|
100
|
Los Angeles Times
May be the best "new" American movie released this year. [11 Sept 1992]
|
|
100
|
Washington Post Desson Thomson
This movie is great in any version...I don't miss what has been cut from the new version. The overall effect is so beautifully wrought, a few details aren't going to bring things crashing down.
|
|
100
|
Washington Post Rita Kempley
Grand enough in scale to carry its many Biblical and mythological references, Blade Runner never feels heavy or pretentious -- only more and more engrossing with each viewing. It helps, too, that it works as pure entertainment.
|
|
100
|
Chicago Tribune
Most important, several elements -- the film's tough, new ending; a sly, fleeting dissolve of a unicorn, not in the original; and a brilliant, trompe d'oeil flicker of life in a shot of a still photograph -- bring Deckard's existential dilemma into focus. [11 Sept 1992]
|
|
100
|
Chicago Reader Jonathan Rosenbaum
The grafting of 40s hard-boiled detective story with SF thriller creates some dysfunctional overlaps, and the movie loses some force whenever violence takes over, yet this remains a truly extraordinary, densely imagined version of both the future and the present, with a look and taste all its own.
|
|
91
|
Entertainment Weekly Owen Gleiberman
This is perhaps the only science-fiction film that can be called transcendental.
|
|
88
|
USA Today Susan Wloszczyna
What remains is a great Vangelis score, astonishing production design, Hauer's career role -- and a movie that deserves its cult reputation despite an unloving heart. [11 Sept 1992]
|
|
75
|
Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert
It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story.
|
|
75
|
San Francisco Chronicle Edward Guthmann
Today, Blade Runner works better than ever: Scott's version not only has more dramatic integrity, but its visual aesthetic and futuristic vision are more in sync with today's movie-goers. [11 Sept 1992]
|
|
38
|
Christian Science Monitor David Sterritt
As before, the movie is more impressive for its finely detailed vision of Los Angeles as a futuristic slum than for its story, acting, or message. It's all downhill after the first few eye-dazzling minutes. [2 Oct 1992]
|
