IMDb user comments for
Blade Runner (1982) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 92:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

916 comments in total

---

357 out of 453 people found the following comment useful :-
A compelling, thematically-deep SF film, 5 March 2002

Author: Joel Hoff (joelhoff) from USA.

This is truly one of the greatest science fiction films ever made, one that requires a thinking viewer in order to understand and appreciate it. The director's cut is the recommended one to see as it omits a somewhat distracting narration and avoids an unnecessary Hollywood-style ending that is at odds with the rest of the film's tone.

A true science fiction story or film is about ideas, not spaceship battles, futuristic gadgets, or weird creatures. "Blade Runner" fully qualifies as this in its examination of the impact of technology on human society, existence, and the very nature of humanity itself. These themes are set in a fairly basic detective story that moves slowly but gradually builds power as the viewer is immersed in a dystopian futuristic Los Angeles.

Harrison Ford fans accustomed to the normally dynamic roles that he plays may be dissatisfied with the seemingly lifeless lead character that he portrays here as the replicant-hunting detective known as a "blade runner". They should be, for this dissatisfaction is part of the film experience, part of the dehumanized existence in the story's setting. However, as the story unfolds, we see Ford's character, Rick Deckard, slowly come alive again and recover some humanity while pursing four escaped replicants.

The replicants, genetically-engineered human cyborgs, that Deckard must hunt down and kill are in many ways more alive than Deckard himself initially. Their escape from an off-world colony has an explicit self-directed purpose, whereas Deckard's life appears to have none other than his job, one that he has tried to give up. By some standards, Deckard and the replicants have thin character development. However, this is a deeply thematic and philosophical film, and as such the characters are the tools of the story's themes. Each character reflects some aspect of humanity or human existence, but they lack others, for each is broken in ways that reflect the broken society in which they live and were conceived/created.

There are several dramatic moments involving life-and-death struggles, but most of these are more subdued than in a normal detective story plot. The film's power is chiefly derived through its stunning visual imagery of a dark futuristic cityscape and its philosophical themes.

Among the themes explored are the following: - The dehumanization of people through a society shaped by technological and capitalistic excess. - The roles of creator and creation, their mutual enslavement, and their role reversal, i.e., the creation's triumph over its creator. - The nature of humanity itself: emotions, memory, purpose, desire, cruelty, technological mastery of environment and universe, mortality, death, and more. - Personal identity and self-awareness. - The meaning of existence.

If you are not someone who naturally enjoys contemplating such themes, the film's brilliance may be lost on you. The climax involves a soliloquy that brings many of the themes together in a simple yet wonderfully poetic way. Anyone who "gets" the film should be moved by this; others will sadly miss the point and may prefer watching some mindless action flick instead.

"Blade Runner" is a masterpiece that deserves recognition and long remembrance in film history.

---

239 out of 296 people found the following comment useful :-
Still outshines the others 17 years later, 5 August 1999

Author: John (johnn@m-m-s.com)

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Blade Runner belongs on a list of 2 or 3 movies that had me walking out of the theater in a stupor as though hit by a sledgehammer, the first time I saw it. It fulfills one of my requirements of great films in that I walked out of the theater a different person than when I entered. And it fulfilled another requirement in that it improved with repeated viewings.

There is so much to take in visually, intellectually, and emotionally that my mind was overwhelmed at the first viewing trying to sort it all out. Unlike the so-called "entertainment" we get today at the movies, this film didn't spoonfeed its meaning to you. It left the ending ambiguous so your imagination has to supply it.

The film demands discussion. There are so many topics to debate. Is Deckard a replicant? Do Deckard and Rachel live happily ever after? Why is there a unicorn in the director's cut? Is Deckard a hero? Or are the replicants really the good guys? Every time I watch it, my answers change.

I may be one of the few that really likes the original. Probably because I've seen that version a couple dozen times since 1982 before the director's cut came out. This may contradict what I said earlier about being spoonfed, but I liked the narration because it explained what was going on in Deckard's mind. And I didn't mind the "happy ending" because it still implied that their troubles may not be over. "I don't know how long we had together. Who does?" But with that version memorized, I now appreciate the directors cut. It probably has the better ending. (At least I think so until I view it again!)

It's also fun watching actors before they became more famous later like Sean Young, Daryl Hannah, M. Emmet Walsh, William Sanderson, and Edward James Olmos. I think they all did a great job. And Vangelis did a beautiful, moving score.

After "Blade Runner", most of the big blockbuster science fiction movies boil down to good guys vs. bad guys with lots of loud explosions and in-your-face effects. Very simplistic messages, if any. That's why I still contend that an "oldie" like Blade Runner still outshines them all. It has incredible special effects, but never at the expense of the story. The cityscapes do more than dazzle you, they involve you.

The more I think of it, the more I realize that "Blade Runner" is not only my favorite science fiction movie, but one of my favorite films in any genre. I wish Ridley Scott would return to science fiction, but then again today's Hollywood would never release a movie like "Blade Runner."

---

198 out of 259 people found the following comment useful :-
Intriguingly Philosophical, 6 March 2001
Author: brendan (jfitch7@aol.com) from Flushing, N.Y

Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott and based on Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, is a Sci-fi slash Noir film about a cop named Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) in a decrepit 2019 Los Angeles whose job it is to "retire" four genetically engineered syborgues, known as "Replicants". The four fugitives, Pris (Daryl Hannah), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy), Leon (Brion James), and their leader, Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), have escaped from an off-world colony in order to find their creator and bully him into expanding their pre-determined four year life span. This film originally flopped when it came out in 1982, but since has become a widely acclaimed cult classic with a director's cut to boot. A large part of the success that this movie has received can be attributed to its ability to operate on many different levels.

Ridley Scott's hauntingly possible depiction of what might become of Los Angeles down the line is absolutely brilliant. It captures elements of Noir with its urban atmosphere of decadence, lighting, and characters neither clearly defined as good nor evil. Corruption is everywhere. The garbage-littered streets and permanence of dark and rain give us the sense that we've seriously screwed up the atmosphere, and the impression that all respectable human beings have fled to the off-world colonies, leaving only the scum of the earth behind.

There is a hint of style from the 40's, especially with respect to cars, costumes, and music. Rachael's entire outfit, including her hair, screams the 40's.

The soundtrack, arranged by Vangelis (who won an Oscar for his Chariots of Fire score), consisted mainly of Jazz and Blues. This functioned to represent a dark, moody world of uncertainty and pessimism.

The special effects were exceptional. Much of the set was pulled off using models. In my opinion, sets made by hand require leagues more of skill and are much more impressive and realistic than those computer generated. These guys really knew what they were doing. I was especially fond of the pyramidesque Tyrell Corporation building, which hinted at the god-like presence of Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkell), the creator.

The script (Hampton Fancher, David Peoples, and of course Phil Dick) worked for me, as well as the actors who gave voice to it. Harrison Ford was well...Harrison Ford. I thought he did a tremendous job down-playing the role. His voice-over narration helped you along, and was yet another feature conducive to Film Noir (apparently this was taken out of the Director's Cut). Rutger Hauer's performance was intense. His lines at the end were intriguingly philosophical. Daryl Hannah's chilling robotic expressions were quite impressive. Joanna Cassidy was just plain hot.

There is more to this film than just pulp. It works on so many remarkable levels. The movie itself is a detective noir quest for the meaning of life in a science fiction environment, but the story is a commentary on what it means to be human and the questions each one of us have about life, like: How long have I to live? Why do I have to die? What happens when I die? Doesn't my maker care? Is this all merely an illusion? At the end of the film we are left to wonder if these Replicants are human, and if Deckard himself is in fact a Replicant. Scott raises more questions here than he answers, and as a result, critics are still debating the mysteries of this film today. In a sense, the ambiguity of Blade Runner is the culprit of its success.

---

168 out of 211 people found the following comment useful :-
A glorious, timeless nightmare, 25 July 2006

Author: Flagrant-Baronessa from the kingdom of far, far away (Sweden)

Dark, deep, uncertain, unsettling – imagine the most beautiful nightmare you've ever had – this is Blade Runner (1982).

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is a brilliantly crafted science fiction film that not only touches upon, but bravely plunges into deep philosophical questions, making it simply ten times more important than any film of its genre. I love it not only for the initial feeling it gives, but because of its perseverance – none of the visuals, themes or technology feel dated but as deep, gripping and current as ever. It is timeless beauty with huge doses of emotion.

Set in 2019 Los Angeles, Blade Runner zooms in on the eerily-lit, urban streets of the city and follows Richard Deckard – superbly played by Harrison Ford who brings an exquisite moral ambiguity to his character – a special policeman who tracks down and terminates artificially-created humans called replicants, who have escaped from an Off-World colony and made their way to earth and need to be stopped. The things Deckard encounters on his detective journey raise many philosophical questions like: Who is really a replicant? Are replicants really bad? If replicants are bad, when why did we go to such lengths with our technology to create them? Are replicants really humans? Is Deckard a hero? This truly is a film that demands subsequent discussion and its ambiguous ending leave a haunting and eerie feeling.

In spite of a rich glaze of science fiction and futurism coating this adventure, there are distinct film noir elements present – primarily in the bluish haze that the film is seen through and its gritty urban atmosphere. Whoever thought of this combination is a genius. Since it is all about technology, it fits then that Blade Runner features a ridiculous amount of product placement, especially from Atari. In any other film, this would have felt out-of-place but here it is simply perfect. The score by Vangelis is strangely gripping when combined with the striking cinematography of the film.

Blade Runner deserves credit, celebration and remembrance for it is simply an excellent film.

10 out of 10 (and I don't just throw this grade out like SOME people)

---

149 out of 193 people found the following comment useful :-
Timeless, 14 July 2005

Author: marntfield from Canada

What can be said about this film that hasn't already been covered in preceding decennia? Blade Runner (either version) stands the test of time as an epic story which transcends a disparity of genres, as well as the seminal "dark" sci-fi film which has been mimicked so frequently (to varying degrees of success) since its original release. The interplay of film noir, sci-fi, and what is one of the most philosophically symbolic and academically analyzed narratives of the modern era holds its ground on both visual and cerebral levels even in the face of today's CGI laden blockbusters. The new director's cut, contrary to many cinematic re-hashings, actually serves to clarify many of the more nebulous aspects of the plot and makes a great film even better, arguably allowing it to be modernized and polished for a new generation of viewers who are more picky and yet simultaneously less idealistic. All while sustaining the feeling and flavor of the original. Call it restorative work if you will. The tinny and meandering score by Vangelis is pure 1980s at its most brooding and fits the texture and mood of the film beautifully. Indeed, for many reasons, finding this film in someone's DVD collection makes a true statement about their discriminating and refined taste in movies, and equally their appreciation of film as an artistic medium. I would suggest picking up a reader by someone like Nietzsche, Foucualt, Descartes, Kierkegaard, or any of the great existentialist philosophers after viewing this film in order to appreciate the story & its concepts at a whole new level, regardless if you're watching it for either the 1st, or the 100th time. An enduring classic and an intrepid piece of film-making with rich & often haunting visuals designed to entertain and promote introspection amongst its viewers. 9/10.

---

140 out of 210 people found the following comment useful :-
Finest hour., 12 December 2004
Author: spooj from essex england

This is simply Scott's finest hour. There are a sheer plethora of futuristic films with vision. Films which crudely grope into a possible time ahead,when perhaps a post apocalyptic era is scattered with cliché upon cliché and often miss the whole point. What Ridley Scott achieved with this film,is an entirely possible scenario. It really does feel like a science fiction novel brought to life,but not so much as its derivative penned by Phillip K Dick(do androids dream of electric sheep?). Its a grimy,violent world inhabited by the sick,lower class,villainous second citizens who haven't quite made the grade for the off world colonies. We have a true smelting pot of nationalities.The heavy eastern references within china town like inner cities is particularly poignant.

This film also sees Ford in perfect casting.Theirs a rye charm that Ford has that no other actor could fake or fill quite as effortlessly. Its a mixed review depending on what version you have seen. For me,the directors cut is simply too cut. I preferred the audience friendly screening which had the wonderful narration. The finest moment with this narration has to be the moments described by Batty in his dying eyes and the summing up by Ford of this man/machines passion and love for life.. No other sci-fi futuristic film has ever made the grade before or since in my humble opinion. It captured the raw smells and light of a brutal future scarily depicted in films or even so well. From the chase scene with Zora to the flybys over the city capturing a stunning skyline,chimneys and skyscrapers in one shot. This is my favourite movie of all time for all the reasons above and many more i could effortlessly type all day and night.

---

138 out of 210 people found the following comment useful :-
A movie you have to watch twice, 4 January 2005

Author: antialias11 from Bonn, Germany

First time I saw this I wasn't impressed. Maybe because I expected more action from a Sci-Fi movie. Then I rented it on VHS, and upon re-watching I figured something out: This is one of the very few movies that gets better the more often you see it. It is a subtle movie. Slowly but surely this one has made it into the top 5 of my 'best movies of all time' list.

I don't particularly care for the director's cut version, though. The inner monologue is missing - which gives you some of the most thought inspiring moments, and some of the added scenes downright make no sense at all. if I'd seen that one first I might never have given it a second chance.

The cast is exceptional. Every one of them does a really fine job. Especially Rutger Hauer who otherwise has very few good movies to his name (maybe 'Day of the Falcon') delivers a stunning performance. Most of the cast who were unknown before this movie have moved on to fame (and some to fortune) - and rightfully so.

From a technical point of view there is not much to criticize. More than 20 years later this movie still doesn't look dated (apart from 'Atari'-neon signs). The atmosphere is created with a lot of attention to detail, and the models of buildings are some of the most beautiful and believable ones I have ever seen.

Now I recently read the book on which it is based ('Do androids dream of electric sheep' by Philip K. Dick). It's a quirky read and, frankly, not a very good book. It has too many plot holes, deus-ex-machina devices and logical inconsistencies, plus a total letdown of an ending. What it does add to the movie is the setup of why the atmosphere is like it is (polluted, dark, many 'freaks' around), and the nice question whether the Hero might be a replicant himself.

---

122 out of 185 people found the following comment useful :-
A futuristic allegory about the value of life, 7 December 1998
Author: Videot-3 from Piteå, Sweden

OK, I admit...the first time I watched this movie I detested it. But hey, I was 16 years old and had expected an action-packed sci-fi adventure. Blade Runner is not such a film. But I am grateful for this, for after maturing a bit and rewatching the movie a couple of times, I discovered its greatness. It is not a traditional sci-fi movie, it's a touching drama about the value of life and the importance of making the most of what you've got. One of the most important themes in the film is the question of what is more valuable - humans without emotions, or machines with? The film gives no answer - it just opens our eyes and makes us aware that we should be grateful for being alive.

Some people prefer the Director's Cut, but I like the original version better - mostly because of the wonderful end line: "I didn't know how long we had together. Who does?" That pretty much sums it up.

---

97 out of 144 people found the following comment useful :-
Best Sci-Fi Ever, 19 March 1999
Author: Damien-10 from San Francisco

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I will confidently make the statement that Blade Runner is the best science-fiction picture ever made. I have seen every important sci-fi movie, and personally, Blade Runner reveals itself to be a superior film.

Space Odyssey and Alien come close, but they do not hold up as well as Blade Runner upon multiple viewings. Space Odyssey tends to lull in its more psychedelic moments, leaving one with a feeling of confused longing. No matter how many theories are expounded based on the content of the film, its ultimate meaning will remain ever-ambiguous, as Kubrick intended it to be. Alien is weakened by its inability to reach the viewer on a higher philosophical plane. The suspense in the film is nearly unparalleled, and Sigourney Weaver is fantastic, but it falls short of the excellence displayed in Blade Runner.

Let me explain why Blade Runner is my favorite:

The most striking aspect of the film is its cinematography. There is nothing but genius in the shooting of every scene. The use of shadows and low camera angles bears an uncanny resemblance to the cinematography of Citizen Kane. My favorite shot is when we get our first glimpse into Tyrell's office. The lighting effects in all of that set's scenes are fantastic.(especially when the windows become tinted). Please note that the lame-brains at the academy did not nominate Blade Runner for Best Cinematography. How stupid can you get?

Behind every film is the Director's vision, and in this film, Ridley Scott displays incredible vision. His conception of a futuristic LA, as characterized by the inevitable demographics of the future, is what allows the film to transcend its era and remain appreciated in the future. Many of the themes in the movie originate from the sci-fi novel (which carries an absurd title that does not obey the rules of logic:one does not dream of sheep; one thinks of sheep in an attempt to achieve a state of dream), yet the manner in which those themes are presented brings about the full genius of Ridley Scott. (How many Hardcore rock fans know where the phrase "more human than human" comes from?) Through the example of the replicants, Scott exposes the human sin of taking life for granted. Furthermore, he asks: what does it mean to be human? Do we have a false vision of our own morality as a race? Do we ignore our own evils? Can we play God as Tyrell attempts to do? The complexity of all these questions allows for many viewings of the film.

And then, of course, there are the actors. None of them stand out in their roles, and yet the acting is perfect. Harrison Ford plays Deckard, the misanthropic ex-cop, who comes off as a veritable anti-hero. Sean Young plays Rachel, the incredibly human replicant that steals his heart. Rutger Hauer plays Roy, the umistakably Aryan leader of the replicants. All three of them deserved Oscar nominations. The other minor roles are superb as well.

Finally, Blade Runner would not be itself without the Vangelis soundtrack. It has a wonderful mood-controlling effect throughout the film. I especially like the Blade Runner Blues, and Rachel's song.

I think that anybody who's read through my entire comment gets the point: I love this movie and I find it to be the best. If you haven't seen it, get over to the video store NOW!!! For first time viewers be sure to get the original version. When you have become familiar enough with the plot, go see it as it was meant to be, (without the voice-over), and rent the director's cut. If you live in a big city, you might be lucky enough to catch it on the big screen at an independent theatre.

---

53 out of 60 people found the following comment useful :-
An incredibly beautiful-looking film as one would expect with director Ridley Scott…, 11 August 2008

Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

But it's almost like an art movie, the first science-fiction art film… It's a futuristic film beautifully put together… It's really impeccably made by one of the great visionary directors… And you really saw a future that looked very different from the future you had seen before… A future that looked very believable like the visual-effects shots of the flying car going over a futuristic city… The fight sequence doesn't prepare you for the traumatic emotional side that there is in the film, it leaves you sort of broken…

There is a beautiful, delicate emotional great scene that I remember when I first saw the movie… I'm in the theater and I'm so drawn in what Rutger Hauer's doing… I'm so drawn in by what the theme of the movie has brought us to… The magnificent moment where he is letting go of life… And in those last moments of letting go of life he's really learned to appreciate life to the point where he spares Deckard's life, and where he's even holding a white dove because he just wants to have something that's alive in his hands… It's an amazing sort of crescendo that's going and there's Rutger saying: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. All these moments will be lost in time like tears in rain." Hauer puts all the things that are so amazing about people: sense of poetry, sense of humor, sense of sexuality, sense of the kid, sense of soul…

Scott brought out the best qualities in his performers… He coaxed and very gently manipulated performances from his actors that in some instances I think they've rarely topped… You feel the story, you feel the emotions of the characters and you will be lost in the middle of this wild world, you know, it's so rich and it's painful… I mean it's a very bluesy, dark story and told very compassionately…

The overpopulation, the sort of crowd scenes is so rich and varied and there's such an extreme detail designing the magazine covers, designing the look of the punks, the Hare Krishnas, the biological salesman, everything is designed… You have just Piccadilly Circus punks walking by… You have a sense of layers in that society… That is one of those things that you see again and again… The city landscape with the big billboards à la Kyoto or Tokyo… Scott was able to create the look based on what goes on in various cities all over the world… Whether it is Tokyo, Kyoto or Beijing or Hong Kong or whatever, you're right in "Blade Runner" country…

"Blade Runner," to me, embodies the elegance, the power, and the uniqueness of a film experience… It's the most classical, beautiful, purest movie-making writing and then the film-making itself is… The images and the sound and the music, it's pure cinema… Ridley came out with an amazing, brilliantly executed future of an absolute dystopia… The intensity of his perfectionism on "Blade Runner" made the movie… This is a master at his best…

---

---

Page 1 of 92:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history