Comments (68)Add a Comment
A scifi movie that was 20 to 30 years ahead of its time and which other subsequent scifi flicks emulated. Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is not who (or what) he appears to be. The film has subtle little clues laced throughout the script. Rutgar Hauer in his closing scene delivers what is considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monologue in cinematic history. His words were not in the script but improvised by him and only he knew the exact words to be spoken. Harrison Ford and the set crew were totally unaware of the deviation from the script which is why Ford's facial expression seemed so real and not acted as he laid there and listened.
Yes, it is a slow moving film but I watched every scene and listened to every word intently each time I viewed this film. I did not have to meander through CGI crap and mindless, endless, unbelievable and continuous fight scenes.
R.I.P. Rutgar Hauer
One of the most visually stunning films ever. This movie has served as the template for cyberpunk and science fiction pictures since the 1980s.
The film hasn't aged well for me. Re-watching it just wasn't very satisfying. It pushed boundaries at the time, but the story just isn't very enduring.
I seem to remember liking this movie, but that was 36 years ago. I struggled to keep awake this time around and had to back-up a few times. What had me looking back to see it again was after watching the Danish National Symphony Orchestra playing the theme music from the movie on YouTube ....... Now for their performance, I give 5 stars.
This is quite likely the greatest science fiction film I have ever seen. Its certainly worth re-watching. The sound/ music is perhaps the best part. The characters and plot are interesting and the ending remains open to the right extent and in the right way.
Sci fi noir; clockwork orange psychopaths, with another excuse for why. I made it somewhere up to 1/2 way, then said, "I have better things to do with my life." Even looking at Harrison Ford didn't make it worthwhile. Two stars because it *is* well-made in a classic sorta way, if you're into that sorta thang: bleakness, dystopian despair, we're doomed.
I can't see much difference between this and the director's cut. Both are far better than the butchered theatrical release with its annoying and unnecessary voice-over narration and its Hollywood ending.
For those who haven't seen "Blade Runner" or read the book "Blade Runner" is based on, Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," I'd recommend watching the movie and skipping the book. "Blade Runner" is a masterpiece and one of the very few film adaptations that are much better than the books they're based on.
Hello, darlings! - So, what's all the fuss about? This film left me with such feelings of emptiness.
There have been so many versions of this film, I am sure they got their money out with Director' cut, final cut, and theatre cut. I have to say that for it's time it was really well done. But sometimes it is better not to revisit a film you loved growing up.
Good film, I enjoyed it. It is sci-fi noir, and done in a dark, slow, moody artistic manner - but the director was wise enough to know that mood does not fit every scene in the movie, therefore the action was action, not slow moody artistic acting. Unfortunately, the sequel suffered from this lack of understanding. The Director's Cut definitely gives you the idea [SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT] that Deckard is one of the replicants by including the his dream of the unicorn. I like that touch, personally. Let the debate rage on! (Unless you've seen the sequel, in which the debate is settled.) This film is definitely worthy of a look in my opinion (unless you hate sci-fi and noir, then you might not like it).
Classic movie but parts certainly did not age well. Still one of the best attempts to marry sci-fi with film noir.
Watched BR-2049 last week. To refresh and reconnect to its 1982 prequel, watched this “Final Cut” BR version in Blu-Ray which included a bunch of introductions by film makers, including director Ridley Scott. This “Final Cut” is contentious on Deckard’s human/replicant identity and the fate of Deckard/Rachael (not the cut with "the happy ending".) Well worth viewing it again now that I am older.
1983 Academy Awards: Nominated in 2 categories for Art Direction-Set Decoration and Visual Effects. Ford (Deckard) was 40; both Sean Young (Rachael) and Hannah (Pris) were 22; Cassidy (Snake Lady with brief nudity) was 37 in 1982.
2018 Academy Awards: Nominated in 5 categories and winner of Best Cinematography and Visual Effects. Ford was 74 and Sean Young was 56 in 2017. (The others are not in this script.)
This is cult classic that helped launch the cyberpunk genre! Rick Deckard is a "blade runner" in post-apocalyptic 2019 Los Angeles. It is his duty to hunt down and "retire" renegade bioengineered humans known as replicants.
Blade Runner is a profound experience and probably the best 'original' scifi film of the 80s in terms of atmosphere and plot. Harrison Ford is very impressive, despite not being the first choice for the lead. Based on the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip Dick, Blade Runner is highly recommended. If you have a choice of versions, The Final Cut is the best.
Perhaps on its deepest level, "Blade Runner" explores ... a theme as old as Genesis and the myth of Prometheus, and iterated in "Paradise Lost," Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," and in Blake's arcane, visionary mythology.
I found the passage below in a blog post <http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2011/12/androids-vs-replicants.html> from 2011, I think it speaks cogently of Dick's distrust of technology and how the film focused rather more on humanity. I agree with the author that both elements are found in each work and it's a matter of greater emphasis in one or the other. We'll see how the new film deals with the subject.
In the 1982 film Blade Runner, the autonomous humanoid machines that the main character Deckard is tasked with hunting and killing are called "replicants". In the 1968 Philip K. Dick novel that inspired the film, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, they are called "androids". But that's a superficial difference compared to the divergent views of humans and technology in the two works.
Blade Runner has a curiously more positive take on replicants and a dimmer view of humans. In Androids, Deckard is introduced to us in bed asleep with his human wife, Iran, and the novel ends with their troubled relationship improved and Deckard going to asleep in the bedroom with Iran leaving the room to make a phone call on his behalf. In Blade Runner, Deckard has no wife or close human relationships and the film ends with Deckard running off with his love interest, a fugitive replicant named Rachael.
In the book, Rachael and Deckard have sex but for Rachael's part it's an attempt to manipulate Deckard, not out of anything like love. Later, when it's clear that Rachael did not succeed with Deckard, she goes to his home and kills his black Nubian goat. In the dystopian future of Androids, domestic and wild animals are exceedingly rare and expensive. Deckard pays a large down payment and signs a three-year loan contract in order to buy the goat.* Animal ownership is also a sacramental part of the dominant religion of Mercerism, being necessary for "true fusion with Mercer" ( p. 441).** Elsewhere in the book, Pris, an android, notes that animals are "sacred" and "protected by law". Another android, Roy, breaks in and adds "Insects ... are especially sacrosanct" (p. 549). Later, Pris and Roy methodically mutilate and torture a spider to the great distress of the human, J. R. Isidore, who found it. None of this is in the film.
Lack of empathy is a distinguishing feature of androids-replicants in the book and film but this comes across much more strongly in the book. In the film, the empathy deficit is at least partly the result of a human design feature—the replicants have an engineered four-year life span. In the book, the androids, including Rachael, are down-right sadistic but while they too have a four-year life span, it is not deliberate but the result of a technological shortcoming. In one of the final scenes of Blade Runner, the last fugitive replicant to die, Roy demonstrates empathy, saving Deckard's life, and then in his final moments Roy gives a beautiful soliloquy about what will be lost when he passes out of existence. No such scene exists in the book.
Good film, I enjoyed it. However, it wasn't as good as it was made out to be. This is the "Final Cut" so there are some changes from other versions. One of the biggest is the lack of narration from Harrison Ford. I wonder if that might have made it a bit better. The atmosphere is dark and gritty, more like a DC film. Supposed to be taking place in 2019, it's interesting to see what they though it might look like. Otherwise, good Sci-fi, just a bit slow.
Simply one of the best science fiction movies ever, influencing so many films that followed.
The more times I watched it (except for a few brutal scenes), the more I like it.
See the Wikipedia article, "Versions of Blade Runner," for an explanation of what's in and what's out of the various versions available. Certainly this Final Cut is the only one with the full "unicorn dream" sequence.
I'm not sure why this is called "The Final Cut". It's in letterbox format (widescreen with black at top and bottom) which is annoying. There was only a five second part added near the beginning and other than that it was identical to every other release I have seen of this film. Still a classic, but why "final cut"? I think maybe they took more out than they put in.
The plot? Doesn't really matter, like a lot of cyberpunk. Like, you can debate if Deckard is a replicant or not or whether you like the original narration, but really that's not the point of the movie. The point is the mood: overbuilt near future metropolis where the pollution and rain mix to make it a constant haze among the giant arcologies and highrises with neon blaring through. Basically the setting is far more important and interesting than the characters. The visuals are achieved with excellent model work and optical effects (some of which made possible by newly invented at the time computer controlled camera tracking), and a perfectly moody synth soundtrack by Vangelis. This film has defined the look of many, many, of our 'movie futures' for over 30 years now.
My personal favorite as greatest movie ever made. It visually stunning and musically hypnotic. The use of depth, light, color and shadows are astounding. It's not science fiction or film noir but a love story that asks the questions of about life, death, and what it means to be human and to love. A perfect film. a work of art and a philosophical landmark. It's cinematic influence is still felt. 420 >> "Do you like our Owl ??"
I found it very dark and moody and very visceral. Liked the version with the narration the best because it added dialogue to the film. Like Indiana Jones and Star Wars, a movie that stood way above what Hollywood was pumping out at the time.