Blade Runner. Stripping out the incomparable technology, I like Blade Runner more because of its noir look, dim view of life, and pity for humanity in a society that requires people to exploit one another (or android versions of people) in order to survive. Metropolis has pity for the overworked everyman and critiques industrial society, but I can’t help hearing a non-existent, giddy piano accompaniment a la Charley Chaplin every time I watch it. Metropolis is a great, more uplifting film. I can’t wait to watch the new, longer version unearthed recently in Buenos Aires. But Blade Runner is tops in my mind.
Metropolis is a film I marvel at for its technical achievement, but Blade Runner is a film I marvel at for both technical achievement and depth of its story. I’m not disparaging Metropolis because I found its story incredibly compelling, but the cyberpunk atmosphere of Blade Runner, along with the humanistic androids mirroring the existentialism and sorrow of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein monster, created a deep meditation on the nature of human existence.
Metropolis.
I’m uber stoked for the completely restored version.
I’ll be the first to admit that I really don’t care for Blade Runner at all, and that goes for every version. I understand the love, but it’s a film I’ve never been able to enjoy. So… Metropolis.
Blade Runner. Nothing against Metropolis tho and the complete version will be a must to see.
I’m going to have to vote for Blade Runner – as wonderful as Metropolis is, I’ll take Roy Batty over Maria.
@Brandon — I hear you on that.
It’s weird that this would be a forum topic as I just watched these two films within this past week (METROPOLIS for the first time, BLADE RUNNER for the second). For me, and for many others I’m sure, METROPOLIS is a confusing, somewhat problematic film in terms of its intention. There are allegorical symbols and images derived from religion, mythology, and magic clashing with technology and capitalist industry all mixing together with somewhat Freudian, psychological overtones that never really get resolved in a completely satisfying way. Even so, the many layers of (somewhat) decipherable meaning in it make it a fascinating text. Not to mention it is visually stunning.
BLADE RUNNER is one of the those films I really wanted to like and gave two chances to but still don’t understand. Not to say it was confusing, but rather that I don’t understand why it is so highly regarded. The first obstacle to overcome with the film is how dated it feels. Ridley Scott manages to create some very striking images — such as the skyscraper-sized advertisement — but a lot of the costumes and the synth soundtrack felt so weighted in the ‘80s. The next obstacle for me was the sound, which felt unsynchronized (was it? I’m not sure) and disaffecting. I see the potential in the mix of noir themes and styles mixed with high technology — or cyberpunk or whatever — but I felt somewhat disoriented by the stilted performances and isolating dialogue. I mean these replicants are supposed to be somewhat sympathetic, right? But I felt no compassion for them, almost no conflict in having them expire. I don’t know. I am certainly seeking some kind of insight into this film that I missed (two times), otherwise I suppose it’s not my cup of tea.
Lastly, I don’t really see any connection between these films other than their being visions of the future and science-fictiony.
BLADE RUNNER fer sure. I’ve always found METROPOLIS pretty silly compared to it. Or, for that matter, compared to most of Lang’s other stuff. I think M from just a few years later exhibits much more complicated storytelling much better on a whole than METROPOLIS. I do wonder what it would have been like to see it in a brand new print in 1927, though…
I love both but Metropolis for me
Blade Runner
Metropolis is seminal and brilliant, but it’s the noir-infused milieu that makes me prefer to see Blade Runner.
metropolis has style, but blade runner has style AND ideas.
KAZU- did you see the kino restoration? you may have seen a copy that is missing a lot of scenes
@johnny
i did see the Kino DVD.
As much as I love Blade Runner, Metropolis is my favorite film of all time (The Kino version). My vote goes to “Metropolis”.
Blade Runner. It was the last of the New Hollywood and prophetic in how Hollywood would become hypercommercialistic and shallow. More essays have been written on Blade Runner than probably any other film of the 80’s, and it’s themes of dystopia and what it means to be human, what in fact we are becoming as humans in the face of advanced technology is more relevant today than it was back when it came out in 82’. Many Gen Y’s who were born with technology and perfect fashion sense seem to have trouble appreciating this film and what it’s implications are. Kazu and Brandon, if you really want to understand Blade Runner, first I highly recommend you read up on Marshall McLuhan. Then Philip K. Dick. And Existentialism. Trust me, 25 years from now your kids will mock what you find cool at the moment.
Metropolis was what started it all, and deserves a special place in film history. It was more Marxist than anything, and for a silent film is absolutely brilliant, but it doesn’t have the depth of Blade Runner.
kind of odd to compare a film from the 20’s to one from the 80’s. Maybe that’s the point? This isn’t father/son, more like grandfather/grandson. A young man on the cusp of adulthood vs. an old man. Sound like a fair fight? Even taking each on it’s own terms, it’s just an off comparison. As another poster mentions above, Metropolis can seem kind of silly in contrast to Blade Runner’s noir (again, maybe the point?). “M” would be far more appropriate. Better yet would be Godard’s “Alphaville”.
They’re both the same level. Both films are visually stunning but are far shallower than they look.
Consider it this way, both excellent films but Blade Runner does not exist without Metropolis. Clearly, the role of Tyrell (e.g. Father) high up above the common man in his office and quarters is based on Father in Metropolis, high above the common worker in his office.
I agree with Roscoe completely.
I think that Wings of Honneamise has much more going for it.
I’m going with Blade Runner.
I’m going with Blade Runner.
I’m going with Blade Runner.
Sorry for the triple post…my bad!
Don’t get me wrong, I like both films, and if I had to choose one of them, I’d probably choose METROPOLIS for at least having the courage of its convictions. There’s a demented delirium to METROPOLIS that BLADE RUNNER’s strained seriousness just can’t approach.
And at least Fritz Lang didn’t try to convince anyone that Freder was a robot 25 years after the film was released.
Both for me.
Blade Runner. To me, it’s the more complete package and IMO, has more replay value. I will say though that without Metropolis, Blade Runner probably would have been a much different movie.
Metropolis! and Blade Runner! sorry I couldn’t really make up my mind, they’re both great.
Both equally, but if I was only allowed to see one I would see Metropolis.
Metrpolis - grounbreaking for its time. Blade Runner is good special effects sci-fi but nothing ground breaking.
A really left field comparison and not understanding the point quite honestly. Both are important points for science fiction and film in general. Why choose? Metropolis is point zero for science fiction and Blade Runner influences just about any science fiction film made today.
Chinistroisecerstuder
Of Course, that Metropolis is a classic, but Blade Runner too, but with less trajectory, and Blade Runner is conciderate the son of Metropolis. But Suppose, that there are, a fight between, father and son. I choose the son, I mean BLADE RUNNER.
Both are exelentes, but what I like of Blade Runner, is the subculture Ciber-Punk, that was created in that movie.