Tears in the Rain

I found this short by accident while searching for documentaries about the original Blade Runner movie. At first I didn't believed this would be something worth seeing, but I was bored so I let it play. The first minute catches me off guard, the visuals, the music, the cinematography, they all strike a cord. It reminded me so much of the original, something no fan made movie has ever done. So, I continued to watch it, and then, piece by piece I start to get mesmerized by it the same way I got when I saw the original Blade Runner movie. Once it ended, I replayed it over and over and over again until this became my favorite short movie ever made, just like how Blade Runner is my all time favorite.

This short is non-cannon to the Blade Runner universe, but for me... it is. That's how good it was. Check it out, you won't regret it.

I admit , I do not know Blade Runner. So, I saw this short film as a fair portrait of the border line between apparence and reality, about certitudes and self truth . A replicant hunter. A man with a small perrot. And a great end. Seductive, precise, well crafted. A beautiful film , first forthe status of kick to reflection.

With a $1,500 budget and very little experience, director Christopher Grant Harvey produced an 11-minute scene that is easily on par with many of the scenes found in big-budget blockbusters. It helps a great deal that the actors were professionals -- the performance by Russel Savadier as the janitor is particularly critical to the success of the final result. Even so, this indie short is a testament to what can be done with little more than a great story idea and modern filmmaking equipment. If you liked Blade Runner, it's a safe bet that you'll like Tears in the Rain.

If any producers are reading this review, I'd like to add that if a film comes out with "Christopher Grant Harvey" in the credits, I plan to watch it unless something is horribly wrong otherwise. I don't have any connection to the film or the filmmaker, it's just that I enjoyed seeing something in the Blade Runner universe so much that I want to see what the director comes up with next -- even if it's not related to science fiction.

The visuals are better than the original. Which is hard to come a surprise as the technique has improved so much. And there is no attempt to make a new universe. Which is good. But also adds nothing new.

The acting is decent. And I found that impressive.

The script is terrible. But I guess I would find Dick novels boring now. Back than they were terrific. In school you get the usual flat nationalistic propaganda. And cheap paperbacks were simply fresh air. Who are we? Why are we? A new dimension. Going from one to two dimensions was mind blowing. That still meant that a pencil going through the drawing paper still meant a mystical disc shaped hole growing. From the three dimensional universe, Dick is flat.

Still, this is not about Dick's novel, but about the new script. It is pointless. The viewer has to imagine all alone the anxiety of a Dick World in order to feel something about this story.

It is the script that breaks the movie.

Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch