Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: June 25, 1982
8.8
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 830 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
760
Mixed:
47
Negative:
23
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
UnknownJFeb 2, 2008
some very special effects for a very old film. I watched this movie because I heard this movie is suppose to be a triumph, some people even worship this movie. But to me I thought it was a load of boredom and dullness. I didn't like some very special effects for a very old film. I watched this movie because I heard this movie is suppose to be a triumph, some people even worship this movie. But to me I thought it was a load of boredom and dullness. I didn't like this not because it was old but it just wasn't my kind of movie and understand the plot and the message and it just seems really dumb to me...there wasnt anything I enjoyed really in this movie. I can respect that a lot of people like this movie, I however just did not like it. Expand
5 of 12 users found this helpful
5
BKMAug 4, 2013
I've never been a huge science fiction buff, but considering Blade Runner's influence and stature, I did my duty and viewed both the theatrical version and the director's cut in order to compare and contrast. I have to say that the latter isI've never been a huge science fiction buff, but considering Blade Runner's influence and stature, I did my duty and viewed both the theatrical version and the director's cut in order to compare and contrast. I have to say that the latter is the stronger film thanks in large part to its more ambiguous ending. The absence of Ford's narration isn't a major problem although it does help to clarify a couple of plot points. As for the film itself, it's visually stunning and has aged extremely well but the story is clunky and there's no human element to connect with. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
ovi_bzJan 8, 2011
I think this is the only Harrison Ford movie which i don't like. I mean.... seriously what is special in this movie?
0 of 6 users found this helpful06
All this user's reviews
5
SmileyJammSep 19, 2011
I heard great things about this movie and decided to DVR it. The movie's special effects are great but the movie all in all just didn't do it for me. The story was confusing to me and they kept switching from scene to scene. This movie's isI heard great things about this movie and decided to DVR it. The movie's special effects are great but the movie all in all just didn't do it for me. The story was confusing to me and they kept switching from scene to scene. This movie's is just kind of based on opinion Expand
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
4
Delta_AssaultSep 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.
Expand
0 of 6 users found this helpful06
All this user's reviews
4
Tss5078Sep 26, 2015
Blade Runner is widely considered to be the best Science Fiction movie ever made. It is on almost every top 100 list, and that's why I am reviewing it. To tell you why it is one of the most overrated films of all time. Science Fiction is myBlade Runner is widely considered to be the best Science Fiction movie ever made. It is on almost every top 100 list, and that's why I am reviewing it. To tell you why it is one of the most overrated films of all time. Science Fiction is my favorite genre, and the author of Blade Runner, Philip K. Dick is one of my favorite authors, but Blade Runner is far from his best work. I would go as far as saying that Blade Runner isn't even in his top ten, and if it wasn't for Ridley Scott, it wouldn't have been the first film adaptation of Dick's work. At the time, the special effects were innovative and exciting, but they fail to live up to today's standards. With that being said, all that's left over is a simple story that follows a futuristic police chase and a very cheesy, awkward, love story. In a futuristic Los Angeles, android technology has been perfected. These replicants are used for labor an odd jobs, but occasionally, they become aware and try to run for their freedom. That is when the blade runners are called in to eliminate them. The best Blade Runner around is Deckard (Harrison Ford), a man who doesn't love his job, but always gives one hundred and ten percent. After three replicants escape from the moon, Deckard is called in to track them down and this is the whole premise of the movie. There isn't much of a side story and the rare breaks in the action, rarely prove to be substantive. The film is just you're typical chase with some very weird elements. For example, why does Rutger Hauer take off all his cloths before he fights Harrison Ford, and for that matter, what the hell is he talking about the whole time? How about the talking toys, can you tell me they weren't just a bit creepy and out of character for the rest of the film? Finally, we're in Los Angeles, why is everything Chinese? The story is just a very strange chase through a futuristic nightmare scenario for Los Angeles. Yes, Harrison Ford was terrific, and yes, it must of been the hardest thing Ridley Scott ever had to direct, but the film and story itself are very simplistic and certainly not worthy of legendary status. I love Philip K. Dick and I am obsessed with Science Fiction, but watching Blade Runner for the third time, I was still just as bored and confused as I was the other two times I saw it. How can anything that makes a person feel that way be considered legendary? Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
JamesR.Mar 21, 2007
The director's cut drastically changes the mood of the film and, in my opinion, not for the better. Most of the Film Noir style of the original has been torn away, resulting in a vague mess that moves at the pace of snail.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TryASummersaultOct 6, 2017
I am accosted quite often for saying this a very overrated and slow film that i don't see as a masterpiece of film, but after watching every cut of the film giving it chances to grow on me i still must say i find it somewhat mediocre. As farI am accosted quite often for saying this a very overrated and slow film that i don't see as a masterpiece of film, but after watching every cut of the film giving it chances to grow on me i still must say i find it somewhat mediocre. As far as the visuals and world building for 1982 it's phenomenal, but the plotting and the characters are just so bleak and utterly uninteresting to me. imo one of the most overrated films of all time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
mrdr4gonNov 18, 2017
Overlong and boring, too narratively lean and with baffling moments here and there. This film is qualitatively dragged upwards by having grade A production design and an incredible thematic construction of ideas.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews