A conceptual, not an entertaining movie with a difficult fate. A well-known director (I do not name him) said that modern cinema is "fairy tales for adults on the screen." And, in his opinion, cinema as an art should have its own specific dialogue with the viewer, visual mainly. In Blade Runner, Ridley Scott came closest to realizing such an ideal. The film was met coldly by the audience and critics. Scott later experimented more than many directors, but never strayed so far from adult fairy tales. It is believed that the “Runner” was such a failure because of critics. Seemingly mocking the film, some told the contents of dreams that had time to watch, falling asleep at the session. I can only agree to that. The film is so monotonous that you can easily fall asleep or go into your thoughts. And yet “Running” is a masterpiece of cinema as an art. In a painting, the atmosphere and visual narrative are as important as the plot, or even surpass it in importance. The mass viewer, who expects a story, does not go to such a movie, regardless of whether it is positive or negatively evaluated by professional professionals. Therefore, the cash failure is ensured in advance. On the other hand, it was the critics who revived the film, as the years went by, and in The Runner they found more and more meanings, original moves and the genius of the narrative. That ended with the recognition of the film as one of the masterpieces of American cinema.
To sum up, The Runner is a complex philosophical film with an extremely artful visual narrative. And although I consider the film a masterpiece, because of its monotony, I will think twice about whether to revisit it or not.
