《女朋友。男朋友》影評

台灣電影，不論作者以及讀者，多半有這類通病：不重視劇情的鋪陳。於是，只要有把「符號」「象徵」「隱喻」帶到就好。電影要讓野百合學運賦予這三位意義，為了達成這個命題，導演可以透過事件來交代邏輯：因為XXX所以YYY，或者讓事件減少，由演員發揮，讓演員透過幾場戲的表現去說服觀眾。

這部電影是關於三個主角的三角愛情。前半段花了大半篇幅，想把大歷史「融」進人物，這不是件容易的事情，導演既然選擇如此做，情感上我贊同她的企圖心，但理姓看來，我認為拍得不好。大歷史被拍的沒有縱深，好像那只是個給他們只玩了場自由民主的家家酒遊戲的舞台。既不去細細經營外部大歷史的縱深，也不好好交代三人的身世家庭背景，而僅著眼在三人之間的情感交錯，這並非不行，只是這樣就得端看演員的表現是否說服觀眾。

三個演員表現平平，儘管以台語交談，也還算流利，但誰都聽得出這三人都不是以台語為母語的人。電影到後半段，三人不再說台語了，三人在口白的表現才略略好轉。漸入佳境。此時弔詭的是，後半段的劇情，都不必然要跟野百合學運有關係，或者野百合學運並沒有深化到和他們內心糾葛交纏的地步。

張孝全在片中關於自討苦吃的那段自白是最棒的，鳳小岳的演技最差勁；桂綸鎂演技仍然很棒，但被放在這個角色很怪。桂綸鎂和林美寶其人其名，違和感很強。

電影看到後面甚至有些剪接不順：三個人不是才剛唱歌翻臉，怎麼下一幕接到陳忠良（張孝全）跟林美寶（桂綸鎂）去吃飯，還說：「朋友吵架，吃吃飯就好了」，這是在削弱前一幕（難得）建立起的衝突力道嗎？以及，林美寶知道王心仁有別的女人，在窗前看著他們兩人離去，然後幾年後，原來林美寶正在當王心仁的小三，那前一幕觀眾知道「她其實知道」時心中的糾葛，不就被導演自己親自捻掉了嗎？

事件的邏輯、前後的因果、情感的鋪陳，這些是基本的戲劇元素，許多台灣電影給人零碎、片段、拼湊、就是因為不能或者不想去好好經營簡單的故事，平心而論，「女朋友、男朋友」算是還可以的，但就是因為導演把歷史事件拉出來，有這樣的企圖就得值更嚴苛的標準來檢視，而不是說幾個畫面放進來就做足功夫，看在誠意上我就得欺騙自己「那個歷史那個經歷使這些角色有了那樣的深度」這樣的事情。

最後我都有些反感了，因為有場在泳池的戲，畫面跟音樂搭配是拍的不錯，但心中卻有種「是不是以為弄個超有fu的mv就要大家買帳啊？」的感想…..

《新天堂樂園》影評

到了最近才看了當初院線上映的123分鐘版本。幾年前我曾經去電影院看了導演剪輯173分鐘完整版。或許是當時人生歷練不夠，或者是期望過高，並沒有太深刻的感動，反而覺得有些冗長。

這兩種版本的故事主軸基本一樣，除了最末對於多多的初戀情人愛蓮娜的處理，而這一個情節刪減讓整部作品給觀眾的感動走向極端不同的結局。我看到最後時也不免喃喃自語：「這兩個版本的差異實在差太多了！」我個人偏好的是123分鐘的院線上映版，儘管導演自己認為173分鐘版本才是他心目中想呈現的樣貌，然而這就是文本自身帶有內涵的實證：創造者賦予作品血肉，而作品自己則會發展出獨立的靈魂。

不過，過了幾天細細咀嚼，便能領略為何導演之所以偏好173分鐘版，因為完整版讓片中人物帶有缺陷，讓回憶帶上瑕疵，讓故事更多遺憾，而這番糾結讓故事不只是懷舊，而帶有現實的殘酷與無奈。

多多之所以長年不回故鄉，因為艾費多告誡他不要像他一樣，被這個小鎮給限制住，要飛向更寬廣的世界；多多上火車之前，艾費多嚴厲的說：「永遠都不要回來！」要如何得知這樣的推論？整部電影充滿了濃濃的懷舊風，但懷舊之後卻是無可奈何終將逝去的感傷。我們看到淳樸小鎮與世無爭，卻也看到小鎮的故步自封；大家一同歡笑，大家卻也一同被圈在這小小的牢籠之中。電影院終究要被淘汰的（這是我們已知的事實），年輕的多多真的要一輩子都在電影院裡當放映師嗎？對照組是：多多的忘年之交，瞎了眼的艾費多。

但是，電影從多多的回憶拉回到「現在」的時間點時，我們發現成年事業有成的多多其實仍不快樂，他說其實他仍然沒能忘懷過去。他難以忘懷的不只是過去的美好，還有沒有結果的愛情的傷痛：當初艾蓮娜失約，沒有履行和他一同私奔的約定。

然而，艾蓮娜是有赴約的，只是撞見了在戲院的艾費多，艾費多勸退了艾蓮娜，要她讓多多自由。

這個在完整版才有交代的劇情是兩個版本最關鍵的差異。

艾費多擅自干預了多多的人生，我們（以及多多）最後得知了真相，能怪艾費多嗎？這個問題讓不同的觀眾產生了思考空間，正反各有各的意見且都言之成理。真實人生就是如此，沒有甚麼是簡單的。這就是導演完整版賦予這個懷舊故事的深度之所在。而因為有了這層認識，再回想多多上火車之前，艾費多痛徹心肺近乎警告的說：「永遠都不要回來！」這一幕便有了更完滿的解釋。不管苛責不苛責他擅作主張阻止了艾費多的私奔，我們唯一確定的是：他如此深愛著多多，要他有更好的未來。

123分鐘院線板減去了這份交代，於是當多多說，他以為他走了過來，其實仍活在過去，變得有些牽強。為什麼多多這麼懷舊呢？為什麼這麼久都不曾回故鄉呢？只是因為電影的懷舊風實在拍的太感人，感動到只要一回想就會起雞皮疙瘩，一聽到音樂就快要哭，使得觀眾無暇顧及。

為什麼可以拍的這麼感動？首先，演員就贏了八成。飾演小多多的Salvatore Cascio一出現在銀幕前就攫取觀眾的目光，也許導演運用某種技巧使童星相信這是現實，小多多就是這樣活靈活現頑皮搗蛋；老艾費多的Philippe Noiret則是慈祥的老頑童，還會在檢定考時向多多擠眉弄眼要小抄；眾配角們也功不可沒：多多的母親，小鎮的神父，廣場的流浪漢……眾人的生動演出讓電影呈現出小鎮的寫實風貌。

電影有許多影史經典鏡頭，包括了最後結尾：艾費多留給多多的遺物，一捲膠捲，多多在放映室裡撥放出來。原來內容是那堆被神父剪下的所有「不雅」片段大全。諸多影史名片的親吻鏡頭在大銀幕上連番呈現，於是，所有美好的甜美回憶湧上心頭。電影至此，不只是多多在觀看回憶，導演也和觀眾一起回憶了過往那個大家一起上電影院看電影，當個看戲傻子，又哭又笑的美好年代。即使沒有看過那些黑白老片的世代的年輕觀眾，看到這邊也很難不淚崩吧？集體記憶不只屬於經歷過的人，也傳達給沒經驗過的世代。就是這麼個跨越世代的感動淚崩，使「新天堂樂園」成為影史的永恆經典。

2012/09/12  Milstein

《飢餓遊戲》影評

這部電影的編劇有點問題。作為小說改編的電影，適度的修改以符合電影的節奏是很重要的。大致上的段落還算可以，前面二分之一在鋪陳背景，後面二分之一則是飢餓遊戲。前半段礙於篇幅必須快速交代，雖然讓人有點摸不著腦袋故事背景，但運用倒敘法、對話，大致上已經足以給觀眾基本的輪廓。而後半段進入飢餓遊戲之後，編劇在鋪排情節的比例上就失去平衡了。

或許是以三部曲的長度來安排整個大故事，因而要刪減飢餓遊戲的內容；或許是要賦予故事深度，而多花篇幅去著墨人物的心理狀態，但兩者都很不到位。比賽內容沒甚麼張力，人物的情感也感動不了人，最後遊戲結束了都還很難讓觀眾入戲。

埋下的伏筆是：女主角凱尼斯將成為英雄，故事就是她成為英雄之前必經的超越之路，這條路上必然充滿各種衝突。但這樣的概念有藉由故事打入人心嗎？

凱尼斯救了受傷的比爾，兩人在洞穴中相擁而睡渡過一晚，醒來後，凱尼斯不顧比爾阻擋，冒著生命危險去搶比爾需要的藥品；等她回來後，兩人在洞穴中相擁而睡，度過一晚。一樣的場景一樣的鏡頭連續出現兩次，再怎麼樣互相交心的對話也會厭煩。這在剪接時就應該避免。

生死存亡懸於一髮，血淋淋的戰場竟成了外頭施惠國的國民的娛樂實境秀；賽場內合縱或是連橫？，人與人之間充滿心機與算計；必須先搶武器還是先確保補給線？聯盟之間是否存在陰謀？盟友是否可能背叛？面對捨己為人的敵人，能否痛下殺手？賽場內是赤裸裸的人性考驗。

其實有看日本動漫畫的阿宅們早就對這類型的作品很熟稔了吧？但是電影有把這些元素拍出來嗎？最強悍的卡圖在電影中看起來就是個武夫而已，沒甚麼表現，最後來打一打就領便當；凱妮絲對小芸的死悲傷不已，花了很長一段時間在那邊哀痛，整個不合邏輯，這時應該趕緊先躲起來才是吧？鏡頭帶到小芸的家鄉引發了暴動後，回過頭來又看到凱妮絲哀痛失聲──又是一個多餘的repeat！不是剛剛已經哭完了嗎？剪接時怎不潤飾得更好？比爾的動向也不大合理，如果大家相信他喜歡凱妮絲，那應該會懷疑他幫助凱圖們追蹤凱妮絲的動機吧？而他們之所以要追蹤凱妮絲，是因為她是最強悍的敵手嗎？線索：電影開頭她曾射殺小動物，受訓時的最後評分，她來個百步穿楊，技驚四座射中宴席餐桌上的蘋果，比爾的口頭描述：他可以射中松鼠的眼睛／母親說，我們終於可能出了個勝利者了，她是指你（凱妮絲）。

但是，這些就足夠說服大家她是首要敵人嗎？從頭到尾，她看起來並沒有明顯的表現。除了情急之下殺死了追殺小芸的人，而砸下馬蜂窩脫困這招也是小芸提點的，搶藥時也打輸了對手差點被殺，唯一有點表現的是她看出了補給物周邊埋有炸彈（但這條線索卻是個預設，因為電影沒有讓我們清楚知道為什麼凱妮絲看出了他人所看不出的東西）。以上，我認為電影沒有說服觀眾凱妮絲的特別。就連比爾也是，他明明是個大力士，但有電影中他卻表現了另一個才能：偽裝躲避追殺。

這都是編劇的問題。電影的脈絡是斷裂的，前後的因果是不連貫的，當然就沒辦法讓觀眾入戲！這很像是把小說情節剪貼出來，拼出一個順的下去的故事然後拍完罷了。

綜觀過去，好的改編作品是把握故事概要，略做修改，重要的是取其神髓，讓故事形附於神，才算是「忠實」。更甚者不只取其神髓，更重新詮釋，加以演化，那就是大師之作了。而這部電影是連基本ABC都稱不上。作為一部電影，我認為在水平之下。

《璀璨瞬間》（Everlasting Moments）影評

只有經過時間歷練的長者，才能擁有審視世界的關懷。鏡頭，或是藝術家擁有的工具，在藝術品上所呈現的筆觸才能帶有年輕人所沒有的溫情。老藝術家的形象總是靜靜的坐在長椅上看著時移事往的，瑞典導演JanTroell透過攝影機告訴觀眾的是一個時代，一台照相機，一個小家庭，幾個平凡人物的故事。

如果過分奉行寫實主義，那就是一齣淡到不知道要表現什麼的電影。而Everlasting Moments其實強烈的帶有導演的觀點，只是這份觀點是柔軟的，是不強求不批判的，他化為劇中人物的大女兒Maja，以平實口吻的旁白緩緩道出在時間的流轉之下，人就是這麼的平凡生活著。平凡人是軟弱、無助，對時間無可奈何的，但這些平凡又因為照相機留下了影像，封存了記憶，而讓平凡人也能因為存在過的證據而欣喜。照相機的聞世給世界帶來了轉變，Maja的母親Maria不是什麼藝術家，她的鄰里們也不是什麼大人物，而卻都為小小相片中自己的影像而由衷感動欣喜。

外界風起雲湧，既是資本主義與社會主義分庭抗禮，又有世界大戰紛紛擾擾，但對Maja而言，最多也只是父親Sigfrid胡亂聽了幾個口號回家發些議論，跟人不了了之的罷工而已。

但是，若不是老導演對影像與時間有這麼樣的體悟，又怎麼能讓大時代與小人物的這些瑣碎小片段有讓人靜默無語的觸動呢？Maja的家庭爭吵不斷，卻又勉強維持，父母各自有各自的痛楚，孩子們也不是真有太強烈的意識形態，內無家庭革命，外無街頭抗爭，只是在自己的小小家庭之中，當父母爭吵時面露不安啜泣，父親酒醉時總是醜態盡，但又讓人不得不愛他富有個人魅力的浪漫，為生活所苦的母親，含辛茹苦的拉拔孩子長大，生活的困苦毫不減少母親的慈愛。而父親或是母親，卻又不時展現出不能沒有對方的愛情，那怕彼此都有缺陷，都有背叛。而不管歷史洪流如何，小家庭的時間就這麼過去了。

悲劇超越是屬於英雄，平凡人如你我的生命，其實都是隨波逐流的。Maja並非有什麼目的而用相機，而是為紀念，為生活，為她心愛卻從未逾矩的照相館主人。導演則是用鏡頭藉由一個平凡故事來訴說影像與記憶的生命感觸。

《陣頭》影評

《陣頭》是一部爛片。沒有一個完整的敘事，塞滿了一堆雜亂的符碼，胡亂拼貼，零零碎碎，最後弄個片頭片尾就上了。因為說也說不清楚，所以裡面每個人都要像個瘋子亂吼亂叫，以為這樣子就可以感染力了，其實一個瘋子也許真的有什麼事情想要告訴人，他只是不知道怎麼表達，但是觀眾沒義務當解碼的心理師，觀眾只知道他就是個瘋子。

但為什麼還可以大賣呢？因為這就是大家的胃口啊！這個語無倫次的人的嘴裡還是說了些關鍵字，耐著性子聽的話大概也猜的到他要表達的東西，好像是要傳達些台灣本土的生命力，以及本土在地文化的生猛有勁…之類的，然後就條件反射的被感動了。

沒錯，條件反射。這年頭，只要賣弄一下本土元素就有用了，其他什麼都可以不用管。這些人以為自己是在宣揚推廣展現本土文化的特色，殊不知，這些人才真正是糟蹋本土文化。而買帳的人也是幫兇，因為，接受了這樣東西，意味著接受這樣的「好」的認定，認定陣頭就是這個樣子，講台語就是這個樣子，本土電影就該是這個樣子，這本身不是歧視與糟蹋嗎？

《那些年，我們一起追的女孩》影評

大概知道這部電影的內容，沒有意外的如同預期。對於同一世代的人而言，電影中的人物都可以找到自己可投射的身影，因為自己曾經或多或少有過類似的記憶，對於這樣一部用影像語言說出心底事的電影就被大為感動。這是《那些年》得以創下票房佳績的原因。

我個人並不怎麼喜歡（但也不算討厭）這部電影的原因在於，我從過去就覺得這種人蠻愚蠢的。電影中作者假借男主角的旁白「可惜，同年紀的女孩總是比男孩早熟」也說穿了這份自覺。作者自己長大後也明白當時的想法不盡成熟，而使得兩情相悅的戀愛無疾而終，戀愛學分總要被當個幾回才能pass。

一樣是屬於同個世代的我，因為這些故事都曾經發生在週遭而不感到陌生。如果故事是發生在高中就失戀的話或許還會有共鳴，但都已經是二十歲的大學生成年人了還這樣搞，被甩就是剛好而已。既然被甩是合理的，雖然有些無奈但也不能怪誰，頂多就是懷舊一下，美化一下自己的記憶，感嘆一下青春多麼美好。

但是到了中年的話，也該從這個幻夢中醒來才是，因為這個記憶其實往往過濾了不少不堪的回憶。那些年輕時追女生很久卻沒追到，最後黯然放棄的人，我想有不少其實幹了些讓女生下不了台的自以為浪漫吧？本來人家也喜歡你的，結果活該自己砸鍋了不是嗎？結果一句「可惜，同年紀的女孩總是比男孩早熟」就打發掉也未免太不負責任了吧？

至於表現的手法，就是誇張。幽默在於用誇張的手法表現出年輕時的瘋狂行徑，而之所以點到大家心中的笑點正是在於過去大家都有共同的行徑。只不過難免有些卡通化的粗糙。而演員的表現是電影最大的正分，製作人／導演／作者的選角確有慧眼獨具之處。

我僅能站在社會現象的角度去給予這部電影正面評價。要是真要去主觀情感面評價，我覺得《這些年》是一部很天真的電影。但正如電影不斷透露的青春無敵賴皮的：「就是幼稚啊！怎麼樣！」

《我不要死》（Essential Killing）影評

這部電影的手法是：將一切極簡化，而只為呈現一個概念──殺戮。因此，整部電影可以濃縮成他的片名：Essential Killing。

結論已經昭然皆示，導演便是將他的闡述以電影呈現。換言之，這部電影並不是「故事」，而是「概念之具象化」。而結果就是一部和習於觀賞故事的觀眾預期大不同的電影。裡頭沒有懸念，即使有，導演也不打算回答，導演要呈現的就是殘酷的殺戮本質。相信某種道德規則主宰著世界的人也許會被震攝，但在唯物論者眼中，這早就不怎麼稀奇──世界本來就是這樣子的。

我可以理解這樣的手法，但我個人並不喜歡。因為這不是一部拍給觀眾看的電影，而是一個像論述之類的無聊文章。而綜觀電影史，我認為有許多在闡述類似的概念的電影，拍的更通俗、更讓人明白，甚至雅俗共賞，外行看熱鬧內行看門道的電影。

對於這一部壓根不想拍的「好看」的電影，可以遠觀褒揚創作者不想諂媚觀眾的高傲藝術氣質，但也可以嗤之以鼻他故步自封還自以為是的可笑。

movie review: 28 Days Later

 

The survivors Jim met after his coma are Mark and Selena but later Mark was killed by Selena because he’s bitten and infected during a fight with zombies in Jim's house where they went for Jim's request of seeing if his parents were alive. But they had eaten pills to suicide and left a note to Jim on which they wrote about their despair of the hopeless and collapsing civilization.

They’re attacked due to Jim’s candle light in the night for watching photos reminiscent of his past family memory. So we can say Jim caused Mark’s infection. But, Selena is the person who killed Mark just because of suspicious. Jim asked her how was she sure Mark was infected? Selena answered that she would also kill Jim if he might have been infected, “in a heartbeat”. Never hesitate.

In the later plot, the director is talking about the gradual loss of hope and humanity, along with the devastation by virus. The military, government, and all society are stepping to ruins. And Danny Boyle conceived audience of Selena’s change by Hannah and her father Frank.

Danny Boyle didn’t put more and more blood subsequent to their meet, but more about their interaction with sense of humor such as their happy shopping in empty supermarket. He focuses on the people more than terror. Terror is necessary only to support the story. Otherwise, the audience will shortly get used to the blood. It’s hard to fright modern audience only by effect.

Who had lost his hope to the world, hope of humanity? And who still keep it? It’s also a question for Jim who had stroke an infected boy to death with blank face unmercifully. When they still despaired of the empty military base, Frank was infected. And the military showed up at this moment but shot Frank to death at Jim’s hesitation. Are the military really their savior?

Obviously “future” which the commander gave his soldiers is an excuse for satisfaction of their monstrous sexual desire. They all had given up their conscience except one who protected them but executed with Jim later. Jim escaped. Thus far the movie is not just a simple terror zombie and has accumulated enough conflict about fear of virus, and fear of “human” as well.

The last extremely excellent dramatic scene rendered kind of crash of humanity by a series of bloody, violent, terrible fights. But the metaphors are not given abruptly but have brewed since the beginning. What we saw is not only a world crumbled by the virus but by primitive human nature.

Apparently, director deliberately makes Jim looked as zombie or kind of crazy monster, and when he killed the soldier who grabbed Selena in cruel way-he pressed his eyeballs into skull, Selena almost cannot tell whether Jim’s infected and intends to slash him. She held the same weapon she killed Mark, a machete.

She didn’t. She still keeps her trust of Jim, and her humanity.

Jim said “It’s longer than a heartbeat”. And the name of the passionate post-rock music within this whole violent process is “in the house, in a heartbeat”, which strengthens this passage’s dramatic power.

03/09/2011 Milstein

Donnie Darko review

What a amzing excellent horroe movie about a insane teenager's illusion,it's about irony of reality, sadness of the truth, inevitable fate, critism of hypocritical adults. It mentioned time travelling but it takes it as a raw to duscuss free will. The most important is it's still a story. Yes it has something interesting but it's never a lession.



But, it's still too weird for people. sadess, and darkness. I think probaly hard-core fan would like it. it's a cult movie.

Shutter Island review

"Shutter Island", made by Martin Scorsese, made some people disappointed due to its insufficient difficulties of puzzle. However, I don’t think the producer or director intend to make a suspense film but a plot with a puzzle to perform a man who is suffered by his past memory without any awareness. If he really wants to play a riddle game with audience, he has a lot of chances to bewilder us. The point is how it goes and what he shows along with the plot. I see the leading man: outstanding actor Leonardo Dicaprio shows how a patient lost himself in continued nightmare; I see a few excellent sections shows a good director’s skills to render a horror atmosphere; and the best is the ability to overlook total plot and made every line every word every move has its own function. Especially in the rear part, what appear in the front become clues to the truth. Nothing is wasted. It’s so CLEVER and I always found this kind of work in sophisticated directors, maybe it manifests sort of wisdom in veteran directing.



Although it doesn’t show obvious intention to deeper meanings, director still insert some meaningful line to give audience a glance of his ideology: please notice every conversation between insane Teddy (Dicaprio) and other persons, it’s about violence, of people, of institution, of Country, these dialogue is made elaborate.



The end is unexpected not due to the puzzle itself, as I said, it’s not hard, and director seems not intend to focus on this, the unexpectedness is rendered undramatically: Teddy seems leave his “cycle” and then director tells us he fails actually, but actually, he made choice. And it undoubtedly means, whatever this is reality or dream, true or fake, he decides to own the good and dies.

movie review

1.

just watch the movie "where the wild things are". never heard of about it but it's fantastic. It's a fairy tales about a boy who leaves home after a quarrel with his mom. it's more like a little sad even cruel story. he arrives the island meets some odd animals and becomes friends with them.



beneath child's fantasy with happiness and laugh is the uneasy atmosphere. it's not a truely happy story though they really have good time. i think the director made it be like this intentionally. I like the the music and the color tones of shot, apparently, for this idea, with gray amid light, depression in joyfulness.



2.

have just watched the "Salt", a popcorn movie but for me kind of movie fan it's not enough, just feel so so. The other one "from Paris with Love", is ok, especiallt after the last half, I like the director's rhythm, his always neglects useless things to focus on the main narrative and this is so great for a popcorn movie...Yeah~We just want fight, explosion, car-racing and blood! and ur job is provide these and arrange them into a seemingly rational story and it's not a easy job. in terms of skill, it's quite as hard as the others with academy awards...XD



3.

About Peter Berg: as some critics said: his style isn't out of Michael Mann especially in the movie "The kingdom" which is produced by Michael Mann. however, so far, i think the most suitable movie for him is the old movie "Friday night lights" which tells a small story about a school football team in a small town.



He is good to capture the emotion on common people faces by unfixed camera. He is used to make camera little unstable and unfocus shot initially and then concentrates after the shot on. It simulates the real process when we watch something.... Secondly, he is used to filter warm and light color to make the scene little cold and grey but he always emphasize some special color like white shining light. This make his movie a little gloomy. But i think all this is for he wanna intensify the roles' action in the film to move audience. embrace, kiss, weep, laugh....etc. But we can not ignore the music and dialog and a good actor's voice. So, this is his genre and his limit. Unless he is also the producer. I like his style, the pitcures are distante but the emotion still penetrates through the gloomy pictures, the light from the dark stadium in the remote town. That's the place he can elaborate his art.See more



4

Great director Ridley Scott

.

"Blade Runner".......THIS SF movie IS MY FAVORITE!!!!!! BD-remade edition was released at the same time which got high ranking. I Love so much the moist and dark city Ridley Scott built in the film and the cold atmosphere full of whole movie which is more like a over-industrial city to dead. Undoubtedlym the last line is the classical said by the stronrgest and smartest clone Roy after he saves Deckard's life with unclear reason.....

"Thelma & Louise" is classical especially in terms of female awakening, however, i would rather see it in the aspect from movie itself. it's quite a touching movie, any ideology extracted from ...it is the result from a excellent work, it's a premise.



"Black Rain" is also nice, you will see some similar cocept about what style he built the Japanese city. It refects that time in US the fear of Japanese economic power. And also it's completely a MAN movie. faith, friend, revenge...(and violence, blood, dirty words...yeah....)



The other classical SF movie made by Ridley is "Alien", not much budget (compare with the later 3 episodes), limited special effect, but sooooooo frighteningly....the fear of unknow from space...



"Gladiator" is also nice but for me it's more a commercial movie......i also like "Gladiator" and watched it many times because of it's well putting a hero's story in a great epic history. Nice balance, most importantly, he owns the skill to talk a story well, just skill, it's basic but somhow difficult for a director. Anyway, it's just comparison with his former achievements. He had made a lot of classical films....XD