately led to the creation of a true director’s cut the following year. This version did not feature the ‘happy ending’ that was added to the theatrical cut and it also opened with a different intro. Instead of starting with the opening crawl that explained the history of Replicants, a definition of the term ‘Replicant’ was used in its place. It also didn’t include the famous unicorn dream sequence. Two months after the initial screenings, another Sneak Preview version was shown in San Diego. This one was more like the impending theatrical cut but featured three scenes that ended up getting cut in the latter version. These three scenes, consisting of a different intro scene for Roy Batty, a shot of Deckard reloading his gun after his fingers are broken by Batty, and a scene where Deckard and Rachael ride off (which would’ve presumably tied into the theatrical cut’s ending) have not surfaced since, not even with the recent Collector’s Edition release.

Which brings us to the original Theatrical Cut of the film; the one that was re-edited following the initial test screenings. This version introduced the ‘happy ending’ where Deckard and Rachael escape from Los Angeles. By comparison, other versions of the film simply ended with them leaving Deckard’s apartment without any indication of what lied ahead. Some of the final shots of Deckard and Rachael’s departure were unused aerial shots from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. This version also featured voice-over narration from Ford; however, this narration was ultimately poorly-received by most audiences. Ford himself would later quell rumors that he intentionally performed the narration poorly in protest of the film’s changes, instead stating that he simply did his best with the poor material. Internationally, a different ‘theatrical cut’ was being shown, with a few more violent moments that were later included in the Final Cut (e.g. Batty’s brutal killing of Dr. Tyrell). Four years later, the film had its Broadcast Premiere on CBS. As was the case with almost every major film that airs on network television, it was edited down to meet broadcast standards, which meant toned down violence, language, and nudity. It also implicated that Deckard is, indeed, human via a teaser that aired immediately before it and featured a slightly different opening crawl compared to the theatrical cut.

As the film began to attract a cult following during the late 80’s, paired with the previously mentioned unauthorized ‘workprint’ screenings in 1990 and 1991, an official Director’s Cut ended up getting released in 1992. This version added in the big unicorn dream sequence, which helped to fuel the flames of the long-running ‘Is Deckard a Replicant?’ debate brought upon by the origami unicorn that fellow officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) leaves in Deckard’s apartment in the final scene. However, the full sequence is not featured in this version as the original footage wasn’t of good quality at the time. It also removed the controversial voice-overs from the Theatrical Cut along with the ‘happy ending’. While Scott did have a hand in the development of this cut, he would later state that he wasn’t able to give it the full attention that it deserved because of time constraints, money constraints, and his commitment to 1991’s Thelma and Louise. Thus, we come to the Final Cut, which was released in 2007. Scott had complete creative control over this version, which reinserted the violent scenes seen in the International Cut along with the entire unicorn dream sequence. It also featured a re-edited version of Zhora’s death scene. Originally, Joanna Cassidy’s stunt double performed most of the scene, resulting in some obvious tell-tale signs that it wasn’t Cassidy doing the scene. Thus, with the Final Cut, Cassidy’s head was digitally transposed onto the stunt double, thereby fixing the continuity error.

And that’s my review/discussion of Blade Runner and its various cuts. Thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own thoughts on the different cuts of this sci-fi masterpiece. Heck, while you’re at it, feel free to chime in with your stance on the whole ‘Is Rick Deckard a Replicant’ debate too. You can also expect a review of the sequel, Blade Runner 2049, sometime in the next few days.

“It’s too bad she won’t live! But then again, who does?”

American Made (2017) review

Over the years, we’ve seen plenty of films that have been based on true stories that seem outright ridiculous to those who have never heard of them and yet totally happened. This has ranged from films like Martin Scorsese’s Wolf of Wall Street, which told the story of hard partying, drug-using stock traders, to Michael Bay’s Pain and Gain, the tale of a group of small-minded bodybuilders who partake in kidnapping and extortion to try and get rich. And as for the latest entry in this ‘genre’ of crazy stories that really happened, we have American Made. This film tells the story of Barry Seal, who went from being a commercial airline pilot to a drug and weapons smuggling informant for both the CIA and the Medellin Cartel in the late 70’s and early 80’s. It’s a film that certainly has a lot of big names working on it, that’s for sure. In the director’s chair is Doug Liman, who’s given us quite a lot of hits over the years including 1996’s Swingers, the first Jason Bourne film, 2002’s The Bourne Identity, and 2014’s cult hit Edge of Tomorrow. This film also sees him reuniting with his lead actor from Edge of Tomorrow, the one and only Tom Cruise, in what is shaping up to be a more dramatic turn for the legendary action star. And together, they give us an entertaining, albeit a bit flat, black comedy that’s fully bolstered by Cruise’s excellent performance in the lead role. 

In the late 70’s, pilot Barry Seal (Tom Cruise) works for Trans World Airlines, having notably been one of the youngest pilots ever in the company’s history. However, he decides to leave TWA when he is approached with a ‘better offer’ from CIA agent Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). After being given his own plane by Schafer, Barry is tasked with flying reconnaissance missions for the CIA in South America. Soon, this escalates into Barry serving as a liaison between the CIA and Panamanian Dictator Manuel Noriega. However, not long after this, Barry is then approached by Jorge Ochoa (Alejandro Edda) and Pablo Escobar (Mauicio Mejia) of the Medellin cartel. The cartel then proceeds to have Barry smuggle their drugs into the U.S. for them. However, when the DEA soon comes into the picture, Barry is forced to move to the small town of Mena, Arkansas with his wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) and their three kids to avoid suspicion. But that doesn’t stop Barry from continuing to work with both the CIA and the cartel, and thanks to the continued success of his operations, Barry is able to amass more and more wealth while also maintaining the secrecy of his endeavors through his ‘charitable’ actions in the community of Mena. Soon, though, Barry finds himself in an increasingly tense situation as he tries to balance everything that he’s been getting involved in.

While I usually don’t like to make a lot of comparisons between films, it’s safe to say that American Made shares quite a few similarities with The Wolf of Wall Street. After all, both films are about mildly successful men who get ahead in life when they partake in business practices that aren’t exactly legal. Both films also maintain an irreverent tone throughout with various bits of black comedy thrown in. But just like Wolf of Wall Street, American Made is a solidly entertaining ‘dark comedy’ based on a true story that only gets crazier and crazier once Seal begins to get involved with multiple parties at the same time. Liman’s direction is excellent and the film’s strong pacing gives it a fast-paced feel without ever seeming like it’s rushing through the plot. And thanks to the screenplay by newcomer Gary Spinelli, there are plenty of great humorous bits of dialogue throughout, primarily whenever Barry is narrating (again, like Wolf of Wall Street). I also appreciate the efforts made by Liman and his crew to give this film a nice retro aesthetic, and I’m not just talking about its status as a period piece set in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Right from the opening credits, which utilize the old logos of the production companies that worked on this film, American Made has a nice old-school aesthetic that makes it seem like the film was genuinely shot in the 80’s.

However, if I did have one gripe with this film, it’d be that the overall proceedings can sometimes be a bit dry. And that’s mainly because the character development in this film is admittedly rather slim, meaning that you don’t really connect with any of its characters apart from Barry. And even then, he’s still kind of ‘just there’ as far as main protagonists go. Still, Tom Cruise does do a fantastic job in the role. As some tend to point out, it’s been quite some time since Cruise’s days as a dramatic actor. After all, that’s where his career initially started before the Mission: Impossible franchise turned him into the action star that we know him as today. Thus, it can be argued that this is one of the rare instances where Cruise delves out of the action genre for once to remind us that he is very much more than just an action star. And here, he’s incredibly charismatic (as usual) even in the role of a morally grey character. In short, Cruise very much carries the film, and while most of the supporting roles are minor by comparison, there are still some great standouts from the film’s supporting cast. Sarah Wright has solid chemistry with Cruise in the role of Barry’s wife Lucy, who gets to have some great back-and-forth moments with her husband whenever he starts acting crazy. And as for the most prominent member of the supporting cast, Domhnall Gleeson, he too works great with Cruise as Barry’s government liaison, who works just as much as Barry does in his line of work to move up the ranks within the CIA.

I think many will agree that Doug Liman has been one of the most consistently reliable directors in the film industry. While he has had some critical misfires over the years, he’s also given us plenty of great films as well, and American Made is no exception. From the looks of it, it seems like this film is a decently faithful take on the real-life events that make up its story. And sure, like any film based on a true story, there clearly must have been some deviations from the truth; however, as Barry states in the trailer, ‘some of this s*** really happened’. And I guess you can say that it’s only fitting that Liman was the one to tell this story given that his father Arthur was, in fact, connected to this whole ordeal as the chief counsel for the investigations surrounding the Iran-Contra affair in the mid-80’s that had basically been spawned from all this. Sure enough, American Made is a well-made drama mixed with great bits of dark humor. Now, granted, that doesn’t mean that it’s flawless, as it does suffer from not really having much emotional depth to it. However, it’s all worth it for one of the best recent performances of Tom Cruise’s career. While he has certainly proven himself to be one of the best action stars in the business thanks to films like Mission: Impossible, Jack Reacher, and Edge of Tomorrow, a film like this proves that he’s also a great actor when given a great script to work with. And while American Made may not exactly be one of his best films, it still stands as an entertaining crime drama based around an interesting tidbit of this country’s history.

Rating: 4/5