User Score
8.8

Universal acclaim- based on 425 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 13 out of 425
Watch On

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. 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, 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 rememberedWhen 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. Collapse
  2. MikeN.
    Mar 26, 2004
    6
    Very stylish, but not very interesting. The acting is so understated that nothing lingers at all. Olmos, who hardly says a word, manages to be more interesting than everybody else in the film.
  3. Santa
    Feb 3, 2010
    10
    What interested me most, whether this Christian Science Monitor David Sterritt feel embarrassed after his review of (master-piece) Blade Runner ?!
  4. DrewK
    May 1, 2010
    10
    Best movie ever. Matthew H is either borderline retarded or too stupid to know any different.
  5. J.Dodd
    Jan 9, 2004
    10
    "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes". The best scifi of all time.
  6. steveb.
    Jun 27, 2005
    10
    Go with the directors cut. it blows the original cut away.
  7. Mar 4, 2013
    10
    Blade Runner is one of the most visually spectacular films of all time. Ridley Scott is an undisputed master of the visual craft and Blade Runner is his masterwork. Other elements of the movie work just as well; the atmosphere, special effects and music are all absolutely perfect. There are also so many metaphors and subtexts buried in the movie that it's possible to discover something newBlade Runner is one of the most visually spectacular films of all time. Ridley Scott is an undisputed master of the visual craft and Blade Runner is his masterwork. Other elements of the movie work just as well; the atmosphere, special effects and music are all absolutely perfect. There are also so many metaphors and subtexts buried in the movie that it's possible to discover something new every time you watch. Blade Runner is an unbelievably fantastic film that is rightfully hailed as an all time classic. Expand
  8. Feb 5, 2014
    10
    Before watching Blade Runner, I never understood why this film had such a massive influence on the cyberpunk genre. After watching it, I could only say that this film was a masterpiece. Great special effects, great acting and a great soundtrack, among other great things makes this film stand out in the science fiction category of films.
  9. Aug 9, 2014
    10
    Blade Runner begins with a great crescendo by Vangelis and a futuristic landscape of L.A. The year is 2019. The story is based on Philip K. Dick's novel ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'' But the final screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples gave the whole story its dark, slow, hypnotically and unique emotional feeling.

    The iconic futurist illustrator and designer Syd
    Blade Runner begins with a great crescendo by Vangelis and a futuristic landscape of L.A. The year is 2019. The story is based on Philip K. Dick's novel ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'' But the final screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples gave the whole story its dark, slow, hypnotically and unique emotional feeling.

    The iconic futurist illustrator and designer Syd Mead created with his art the blueprint for all visuals. And the special effects by Douglas Trumbull, Richard Yuricich and David Dryer are just superb for its time. Remember the police car landing on the rooftops of L.A. or balcony scene with the cruising police car.

    I watched this movie on silver-screen in 1982 and since then every decade following. Until today every shot in Blade Runner is just intricately detailed as anything a science-fiction film has yet envisioned and has not yet been exceeded.

    Blade Runner is a masterpiece of its own and one of the greatest science fiction films ever made.
    Expand
  10. Sep 15, 2013
    10
    The Greatest sci-fi film ever created alongside Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey. Blade Runner is NOT a film for everybody. It's a slow burn narrative, that only connects when you look at the bigger picture. The Final Cut version is my favorite movie of all-time. It's a perfect blend of sci-fi and noir. A dark look at a dystopian future where rain is constantly falling, darkness coversThe Greatest sci-fi film ever created alongside Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey. Blade Runner is NOT a film for everybody. It's a slow burn narrative, that only connects when you look at the bigger picture. The Final Cut version is my favorite movie of all-time. It's a perfect blend of sci-fi and noir. A dark look at a dystopian future where rain is constantly falling, darkness covers everything, and the streets are overcrowded and dirty. The film is absolutely stunning visually, and features some of the most beautiful cinematography ever put to film. The film contains heavy themes, and symbolism and after each viewing you always find something new. The film balances these themes without feeling pretentious or self-indulgent. Is this a film for everybody? No. But if you love films that make you think this is it. Expand
  11. Jan 31, 2014
    10
    Beautifully shot, spectacular production value, shoddy acting in places great script, faithful but not a slave to the book its based. Incredible example of science fiction at its absolute best
  12. DanyT.
    Mar 16, 2008
    10
    I gave 10 because of the original movie that I've seen over 25 times, the director's cut is removing all the mood of the original and slowed down the pace. With the voice over it was so mutch better.
  13. SusanL.
    Mar 1, 2008
    10
    God is in the details. Every time I see this movie, there is a small visual detail which highlights the blurred line between natural and manufactured humans. Although I like the original better than the Director's Cut, it is still Blade Runner.
  14. Oct 15, 2011
    9
    One of my favorite movies of all time. There are some moments of corny acting, and a few things happen in the movie that I still don't understand, but overall if you're a fan of sci-fi or noire you will love Blade Runner.
  15. Aug 17, 2010
    9
    It goes far, but it doesn't go far enough. The world of the machine is not explored as deeply as I would have liked, in order to truly cement this as a classic film. Nevertheless, it stands on its own as a defining sci-fi noir film that really everyone should see who has an interest in the genre. Harrison Ford plays essentially Harrison Ford, but as a detective, and he does a very decentIt goes far, but it doesn't go far enough. The world of the machine is not explored as deeply as I would have liked, in order to truly cement this as a classic film. Nevertheless, it stands on its own as a defining sci-fi noir film that really everyone should see who has an interest in the genre. Harrison Ford plays essentially Harrison Ford, but as a detective, and he does a very decent job satisfying the old, disgruntled lawman that he's supposed to play. Brion James plays a delightfully crazy android, aided by a brief but memorable performance by Daryl Hannah. The story weaves together expertly in this crime drama, but the characters really drive the plot along. This is important, because at about two hours in length, this film can seem slow to anyone who is more used to fast-paced modern science fiction. However, tension builds and the climax is worth it for those who are willing to give it a shot. All in all, its accolades are well-deserved, even if it doesn't make my personal favorite science fiction films list. This may be Ridley Scott's defining masterpiece in his ouevre.

    Verdict: Movie Win
    Expand
  16. Jul 2, 2012
    10
    Bes sci fi ever. A must see to everyone who likes the genre. The lighting is great, the look and fell is beyond belief. It is cinema at its finest. Character creation is beautiful and the well paced action blends perfectly with the psychological aspects of the plot.
  17. j30
    Jan 30, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The cerebral Blade Runner is Ridley Scott's second great science-fiction flick (the first being the intensely moody Alien). Not only are the visuals great to look at, but the brilliant, existential screenplay is what makes this movie so great. The author Philip K Dick wrote the novel in which the movie is based off of and I think he would have been proud, even though the movie is completely different story, but the themes are still there. With a line like "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." That line sends chills down my spine. Expand
  18. Nov 14, 2014
    9
    Really into this film when I was younger and, although I was still impressed seeing it again recently, I can see that it has its imperfections. There's a lot of the story which is implausible, and, dare I say it, quite dull. Great performances make this worth watching (particularly the world weary cop Harrison Ford doing his best Philip Marlow impression) and of course Rutger Hauer. For meReally into this film when I was younger and, although I was still impressed seeing it again recently, I can see that it has its imperfections. There's a lot of the story which is implausible, and, dare I say it, quite dull. Great performances make this worth watching (particularly the world weary cop Harrison Ford doing his best Philip Marlow impression) and of course Rutger Hauer. For me the real treat of this film is the uncompromising dystopian future depicted by Ridley Scott, with great special effects by Douglas Trumbull and of course a brilliant score by Vangelis. Bears little resemblance to the book by Philip K Dick; the film is essentially a 1940's film noir detective story set in the future. Expand
  19. Jan 7, 2014
    10
    This is an AMAZING movie. It is by far one of my favorite movies of all time, and so far my favorite Ridley Scott movie. Harrison Ford is great as Deckard, and the world envisioned is darkly mesmerizing. Details, no big deal if there are a lot of details. That just means watch the damn movie and pay attention, John Smith. Or if you can't wrap your head around the intricate details thenThis is an AMAZING movie. It is by far one of my favorite movies of all time, and so far my favorite Ridley Scott movie. Harrison Ford is great as Deckard, and the world envisioned is darkly mesmerizing. Details, no big deal if there are a lot of details. That just means watch the damn movie and pay attention, John Smith. Or if you can't wrap your head around the intricate details then that's not the movie's fault, that's your fault. Expand
  20. 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 I see is a movie filled with rich, wonderful visuals accompanied by a very, very weak story (but the ending was good).
  21. 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 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 revolvesThis 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. Expand
  22. BKM
    Aug 4, 2013
    5
    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 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 toI'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
  23. Aug 27, 2012
    10
    A very introspective film with all the action focused on Deckard and the Replicants without the audience really seeing much outside this group. Yes there are hints; the advertising for the off-world colonies, but apart from that it
  24. UnknownJ
    Feb 2, 2008
    4
    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 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
  25. JefferyB.
    Jul 31, 2005
    0
    The Director's Cut is awful. Give me back my dumded-down voice-over! I'm being sarcastic, but that's what fan's of the Director's Cut call the voice over...duming down the movie.. For me, it adds character to the film. It's like a first-person novel..Reminds me of a movie based off a Raymond Chandler story. I like the so-called "cheesy" happy ending. The The Director's Cut is awful. Give me back my dumded-down voice-over! I'm being sarcastic, but that's what fan's of the Director's Cut call the voice over...duming down the movie.. For me, it adds character to the film. It's like a first-person novel..Reminds me of a movie based off a Raymond Chandler story. I like the so-called "cheesy" happy ending. The unicorn dream? Talk about dumbing down....now that sure is a big hint that Deckard's a replicant. I have the international cut on VHS. I'm still waiting for that to come DVD. Heck, the Director's cut didn't even add any new scenes except the dream sequence. This DVD release of one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time is a disgrace. Expand
  26. BubbaJack
    Oct 12, 2005
    0
    Thumbs down to the Director's Cut. Adding the dream sequence is just as bad as Lucas adding Greedo's arm or Luke's scream. And deleting the voicerover, it diminshes this film to the point I cannot recommend it to anyone...ever.
  27. Dec 3, 2010
    3
    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 aAfter 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
  28. Jul 24, 2011
    0
    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 furthis 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
  29. MatthewH.
    Nov 7, 2009
    0
    Worst Sci Fi movie I have ever watched. I don't understand the hype behind this movie. It's slow. Uninspired. And tries to be something that it's not. As in good.
  30. Alicia
    Sep 3, 2007
    1
    Dull. Stale. Uninvolving mess...hopefully this film will be overshadowed, its nothing but a torn, unemotional film with no potential whatsoever.
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. 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]