User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 324 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 12 out of 324

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 1, 2012
    Excruciatingly boring. Less dialogue than Castaway. Slower than 2001. Less plot than Coffee and Cigarettes. Uninspiring acting. The only reason this film has a non-zero score is the effects, but that's not a good enough reason to watch this one.
  2. Sep 28, 2011
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First things first. Right off the bat, one thing I never understood about Blade Runner was its title. Why is it called Blade Runner? Deckard is a future cop who goes around hunting robots. He doesn't run on any blades, at all. There's no blade running. He drives a flying car. The movie never touches on the topic of blades or of running on blades. I just, I don't understand why the film has this title. Does blade running have anything to do with anything? I can't see it.

    Holden, the first blade runner agent goes and tests Leon, and gets blown away by a hidden gun when the replicant reacts badly to a question. Now, wouldn't it have been a lot safer if Holden had searched the suspect for weapons before administering the test? That seems like it would've been a prudent move. Replicants are artificially intelligent robots, as far as I can tell. Yet, why are they so similar to humans? All movie long, I was wondering why they didn't seem different from humans at all. You just couldn't tell them apart, there was nothing to give away their robotic nature. That's the reason for the Vought-kampf test, after all. But why were they so human? When Roy Batty stabs himself at the end of the film, what looks like blood comes out. It looked just like the blood of a normal person. But shouldn't there be some differentiation between us? Why would we make robots that are exactly like humans? "More human than human" as Tyrell's corporation puts it? Data on Star Trek is a good example of an AI android that clearly appears robotic. He's got golden eyes, and yellow metallic skin. There's a clear sign of otherness. We know just by looking at him that he's an android. Ash from Alien is another example of an android from a Ridley Scott film. Ash on the outside appears human, however his blood is milky white. That's a rather big indicator of artificial design, I'd say. But we don't get that at all with the replicants. Other then showing feats of superhuman strength, they're just like humans. The Tyrell corporation makes them more human than human, as we've said. But why the hell would they do that? The government has outlawed all replicants on earth, hasn't it? Doesn't that indicate a rather large and serious fear of replicants? Outlawing all intelligent robots on earth seems to me like people are rather afraid of intelligent robots. But it's okay to let the corporation keep making these intelligent robots as human as humanly possible? Completely indistinguishable from people, other then a rather lengthy and laborious empathy test? Doesn't this seem incredibly strange to anyone else? Why not make them look like robots, like Data, so we don't have to worry so much? Then, if they are on Earth, they're easy to spot. Wouldn't be so risky for blade runners, plus you wouldn't need to worry about accidentally retiring a human being. Or program some sort of dye into their body that's easily detectable with a scan? Or have some sort of killswitch in them so you can shut them off when they go rogue, rather then waiting for their four year lifespan to end?

    There are a few different models of Nexus-6 robots, we're told. Roy Batty is a combat model, while Pris is a pleasure model, aka a robot prostitute. Now alright, that's fine and well. But the prologue says that "Replicants were used Off-World as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets." Now, why would you so painstakingly try to create replicants that were as human as possible, and as intelligent as possible, if they're just going to be used for slave labor? I can see why a pleasure model like Pris might need to look as human as possible, since nobody who's going to an off-world brothel would want to **** something that looks like a robot. That wouldn't be so sexy. Dealing with the uncanny valley would also be a pretty big turnoff, I'd imagine. So it makes sense that Pris would look as human as possible. But for others, like Roy Batty... it doesn't really hold up. Trying to make a robot look as human as possible seems like a tremendous waste of time and effort if you're just going to use him for combat or slave labor. Does slave labor really require exceptional intelligence or perfect human likeness? I think not.

    And frankly, the world we're shown doesn't even seem capable of creating robots that are perfect facsimiles of human beings. Such a feat would require a highly advanced technological society, wouldn't it? And yet, I mean... this is a world where we see huge smokestacks in industrial pits belching flames. Maybe it's just me, but that looks rather primitive and unsophisticated. There are dilapidated buildings with gothic designs and J.F. Sebastian's home is filled with creepy dolls and androids that seem like they came right out of an 18th century opera. The flying car that Deckard rides in looks rather messy and junky, with wires running everywhere.
  3. Jul 24, 2011
    this film has great lighting in it. great set design if it was just for looking at a set. its the first attempt to mix film noir with sci fi creating the space noir genre. thats it. THIS IS THE MOST OVER RATED FILM IN THE HISTORY OF FILM. In fact, this film is a perfect failure on almost every level. The basic problem: it undermines its own premise. no animals but they have fur coats and leather and tasty joints to eat noodles out of ,,,yum! the world was destroyed so most people live off world except the opening shot looks like detroit in its hey-day not to mention the streets are packed and there are construction lights everywhere (there must have been an infrustructure stimulus packaged passed). the dialogue is horrendous "we scarred each other pretty good didn't we [giggle giggle]? we sure did!" . the genius scientist (jr) is also a naive idiot. the main character is not interested in anything that is going on and has no impetus to be involved in the movie at all. the opening scene where the rival bounty hunter is killed should be gripping and its just a guy getting shot. this film took me 8 times to watch before i completed it without falling asleep. then i saw the directors cut and it was even worse. how this makes anyones top ten sci fi films list is beyond me other than the fact that the lighting and cinematography are amazing. its a series of still photos and should be presented as such. Expand
  4. Dec 3, 2010
    After hearing so much about this film I decided to watch it, despite it being before my time. I am often surprised at how great some older films are, even ones made way before I was born but sadly this wasn't one of them. The good points about this film are; the visual effects are amazing and the atmosphere of this futuristic sky-scape is just incredible. The movie itself, however, lacks a solid story, plot, meaning and 'soul'. Its as if the film creators thought "wow this is such an incredible landscape we've created, now lets quickly write a story!" This is sad from a film that had the potential to be one of the greatest sci-fi films ever. The plot is just meaningless, the main character was meaningless and the cyborgs were all just meaningless. Expand

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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]