Blade Runner

Name: Blade Runner
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Released: June 25, 1982
Duration: 117 min
Rating: 84
Cast: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young

1982

METASCORE

Universal acclaim based on 15 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Universal acclaim based on 1341 Ratings

See All

8.7

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.7	Your Score
8.7	User Score Universal acclaim based on 1341 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Blade Runner

Now Playing: Blade Runner

Movie Details & Credits

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: June 25, 1982 | R

Starring: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young

Summary: In a future of high-tech possibility soured by urban and social decay, detective Rick Deckard hunts for fugitive, murderous replicants—and is drawn to a mystery woman whose secrets may undermine his soul. [Warner Bros.]

Director: Ridley Scott

Genre(s): Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Rating: R

Runtime: 117 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Rita Kempley

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. Read full review

100

Jonathan Rosenbaum

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. Read full review

100

Robert Osborne

Blade Runner is a cold, bold, bizarre and mesmerizing futuristic detective thriller that unites the British-born director of Alien with new box-office dynamo Harrison Ford for results that are as impressive as any film that's exploded through a projector so far this year. Read full review

Susan Wloszczyna

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]

Bob Thomas

Ridley Scott (“Alien”) has produced a new vision that is forbidding. [2 July 1982]

James Berardinelli

Blade Runner is a rare science fiction movie so full of material that pages can be written about it without scratching the surface. A review like this can provide little more than an overview. A detailed exploration of the movie, its style, and its mysteries requires dedication that only someone immersed in Blade Runner lore can provide. Currently, the film is available in the United States only in the director's cut. Warner Brothers, however, has promised an exhaustive box set next year with multiple versions. It will be interesting to see whether those editions offer new insights or expand upon the film's already rich tapestry. Read full review

David Sterritt

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]

SEE ALL 15 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Rechiau

Aug 12, 2011

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 aWhen 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.… Expand

35 of 37 users found this helpful352

RedPrince

Mar 8, 2020

Шикарный фильм, сейчас таких не делают уже, а жаль

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Broyax

Apr 13, 2017

Quand je pense à Blade Runner, c'est surtout à la version cinéma de 1982 avec la voix off et la "bonne" fin, pas aux tentatives successives de Monsieur Ridley Scott de saborder son oeuvre... La vision du réalisateur est pour une fois (mais ce n'est pas si rare dans le monde du cinéma)Quand je pense à Blade Runner, c'est surtout à la version cinéma de 1982 avec la voix off et la "bonne" fin, pas aux tentatives successives de Monsieur Ridley Scott de saborder son oeuvre... La vision du réalisateur est pour une fois (mais ce n'est pas si rare dans le monde du cinéma) totalement à côté de la plaque : les screen tests avaient raison et le producteur avait raison, si, si.

C'est sans doute le meilleur film d'Harrison Ford, le meilleur film de Ridley Scott (à l'insu de son ignorance) et la meilleure adaptation d'un roman de Philip K. Dick au grand écran : même si le film reste assez éloigné du chef-d'oeuvre de Dick, il a su en garder la trame principale et une certaine atmosphère.

Blade Runner (version 1982) n'a donc pas vieilli : il est resté magnifique et fascinant, et la prestation de Rutger Hauer, en état de grâce, n'y est pas étrangère, de même que la (sublime) musique de Vangelis.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Smoothrunner

Nov 21, 2015

Imagine what will happen if stylish neo-noir science-fiction movie will be directed by young Ridley Scott at the peak of his career, based on the novel by talented amphetamine-addict, who is scribbling on drugs countless stories about borderline states, disguising themselves asImagine what will happen if stylish neo-noir science-fiction movie will be directed by young Ridley Scott at the peak of his career, based on the novel by talented amphetamine-addict, who is scribbling on drugs countless stories about borderline states, disguising themselves as science-fiction (Philip K. Dick), special effects in this film will be made by legendary Douglas Trumbull, Vangelis will write music, starring charismatic Harrison Ford, beautiful Sean Young, ingenious Rutger Hauer ("tears in the rain" line is his invention) and young Daryl Hannah? Well, the movie will get a commercial failure and the avalanche of criticism in the United States. That serves as another proof that nor commercial success, nor critics reviews should not be taken into account when assessing the motion picture arts.

"Blade Runner" is one of the last specimens of the pure art in the mainstream cinematography - it's when public's attention is drawn not by hurrying plot, but by exquisite picture, the so-called atmosphere that combines a certain style of storytelling, visual style, including special effects, high-quality music and actors' ensemble. If we add to this some philosophical depth and give the public time to reflect on each episode, without being distracted (harassed) by the following one, you will get an almost perfect motion picture. And if you appreciate beautiful motion pictures, then "Blade Runner" is your movie.

As of the idea of "Blade Runner", it is not obvious and at the same time is simple, like all true ideas - if at the beginning of the movie Deckard required Voight-Kampff test in order to determine whether Rachel a human being or not, at the end just two questions were enough for this. Actually, no more are required.

9 out of 10

P.S. A small remark. If before watching "Blade Runner" you have not read the novel on which the movie is based - "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick - it is better not to read (otherwise you'll have false expectations). If you decide which version of the movie to choose, then just do not take "The Final Cut". I would suggest "The International Cut", as the most conscientious observance of neo- noir atmosphere and best explanation of the plot twists. Although "The Director's Cut" and unofficial (but most complete) "The Electric Unicorn Cut" have their advantages, but these versions are not as atmospheric and rather intended for hardcore fans of "Blade Runner". As I see it, director's hints on Deckard's artificial memory (dream about a unicorn and paper unicorn near his flat at the end, some dialogues) are excessive, contradict logic and unnecessary overcomplicate movie's main idea.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

DarkwingSchmuck

Mar 8, 2022

Regardless of whichever cut you watch, Ridley Scott's stylish and beautiful Blade Runner is one of the greatest special effects films of all time. The practical model work in this science fiction classic holds up even when compared directly to its masterful 2017 sequel. While its story takesRegardless of whichever cut you watch, Ridley Scott's stylish and beautiful Blade Runner is one of the greatest special effects films of all time. The practical model work in this science fiction classic holds up even when compared directly to its masterful 2017 sequel. While its story takes a bit of a backseat to its atmosphere, Rutger Hauer's tremendous performance adds a much needed dose of humanity to the overall package.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

dhinged

Sep 19, 2014

I love this movie, but it's mostly because of the sets and scenery and cinematography, not to mention the palpable sense of living in a cyber-dystopic future surrounded by whirling fans, dark lighting, grates, and the immense technological and populous detail Ridley Scott created from hisI love this movie, but it's mostly because of the sets and scenery and cinematography, not to mention the palpable sense of living in a cyber-dystopic future surrounded by whirling fans, dark lighting, grates, and the immense technological and populous detail Ridley Scott created from his imagination. It's overwhelming in a tasteful sense, feeling like it's saturated but unavoidable and inevitable, a dark cynical but feasible future that lays at the back of our minds in our modern world. It reminds of the detail of Star Wars and Aliens, the former of which I'm sure inspired Ridley Scott and the latter an obvious predecessor. Even Deckard's cupboards and blinds resemble the halls and rooms of the Nostromo.

My issues however with the movie, and what sets it from going to the top, are that the substance is less than the scenery. The plot itself is riveting, but the detail and development is definitely thinner than the long scenes and abundant set flourishings belie. The tension between the characters is just as riveting, but there is much more implied than the dialogue holds up and their actions follow through on.

Ridley Scott had a lot of philosophical material to work with here, but unfortunately the writing doesn't take full advantage of it so it feels more in my head than onscreen. There's also some nonsensicle behavior by the characters seemingly for the sake of effect or drama, which I think got in the way of what could have been some real brain-twisting questions with the androids and what humans are capable of creating.

Overall, unforgettable for me, and growing up, a unrivaled definition of a dystopic alternate-future, as if Ridley took a camera through his own mind exploring every dark grated tunnel and over-populated night street. Deckard's apartment alone is unforgettable for its abundance of technological art forms, but I only wish there was more meat to this bone as there was garnishings.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

JohnSmith

Sep 26, 2006

The whole idea of cyborgs is just ridiculous. There is to much detail in the storyline, making it difficult to follow. How this movie is rated a top sci fi film I still cannot understand. Someone needs to be shot after that one.

0 of 11 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 192 REVIEWS