Metascore
88

Universal acclaim - based on 10 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 10
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 10
  3. Negative: 1 out of 10
  1. Reviewed by: Johanna Steinmetz
    100
    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]
  2. Reviewed by: Michael Wilmington
    100
    May be the best "new" American movie released this year. [11 Sept 1992]
  3. 100
    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.
  4. 100
    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.
  5. 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.
  6. This is perhaps the only science-fiction film that can be called transcendental.
  7. 88
    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]
  8. 75
    It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story.
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
User Score
8.8

Universal acclaim- based on 388 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 72 out of 86
  2. Negative: 9 out of 86
  1. Aug 12, 2011
    10
    When I first watched this movie, I didn't really pay attention. Which isn't the films fault, given it is a film based highly on the narrative,When I first watched this movie, I didn't really pay attention. Which isn't the films fault, given it is a film based highly on the narrative, themes and relationships within the film. Which is respectively hard to follow for an incredibly tired and not so-sober individual. It wasn't until a year or so later, I saw the film was on tv and decided to watch it again. Given I hardly remembered what even happened in it. Let's just say after paying attention to the detail in this film, I was blown-back by it's style and atmosphere. Scott did very well in creating a realistic and believable gritty future; while also being able to capture how such a world alienates and disillusions it's residents. It's a beautiful social commentary and deals with many philosophical ideas, while never telling you any definite answers to them. It's definitely one of the best narrative uses of a sci-fi setting, and deserves all of its recognition and praise. Full Review »
  2. Dec 26, 2011
    7
    You see, I'm not a cult follower of Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner", so I have no **** clue of what you zealots see out there. However, what IYou see, I'm not a cult follower of Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner", so I have no **** clue of what you zealots see out there. However, what I see is a movie filled with rich, wonderful visuals accompanied by a very, very weak story (but the ending was good). Full Review »
  3. Nov 5, 2010
    10
    This is probably one of my favorite movies of all time and I think it will continue to be for as long as I'm around. The world that ScottThis is probably one of my favorite movies of all time and I think it will continue to be for as long as I'm around. The world that Scott created in this film reeks of depth, style, and an ambiance that many films can only struggle to grasp, which to me is very impressive considering that this was done before the special effects revolution of the 90's and 2000's. The story revolves around a retired blade-runner; a cop that specializes in hunting rogue replicants (synthetic humans), named Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is brought out of retirement to hunt down a group of replicants who have arrived on Earth. The movie does an excellent job of casting the characters of the movie in many shades of grey, with no one character being truly good or evil, and also poses some interesting questions as to the nature of humanity and what defines us. The films visuals are inspired; the term "film noir" is very fitting for it, but may seem slower paced to those used to more modern "action" films with their rapid fire cuts. Where many films seem to have action just for the sake of it (cough, Michael cough Bay, cough), Scott's action scenes have more of a purpose to further the narrative. It takes some getting used to, but the slower pace fits the concept better, and only adds more to the feeling of loss, stagnation, and oppression of living in that future society. The music is very ambient, with a synth sound to it, and although I don't usually like that kind of thing, it does compliment the film well and adds to the overall mood. Ford, Olmos (who only has a small role, but somehow makes the most of it), Hauer, Young, and Hannah all give strong performances, and although most of them play their roles somewhat subdued (which fits the future world they live in well), it's ironic (and most likely on purpose) that the most passionate and human-like of all the characters are the replicants themselves. It's an interesting notion that the humans are portrayed as much more cynical and full of despondency, while the shorter life-spanned replicants seem to embody a passion for life that they seem to have lost. This movie is deep, but not for everyone. People who have short attention spans or no interest in entertaining ideas about humanity and our future should probably stay away. Those who love a story about a man struggling to find his humanity in the desolate landscape of the future, cool visuals, or just sci-fi in general owe it to themselves to see the movie that influenced countless movies, TV series, books, music, and video games, and will continue to do so for a long time. Full Review »