Harrison Ford selfish

But justtry to imagine that Deck would be played by someone else - and perhaps better than Ford did!

Then we would have this topic and somebody would suggest Ford and the others would wonder: "Ford??? What a weird idea! He wouldn't make it as good as ******* "

Last night I saw the end of "Frantic" on T.V. . I hadn't seen it before. Ford seemed to be doing the nervous stressed confused angry idiot he played in Witness, The Fugitive, Air Force One, Mosquito Coast, ect. Then they showed "Regarding Henry" In the first 15 minutes, before he gets shot in the head and becomes a basket case, he does some really respectable acting. He played a selfish, aggressive, SMART! lawer. It reminded me of his Raiders of the Lost Ark character (Not the Last Crusade or Temple of Doom loser). Aparently, he can still act, if the character is right?!?....

I think his performance in The Fugitive and Mosquito Coast is very good. His role in MQ is even appreciated by many ctritics as one of his best roles.


But then again, Ford is good in the movie only if the movie has a good director.

He played a mad inventor in Mosquito Coast. A man with a sick mind. He was dispicable. Maybe he played a piece of crap well, but who wants to see it? Again, he was doing his highly stressed, angry, confused role, only insane too!

Well, I think that a man with sick mind is far more interesting character than comic book archeologist, isn't?

(nothing against IJ in particular)

O.K., maybe I'd rather think of Harrison Ford as my Bud, a guy I'd like to hang out with and emulate, than as an actor. It's a relationship I established, since I was 25 when Star Wars first came out, -then, Raiders of the Lost Ark, then Blade Runner.

No prob, I like him in various roles too.

has anyone ever seen hanover street or force ten from navarone i dotn think he played a nervous twichy psyco in those

"Then we would have this topic and somebody would suggest Ford and the others would wonder: "Ford??? What a weird idea! He wouldn't make it as good as ******* "
"

I disagree. Sure there are actors that could have done a lot with the role, but I think many times about characters that i felt other actors could have played better. For instance, i think Patrick Stewart would have made a better Gandalf than Ian McKellan.

And wtf is wrong with Temple of Doom and Last Crusade???

And wtf is wrong with Temple of Doom and Last Crusade???

Entertainment. Yes entertainment is a fine thing..nothing wrong with a bit of entertainment on the big screen. But there are so many stupid plot holes in those movies that I can only applaud Spielberg for being so clever in his manipulation of the audience that they fail to notice them. Nothing is logical in those movies..every scene serves the next in a badly written beautifully shot well acted farce.
For example..
In part 2 watch Indy jump out of a window with kate capshaw into Short Rounds waiting car..how did he know they were going to come out the window? Why did Kate Capshaw go with Indy on the plane? Why did the pilots jump out of the plane instead of just killing Indy and co.? The Zeppelin in part 3 (which didn't fly commercially past 1937 anyway)..how did Indiana Jones chat up a cabin crew member to take his clothes, then knock a senior SS official (somehow on his own) out the window onto luggage (which the Zeppelin promptly takes off and leaves behind) with poor FX shot of said SS man shaking his fists at it? So we could see silly scene of passengers shaking their tickets around in the air. How did Indiana Jones and Sean Connery get to the plane attached to the underneath of the Zeppelin so easily, and why did 3 German planes suddenly appear from nowhere? So it could lead to a scene where a German pilot fly into a tunnel (why would he do that?) and die for no other reason than to give the audience something to laugh at.
OK OK..its nitpicking, innit? YOu can nitpick an awful lot of films but what brings me back to those 2 Harrison Ford 'classics' is the fact that a lot of people would put them ahead of Blade Runner in a poll, which is downright blasphemy.

If I remember correctly Ford needed someone to tell him how his character was supposed to feel and act. This contradicts how Ford and Scott saw things. Ford was at a loss seeing he had no direction and needed Scott to tell him how and where to go. I'm not taking anything away from Ford, I think he is an incredble actor but he was at a loss. But in "Future Noir" its said that Ford and Ridley didn't exactly see eye to eye on things.

And wtf is wrong with Temple of Doom and Last Crusade???

Entertainment. Yes entertainment is a fine thing..nothing wrong with a bit of entertainment on the big screen. But there are so many stupid plot holes in those movies that I can only applaud Spielberg for being so clever in his manipulation of the audience that they fail to notice them. Nothing is logical in those movies..every scene serves the next in a badly written beautifully shot well acted farce.
For example..
In part 2 watch Indy jump out of a window with kate capshaw into Short Rounds waiting car..how did he know they were going to come out the window? Why did Kate Capshaw go with Indy on the plane? Why did the pilots jump out of the plane instead of just killing Indy and co.? The Zeppelin in part 3 (which didn't fly commercially past 1937 anyway)..how did Indiana Jones chat up a cabin crew member to take his clothes, then knock a senior SS official (somehow on his own) out the window onto luggage (which the Zeppelin promptly takes off and leaves behind) with poor FX shot of said SS man shaking his fists at it? So we could see silly scene of passengers shaking their tickets around in the air. How did Indiana Jones and Sean Connery get to the plane attached to the underneath of the Zeppelin so easily, and why did 3 German planes suddenly appear from nowhere? So it could lead to a scene where a German pilot fly into a tunnel (why would he do that?) and die for no other reason than to give the audience something to laugh at.
OK OK..its nitpicking, innit? YOu can nitpick an awful lot of films but what brings me back to those 2 Harrison Ford 'classics' is the fact that a lot of people would put them ahead of Blade Runner in a poll, which is downright blasphemy.

So? Every movie has plot holes, Raiders had at least as many as last crusade (though i still like raiders the best). Of course i dont think there is any way that any of the Indy movies should be ranked above BR but like you said, you can nitpick a lot of films.

Funny how Deckard looks just like Harrison Ford..

His role in MQ is even appreciated by many critics as one of his best roles.

Hi,

I too believe that this is one of his very best roles. In the end you lose all sympathy for Harrison Ford's character which I think is quite an achievement for him, concidering it was the year 1986, a time where Ford was still very likable. But by the end of the movie he single-handedly destroyed everything he (Harrison Ford) stood for. Gone was Han Solo. Indiana Who? Is this the same guy who played that Blade Runner cop? No way! Buzz off!

However, this role, which I think is save to call the zenith of his career, is the last time we've seen Harrison giving a great performance. Suddenly something has changed. His acting style had changed dramatically. It's like he became very aware of himself and the audience. He was more wooden, slower. The spontaneousness Ford was once blessed with was completely lost. I must confess that from then on I could never again lose myself in watching a movie starring Harrison Ford. His choice of movies also somehow changed. He chose safe so often that it became downright boring. Of course, What Lies Beneath, surprised me! Who would've suspected Harrison, after all these years of type-casting, not to be the one we thought he was?

Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time and Harrison Ford is in it. I think he is superb as Rick Deckard, no question about it. But, could it be, knowing him being malcontent with his character, that this is perhaps the sole reason why Harrison Ford is so good at playing Rick Deckard? Could the many differences there were between Ford and Scott have led to the enhancement of the character? Maybe Ford's unhappiness conveniently payed off in favor of the role he had to play. Well, I think it is. There are those who love the narration in the theatrical release. Fact is, it was unwillingly performed by Ford (I know, Scott hated it too). Let's imagine that Ford would've been all for it! How would the voice-over have been then?
I think it's possible that Ford's reluctance at playing Scott's Deckard showed on screen. And it is precisely Harrison's big uncertainties that made Deckard a seemingly more complex character. Sometimes I think Blade Runner is jam-packed with little coincidences to an extend that they are responsible for the movie's status.

Leon Corporation Employee

Perhaps it was that BLADERUNNER didn't do that well in the box office on first release. Sorry to mention this...but POLTERGEIST really cleaned up at the box office, leaving BLADERUNNER with an early dismissal from the theatres.

But since then....well certainly an excellent picture, a sci-fi legend!

mike81859