Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

atomicgirl-34996 After hearing so much about Blade Runner, I finally saw it for the first time. The one thing that can't be taken away from it is its beautiful art direction. Nearly every set was a delight, and I can see how this movie influenced the visual look of sci-fi movies and comic books. (A lot of graphic novels in Heavy Metal back in the day mimicked its style.)With that being said, as soon as I finished watching it, it reminded me of The Phantom Menace. Why? Just like TPM, Blade Runner did an amazing job of plunging audiences into a fantastical world that felt and looked very convincing. It also had amazing visuals that set a new standard for world building and special effects. However, for all of its sumptuous visual details, it was an incredibly shallow film with a paper thin plot.Let's face it: this movie practically has no story. Don't get me wrong: it has characters. It has a setting. It has a premise. It has themes. But once it introduces all four in the first 20 minutes, that's it. Then it's just a random jumble of disconnected scenes that don't really flow together or make sense. At times the movie was so disjointed it felt as if scenes were missing. That leads me to the next biggest problem with this film. Ironically, even though the set design, blocking of shots and cinematography couldn't have been more perfect, the movie messed up in the most basic of film techniques. For example, the editing couldn't have been more choppy; at times, they felt like jump cuts. Another thing I noticed is that the movie recycled the same handful of footage, establishment shots, sets and dialogue over and over again. It was like something out of a low budget 1980s Filmation animated TV show, where they would always keep using the same animation, backgrounds and footage repeatedly. Think I'm kidding? Count how many times these show up: 1) Leon's test 2) The blimp advertising the Other World 3) The green tunnel 4) The street corner with the odd pillars 5) The establishment shot of the Los Angeles skyline with the gigantic billboard on the right hand side 6) The set where Priss first meets Sebastian 7) The noodle stand where people walk by with neon umbrella handles 8) The street level shot of LA with the glowing skyscapers. Other problems: the twist in the end revealing that the Replicants had fee fees the entire time felt like a weak limitation of I Am Legend. Plus, it rang hollow. Maybe if they hadn't been such diabolical sociopaths I would've bought it but this twist came across as cheap and lazy after the movie worked so hard to set them up as sadistic monsters.But the biggest problem of all for me with Blade Runner was Harrison Ford. I've never cared for Ford as an actor but I would always try to give him the benefit of the doubt. His performance here finally confirmed what I've always suspected about him, that so much of what people think as him playing a rogue character to perfectiom is him in real life showing up on the set with a bad attitude. He does not act in this movie. He sulks as if he doesn't want to be there or has contempt for the material, and his narration sucks. The entire time all I could think of was how terribly miscast he was and how much better someone like Dennis Quaid or maybe Jeff Bridges would've been in this role.So count me in as one of those people putting Blade Runner in the overrated camp. If you want to see truly groundbreaking futuristic sci-fi that actually has a plot and deserves to be considered a classic, watch Metropolis. But Blade Runner, outside of its amazing visuals, is a big fat meh.

ciaspeedy I basically just made an account so I can review this: OK I'm willing to accept that maybe back in the day it was an OK movie, but if somebody would recommend me this as a good sci-fi cyberpunk (also it apperently tries to be a Noir?) movie today, I would have to punch him in a face. I'm sorry, the characters lacks... well characters. Over 50% of a time you are watching a silent movie and when they speak the sound is so badly captured I have to rewind just to check what they said. (not all the time I admit but it's still bad) Come to think of even camera job is sometimes sloppy and the pacing is sluggish at best (I'm watching a dude climbing stairs for a two minute realizing that if somebody cut that out, no one would miss a thing, but that's just nitpicking) The onl reason why I didn't gave it a 1 star is that Rutger Hauer is actually trying his best to do with the little he was given and he was the only thing I enjoyed in this movie and he was barely in it. Also that in the end it turns out that he was actually kinda the good guy and Harrison Ford's character the bad guy. But reading all the nonsense about the philosophical questions it raised about "being human" seems pretty far-fetched. The only question it raised in my mind is: "Why do people like this movie?" But for those who thinks that way, at least you can enjoy telling yourself how primitive I am for not "getting it". ;)

Grant Bullert "Blade Runner" is an innovator of the Sci-Fi genre. The artisty and world-building completely changed the game. And the only way to watch it is by seeing the "Final Cut."-Analysis of Notable Work- *Writing/Directing: The world of Blade Runner is one that feels authentic and rich. While the story may have a few minor hiccups, these can be forgiven because of the brilliance of the universe that is the world of Blade Runner. A young Ridley Scott reveals his genius in the way he brought Blade Runner to screen. The film is a slow drama/noir with incredible beauty in bleakness. It is a film in which not much happens but that is what makes it feel so effective. The reality of the world comes to the forefront through the lack of major events. *Cinematography/Editing: The visuals are a marvel to behold. The brooding atmosphere of Blade Runner is one that is not easy to forget. Jordan Cronenweth captures the beauty and horror of Blade Runner in masterful fashion. His work is an integral part of the world building. The editing is the definition of Sci-Fi as it is known today. The cutaways to beautiful yet bleak city-scapes is one that feels incredibly Sci-Fi at its core. Seeing the world around Deckard is what helps to make the world feel so real. *Dialogue/Acting: The exchanges between characters is brilliant and authentic. It doesn't feel forced or unneeded. It is just enough and nothing more. The performances are incredible for the most part. Rutger Hauer feels a bit over-the-top early on in the film, but his final scene is one of the greatest in film history. Harrison Ford delivers one of the best performances of his career. Sean Young is mesmerizing in her role as Rachael. Joe Turkel perfectly delivers in his role as the cruel mastermind of the Tyrell Corporation, Dr. Eldon Tyrell. *Music/Sound Design: Once again, the world of Blade Runner feels so complete. It just would not be the same if it did not have the music score it has. It is melancholy and gorgeous. Instantly recognizable, it is one of the most iconic and grand film scores in any Sci-Fi film. The sound design is just as magnificent. From the firing of the handguns each Blade Runner has to the soft falling of the rain, it is all breathtaking. *Production Design/Special Effects: The set design and costume choices are futuristic, yet feel like they belong in the world we live in. It does not fall into the trap of being too futuristic that they become corny or ridiculous. The props are also incredibly detailed and seem real. The special effects are beyond impressive. They make the film seem as if it is from many years later than it really was released. Many of the effects still hold up today, and I suspect they will hold up for many years to come.*Conclusion: "Blade Runner" is a truly unforgettable film that has forever changed the Sci-Fi genre. It will always be remembered as a true pioneer and one of the most influential films ever put to screen.

joe This is easily one of the most overrated sci fi flicks ever. I challenge anyone to read the screenplay the whole way through without falling asleep. Yes, it's very visual and Vangelis did a good, appropriate (not amazing) soundtrack to give it that dark depressing "dystopia" bit....OK, fine...but that's it. No characters of even the tiniest interest to either love OR hate, a laughably bumbling love angle, and almost zero action except for one brief flurry around half-way through and another at the end. Speaking of which, a totally stupid ending...not Roy saving Decker, that was a great idea (and where it should have ended), but then Decker and Rachel hooking up and going....? where? And do we care? No. This movie was loaded with over-the-top pretentiousness and about zero believability, even given the premise. I saw it in the 80s and went "eh." I just saw it now for the first time since then, as I was interested in the new one and wanted this as a base, but found it's even worse than I remember. Read the review titled "So very very boring"....a bit harsh but sums it up fairly well (and is more entertaining than this entire film).