Blade Runner [Director's Cut]

Rating:
Summary: Ridley's second great one!
Review: This was the very impressive follow-up to his "Alien" after a four year hiatus. The story centers around an ex-cop, Harrison Ford, in the year 2019, called back in by his ex-boss to help locate and terminate a gaggle of renegade humanoid clones, called "replicants" before they do any more damage. This movie was supposed to be THE sci-fi film of 1983, and almost was, but some people didn't think so, initially.

You may note a pattern here of me having a lot of favorites among the films that, for some ODD reason, critics haven't been kind to, despite the fact that they were obviously exceptional. Such was the case here, too, as this movie, for a good decade after it was released, garnered only two star reviews on a scale of four or five in most of the reviews I've read, along with "Legend", another Scott masterpiece.

What size pine cones are stuck up the kiesters of these professional couch potatoes, anyway? For art direction alone, Blade Runner should have praised heaped on it! The visuals in this movie even surpass "Star Wars" and nip at the heels of "The Empire Strikes Back" for sheer jaw-dropping impressiveness. It had few equals among non-blockbusters of the period!

The acting, again, as it is in MOST good sci-fi, is actually, in ways, better than it would be in a normal drama. Professional psycho-actor, Rutger Hauer, as Roy Batty, gives the performance of his life here, (before going on to "The Hitcher" where he REALLY gets scary!) as do Sean Young as a replicant that doesn't realize she IS one initially, Joanna Cassidy, as a replicant that was used in a murder squad and Daryl Hannah, as Rutger Hauer's last partner in crime. William Sanderson, (he of "Newhart" fame,) is suitably creepy and meek as a HUMAN Tyrell Corporation grunt named J. M. Sebastian, who actually helps engineer these things.

Poor Joanna Cassidy, (this woman has GOT to get a better agent!) as Zora, is here as one of the first replicants to die...this started an unfortunate sequence of roles for this poor woman where it seemed like the ONLY purpose in her films was to be murdered: Next, as far as I know, came "The Fourth Protocol", where Pierce Brosnan sliced her to ribbons and "The Perfect Family", where Bruce BOXLEITNER {{strangled}} her! (That's right...good old, clean-living Captain Sherdan, Scarecrow and Tron himself!) The only major role I can think of her NOT getting killed in was Delores in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". She better not make a Woody Allen movie!!

A few semi-well known character actors are in here too, like M. Emmett Walsh, Edward James Olmos, the aforementioned Sanderson, and they round out the major cast of what had to be one of the better non-Lucas sci-fi movies of the early eighties and a classic for all time. It's obvious that, so far, one can't make a bad movie from a Philip K. Dick story, since "Total Recall" was also excellent, however, BOTH films are incredibly violent! "Recall" much more than "Runner". So much so, that it almost takes on a theater of the absurd quality for its excess of it.

I wonder...I WONDER...which one of Dick's stories will be next!

"Apocalypse Tomorrow"? "Kaboom! Said the Tick Tock Man"?

....."The Legion of Decency, Mine Enemies!"??? (g)

Rating:
Summary: sci-fi at it's best
Review: I bought the DVD of bladerunner after i bought minority report both of which were written by Phillip k Dick who is a brilliant author and i feel bladerunner aka do androids dream of electric sheep did alot more justice to Phillip k Dicks book than Minority report it keeps quite close to the book and the actors represent the characters well. This film is a sci-fi classic and if your into the genre and have a open mind then you will love it simple as that.

Rating:
Summary: A Cult Classic that Lives Well Today
Review: To be completely honest, I have never seen the original version of "Blade Runner," with Harrison Ford's voice-overs and "happy" ending. However, I was intrigued to see the directors' cut, to see if the story really needed explaining and, more importantly, if it does live up to its reputation of a visionary cult classic. And I am happy to say it does. Set in Los Angeles in the year 2019, overpopulation has forced many to live on space colonies rather than on earth. Androids called replicants were made to aid in the construction and mining projects off-world. But a few revolt, and they are banned on earth. Special police officers called Blade Runners are created to destroy any replicant on earth. One Balde Runner in particular, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is at the center of the film, tracking down five rouge replicants (led by a superb Rutger Hauer) who are trying to find a way to their maker, Tyrell (Joe Turkell).

What makes the film so memorable, is not only the visual flair of Ridley Scott, but its shrewd discussion on the moral issues surrounding the replicants. Taking the themes from the Philip Dick story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," one squarely in the foreground is if the replicnts have the capacity to feel emotion, are they really just machines? Rick Deckard has a hard time with the concept, as will you, considering the impassioned search embarked on by Rutger Hauer and his comrades. And there is Ridley Scott. The style and and look of "Blade Runner" is vintage Scott, with meticulous, atmospheric direction and sleek cinematography to paint a noir Los Angeles in the near future. Also, the production design and set decoration are impressive. Dark, gritty and so utterly believable.

When "Blade Runner" was originally released, it was so with a voice-over. When you watch the director's cut, you wonder why Warner Brothers thought it was needed in the first place. The story is quite able to tell itself, without Harrison Ford explaining it to you. It is true that you need to pay attention to the film when you watch it, but unless its the new "Charlies' Angels" or someting like it, you need to pay attention to the movie to get it anyway. And "Blade Runner" has enough dark visual brilliance to make you way to pay attention to it in the first place.

Rating:
Summary: I vote for happy endings and clarity.
Review: I own both versions. I originally saw this at a drivein as the second feature that we didn't intend to see at all, but it sucked us in before we had a chance to pack up and go.

The way that Ford did the narration worked for me and I was glad he got what he needed in the ending of the original.

This is still a dark semi-depressing movie and you have to watch it in darkness to fully apprciate the environment created. The director cut removes some humanity from the film so I like it less than the original. Perfect would be adding the extra stuff, keeping the narration and the original ending.

Rating:
Summary: Don't buy the DVD version, get VHS
Review: I bought this DVD expecting the original, but unfortunately this film has been edited. The DVD isn't even widescreen. Please, do yourself a favor and buy the VHS version, which is widescreen and isn't edited (as much). I don't know why people ruin a perfectly good film, because it was perfect as it was. No art form is ever 'perfect' per say, but it's more like c'est la vie. With so much editing, you lose the flavor of the spontaneity of the moment, which created so much of the great fireworks/special effects. The emotional impact is gone.

But at least the message is still clear. As a viewer, you will be enthralled with this. Just make sure you don't get the DVD, it sucks. Get the VHS with widescreen.

Rating:
Summary: Wait for the Special Edition!
Review: This is a seminal film, one of the original cyberpunk influences ( Gibson's Night City is seen here ) and a classic science fiction story with great effects for its time. One could write a book of scholarly essays about the literary and symbolic connotations of the plot ( I know because somebody did write such a book, called Retrofitting Blade Runner, and it's at my house right now ).
There are some good things about this DVD. The main thing is that the background seems to have been deliberately lightened somewhat from the tape version. Maybe I had a bad copy or something, but to my recollection the VHS tape of this film is way too dark, to the point where you can't really see much in the street scenes.
Unfortunately, the DVD transfer has a major problem. Even though the interior of each camera shot looks fine ( seemingly high-definition in places ), when the frame changes, there's an effect as though you're watching somebody quickly change slides in a projector. It's frustrating and it makes you feel like you're watching a bootlegged version of the film. It's like there's an unnecessary barrier between yourself and the clear version of the film. And I really feel that the purpose of a DVD is to recreate the theatrical feel of a movie.
Does anyone know why this happens on certain Warner DVDs? In defense of Warner, many of their DVDs are fine ( such as the cartoon of Lord of the Rings and their flagship "Matrix" offerings, for example ). But it's really important to many people that a Special Edition of this film is due to come out, which ( we all presume ) will fix the transfer.
If you're reading all the reviews, you'll notice that some people pine away after the droning Harrison Ford voice-overs that were excised from the Director's Cut. Ridley Scott is including the theatrical version in the Special Edition, because apparently he likes the voice-overs too. In my opinion the removal of the voice-overs was a HUGE improvement. They don't usually add anything and were placed in there originally so that people could follow the plot - which holds up very well without them. It's much better to just sit back and take in the scenery and the Vangelis score when Ford is flying around in the police car. Not every scene in a film needs to have somebody TALKING.
One final word: my 4 rating, by way of explanation, means that I give the movie a 5 on its own merits, but the DVD transfer brings the score down to a 4. If I felt that the rating reflected on the DVD transfer only, it would be lower.

Rating:
Summary: Bring Back the Voiceover Narration. Please.
Review: I was mesmerized by this film when I saw it in its original theatrical release. The visuals -- though not "spectacular" by today's standards -- are still immensely impactful in their tone. The story is very intelligent and still compelling.

After hearing much about the director's cut, I was momentarily persuaded into thinking that Harrison Ford's voiceover was indeed corny and superfluous. Well, I saw the movie again a few days ago (in the Director's Cut), and I have to disagree. The voiceover narration that's present in the original version helps move the pace along. A lot. And there are specific key scenes where the narration adds a lot more depth than if it wasn't there. To me the wisdom of the pivotal climactic scene, and how it is comprehended by Deckart is what sets this film apart from anything like it. As it is now, he just gets a funny, knowing look, and then it cuts to the conclusion. The full meaning of Roy Batty's actions are quickly overlooked, given the momentum of the scenes that preceded his speech. You need that bit of self reflection along with the smirk, Harrison.

Yes, I know it's still film noir without the voiceover, but this movie needs it. I want the original version on DVD, too. And this makes it the second movie I've seen where the Director's Cut hasn't lived up to the hype. 3 stars for this version. 5 stars for the movie in general.

Rating:
Summary: Director Distroys Original
Review: This is not the first time a Director took a beautiful movie and chop it to pieces. When "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was release on VHS they only release the 1980 remake of the film all chop up and ruin. You were unable to enjoy the original version of the film until the new DVD version was release. But, getting back to BR, Ridley Scott has every right to release a new Director's Cut version but he should have also include the Theater Version which I enjoy most.

There is one little mistake that some people seems to be making about both version of the film. These "Replicant" are neither androids nor robots they are human. They breathe and eat and feel emotions and this is what made this movie different. By removing the voice over this fact is left out in the Director's Cut.

When I first saw BR being air on TV they change the beginning clearly stating that Replicant were Robots. Yet, in the Theater version and on DVD the beginning message clearly points out that they are not androids but living creatures. "NEXUS phase --- a being virtually identical to a human --- known as Replicants." What made them virtually human were their physical abilities and their life span. Why would an android burn out just because it burns twice as bright? Why do they refer to them as being dead before the patient left the table if they were machines?

For years I have been seeing some critics referring to these living people as machines. I guess it is hard to accept the idea that human would make stronger human to do their physical labor for them.

Please, do not remind me of "The Terminator!" In that movie they were machines.

I guess some people like the film but object to the main star Harrison Ford gunning down two women. Why would Deckard say "but it didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back" if these replicants were androids? Now, you can only hear this remark in the original version of the film but it clearly points out that the replicants were not machines.

Do us all a favor Mr. Ridley Scott; release both versions on DVD so people can choose for themselves.

Rating:
Summary: Director Cuts Blade Runner
Review: I saw someone asking for a copy of the original version. I do have two VHS Pre-Recorded copy of the original film but they are not in 2.35:1Ratio.

Please do not misunderstand me here, I have no attention in selling them. I wanted to point out that I waited two years for the original version of Blade Runner to be release on DVD. After seeing Animal House being remove from the shelves I finaly bought this cut up version of Blade Runner on DVD. I watch both, VHS and the DVD together, so I can still enjoy the edit parts and see the rest in 2.35:1Ratio.

If anyone can tell me how to get that Director Ridley Scott to release both versions on DVD please tell me.

Rating:
Summary: Sorry to see the cuts
Review: I am glad to see my opinion validated, I think the film worked better with the narration. With the narration the film is a brilliant reworking of a film-noir PI movie, which is great, without it it is a run of the mill decent art film. The movie convieniently side steps many of the issues and ideas in the book that make it so compelling and chooses to concentrate on the detective story. Leaving out the narration detracts from it all and makes the film more difficult to follow, judging by the directors more recent book adaptations (Black Hawk Down) which over-simplified and failed to adequately explain the story of what happened, he should stay focused and not try and make a good movie into more than what it is.