Blade Runner [Director's Cut]

Rating:
Summary: The classic sci-fi movie that modern sci-fi was born from
Review: What do you think of when you think of the future? Robots? Flying cars? Holographic television screens? These are the images that were brought to life first by Blade Runner. It is older and the effects are showing their age (maybe a special edition re-make like they did with Star Wars is in order?), but this movie is also somehow truer feeling and more believable than the glittery, computer drafted sci-fi movies of today. You'll never watch Star Trek seriously again after watching Blade Runner in Special Edition.

Rating:
Summary: Fans might be disappointed... (DVD review/update only)
Review: It seems that the long-awaited (and much vaunted) Special Edition of "Blade Runner" on DVD might be a much, much longer wait.

Of course, this means that the awful-looking, flimsy-featured DVD that showcases the '92 cut of this film will be the only one available for purchase here, there or anywhere. (1 star for the Warner Home Video product, but 5 stars for a truly great and inspired film).

According to an article in the New York Times, since neither Riddley Scott nor Warner Bros. owns the rights (for going over budget on the shoot, the rights per contract reverted to producers Bud Yorkin and Jerry Perenchio. The article points out that Mr. Perenchio, C.E.O. of Univision, is, for some odd uknown reason, holding up the release of any new DVD version of the film (this guy gave a "no comment" response as for the reasons behind this). This article was printed 12/14/03, so I fear that the information is neither old nor part of the rumor-mill (especially since the article was not written by Jayson Blair, hey! I believe it).

So, it seems fans are stuck with the shoddy DVD edition of the Director's Cut (which Scott says he was prepping to redo again for the special edition release, since he though he rushed through it the first time).

Sad news for a great film and a real fan format.

Rating:
Summary: wow
Review: An amazing film that combines the two genres of sci-fi action and film noir. It even makes up for the inaccuracies toward the book with complete originality in the adapted script, this movie is one of my all time favorites, and I consider David Peoples to have created the best adaptation from a Philip K. Dick novel of all time, true brilliance. Make more Dave!

Rating:
Summary: Greatness still shines through
Review: It sort of makes me sad that this DVD was the way I was introduced to Blade Runner. A DVD package such as this does not do the movie justice. Watching the film, I could still realize that this was something great. Blade Runner addresses the simple questions that have been on the minds and in the hearts of all people for all time...what is it that makes us human? Do we have a higher purpose in life? Is our existance the result of our personal choices or are we being moved along by forces beyond our control? Seems sort of hokey when you're reading it off a screen, but when you experience it lived out on film, it is truly a beautiful sight. From what I hear about the director's cut is that the film's narration has been omitted and the movie's ending has been altered. I've read through Deckard's voice over from the theatrical release, and believe me, you don't need it. The Director's Cut works much better to subtly convey the emotions and themes of the movie. A quick comment on the ending without spoiling it... it works. If you truly let the movie engross you, you'll understand why any other ending would be a disappointment. It's powerful without being preachy. Science fiction at it's best.

A few warnings to DVD buffs and Blade Runner fans. This isn't a good DVD. The video and sound quality is nothing special. The world Ridley Scott creates is amazing. The DVD just doesn't do it justice. No extras, no easter eggs, nothing. Quite a disappointment. The movie is based from the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." Purists may be upset with some of the departures taken from the novel to make the film. Then again, if you've read the book, you know that it just wouldn't have worked as a perfect transition into a movie. Not in 1982, anyway, and I doubt today's world would be able to truly appreciate and accept it either.

The greatness of Blade Runner does shine through in this DVD of the best version of the movie to date. It's just lacking in so many ways that it's hard to recommend a purchase. Sadly I fear this masterpiece will become lost in time. Blade Runner truly deserves to be in a class with all the scifi classics.

Rating:
Summary: A Sci-fi Classic Wrecked
Review: =====>

The plot of this movie (original theatrical release in 1982) is simple. Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a policeman, in this movie's case a "blade runner," of Los Angeles (in the year 2019) who's after four criminals, in this case genetically-made criminal replicants named Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Pris (Daryl Hannah), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy), and Leon (Brion James). Deckard accidentally develops a romance with the more sophisticated replicant Rachael (Sean Young).

I watched this movie ("The Director's Cut") with a friend who did not see the original release that had Deckard's voice-over narration. Guess what? My friend could not follow the story!!!! I could since I'd seen the original release but I found that I still missed Deckard's voice-over.

I especially missed the voice-over when the Roy Batty replicant "dies" at the end of the movie. This scene was not as emotionally appealing with the voice-over absent.

I think I deduced the reasons why the voice-over is so important for this movie:

(1) It allows the viewer to follow the action.
(2) It provides the human touch to counterbalance all the technological and visually-stunning special effects.
(3) It adds a "retro" feel that reminded me of old-time detective movies.

The ending of the the director's cut movie, I felt, was too abrupt. The original release gave a feeling of hope that Deckard and the replicant Rachael would have a future together.

The special effects that highlight the steel-and-microchip jungle of twenty-first century L.A. and the background music provided by Vangelis are still fantastic and exhilarating.

BOTTOM LINE:

Without the voice-over narration, this movie (The Director's Cut) loses its magnificence and emotional impact.

RECOMMENDATION:

Get the original 1982 theatrical version with Deckard's voice-over narration on DVD. (This version is easily a five star movie.)

<=====>

Rating:
Summary: Screw the Director's Cut!
Review: Is this ALL we're going to get from now on? Deckard is a replicant, he dreams of pretty unicorns, and he doesn't feel like narrarating, fine. But I still have my original un-rated Embassy Home video unedited VHS version from 1986, which I regard as precious and sacred. And it's starting to seriously deteriorate.

Where and when the hell is the original??...

Rating:
Summary: Well crafted with awesome visual style, but shakey science.
Review: The prologue begins, "Early in the 21st century, the Tyrell Corp. advanced robot evolution into the Nexus phase-a being virtually identical to a human-known as a Replicant. The Nexus 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence to the genetic engineers who created them".

They are used as slave labor for dangerous work in Off-world colonies. Their design does not include human emotions, however, it seems there's a glitch. After several years a Replicant may develop emotional responses which could lead to resentment of their slave status and rebellious behavior. So a fail-safe is built in; a 4 year life span. When a Nexus 6 combat team stages a bloody mutiny in an Off-world colony, Replicants are declared illegal on Earth - under penalty of death. Harrison Ford stars as Deckard, a retired Blade Runner, the name given to police assigned to exterminate renegade Replicants. He's coaxed out of retirement to hunt down an especially crafty and brutal group lead by Roy (Rutger Hauer), that has returned to Earth in search of their creator to demand longer life. During Deckard's investigation, he encounters Rachel (Sean Young), an experimental Replicant that's been given an entire past of artificial memories; parents, a childhood, etc. Rachel doesn't know she's a Replicant and Deckard finds himself emotionally drawn to her, even protective of her. He struggles to make sense of the feelings he has for this "thing". Clearly at issue are the moral implications of man's pursuit to manipulate the stuff of life, to become a sort of "God of biomechanics", and how that affects our concept of humanity.

Director Scott has created a bizzare and visually stunning landscape that earned Oscar nominations for Best Visual Effects and Art Direction. In this sci-fi noir, the mood is perpetually dark, cold and damp. Advanced technology contrasts with gothic architecture and urban decay. Ford is great as a burned out Philip Marlow type; Hauer is ultra-cool and menacing with his Aryan features, white hair and black leather. The Director's Cut DVD includes a less upbeat ending than the theatrical release, eliminates Deckard's voice-over and adds a sequence in which Deckard dreams of a unicorn.

I greatly admire most of Ridley Scott's work and I own this DVD because it's one of my favorite sci-fi films. However, it's not without it's problems. It was adapted from the classic 1968 sci-fi novel by Philip K. Dick, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". Perhaps in the heat of the space race it seemed logical that we would explore and colonize other worlds by the early 21st century. But by the time this film was made, the screenwriter should have known that such a scenario was implausible. The unicorn dream is supposed to suggest that Deckard is questioning his own humanity and wondering whether he too may be a Replicant, but how is a viewer unfamiliar with the book supposed to know that? It's an intriguing element that I wish had been communicated and explored. Also, the nature of a Replicant is unclear. It obviously is not a robot in the conventional sense, since genetic engineering is involved. It's "a being virtually identical to a human", but it's not a genetically altered clone; a clone with a 4 year life span would die as a 4 yr. old child. That we would be creating living "robots" of flesh and blood in the early 21st century is an even more absurd prediction that space colonization. So, when I watch the film, I pretend the prologue says "23rd century", then I can just enjoy the director's artistic vision and the thought-provoking story. I eagerly await the new, remastered 5.1 Dolby version reportedly in the works.

Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Sci-Fi FIlms To Still Hold It's Own
Review: This visually stunning sci-fi cult classic is one of my all time favorite films. I too agree with a previous reviewer who said the original theatrical release was better, even if it had the monotonous dead panned sounding narrative by Harrison Ford. That narrative is what really gave this futuristic cop film its retro-noirish feel (Humphrey Bogart style). As for the "happy" or "uplifiting" ending, who said that it really is a happy ending; remember the narrative closing lines that Deckard gives about not knowing how long the replicant Rachel has to live? Also, you now have an ending with a cop on the run with a runaway replicant. So, the bleak question is how long do they both have before someone or something catches up to them?... Seeing the director's cut where the elevator doors in the end just close to the credits rolling to me implied an easy way out for the director or film editor to get out of completing the story or film somehow. While artistically it was a nice segueing blackout fade for the credits to roll it did nothing to improve or add to the film. When I saw the unicorn dream sequence it felt very out of place. Albeit the reason we now know that Scott added it was to give the sense that Deckard too was a replicant. However, whose to say that the unicorn in his head was not a thought or memory that he too knew replicants had as part of their memory implants ? Maybe he was just remembering or dreaming about what he also knew could be in a replicant's mind. After all, he knew about the spider memory he tells Rachel about and Rachel completes the memory in the dialogue.

The point is is that Blade Runner, whether Director's Cut version or original theatrical version is better than the other one thing remains; Blade Runner was and is the pinnacle of using small scale models when computer graphics had not been the norm yet. Music by Vangelis is also another powerful artisitic catalyst that makes Blade Runner that much more captivating and timeless !

Rating:
Summary: The original was better
Review: I know most of the published reviews said the directors cut was better than the original, but I beg to differ. If I hadn't seen the original, I would have been much more lost about what was going on in the diretors cut. I liked the "corny" voice overs that other reviewers complained about, which DID help you understand what was going on better. I also liked the "happy ending" from the original. It was such a dark movie otherwise, I thought the happy ending gave hope about the future instead of the more pessemistic view of the directors cut version. I thought the unicorn scene from the directors cut added absolutely nothing to the original story, I didn't see the point of putting it in there. If something isn't broken, don't fix it.

John,

Goleta, ca

Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest movies ever made
Review: The movie bares hardly any resemblance to the book on which it's supposed to be based upon, which is not too bad, because I didn't like the book ("Do androids dream of electric sheep?").
Also, I saw the director's cut when it came on the screen and I like the studio's cut better. Once you see "Blade Runner" and naturally admire the director's achievement, it's tempting to take his side on this issue and on any other he likes, but this is what I felt after having seen both versions. The unicorn scene is a lovely piece of visual poetry, but it adds nothing to the film. It just seems out of place and de trop.
Harrison Ford's narration did add a great deal, though, and it's a waste to see the movie without it. I don't care if Harrison tried to botch it up: the jaded, tough Phillip Marlowe rendition works. In Humphrey Bogart's detective movies (my all time absolute favorite actor) you can see how the two characters share the same tough but secretly vulnerable persona. There's even a scene when Ford pretends he's a nerdy, sexually neutered jerk to get informations, that makes me wonder if it might not have been inspired by a scene from "The Big Sleep" - a twist, by the way, that was invented by Bogart himself.
I think here one sees Harrison Ford at his best. I'm sorry to see his acting skills deteriorating more and more with age, and it adds to the melancholic experience of watching this film to know that he's never been in such a great movie, or ever acted that wonderfully again, except in "Frenetic", by Roman Polanski.
Another spoiler was an interview with Sean Young that I once read, where she denounced how badly she and Harrison Ford got along on the set. The love scene, that I always thought was so electrifying, does nothing for me now, thanks to her. She said Harrison actually did throw her violently against the window for real, and that those tears one sees her cry aren't the tears of the cracks in her character's armor showing, but of her real and actual physical pain.
Nevertheless, it's still a mind-blowing experience. I'm not objective enough about this work to be able to tell if it's dated or not - I hope it isn't. I suppose one could say "Casablanca"'s dated, but it's beyond that thanks to its timeless quality. The same, I hope, could be said of this work.
The beauty of the movie (the sets, the clothes, the lighting, the make-up, the music by Vangelis of course) is unbeatable.
There are so many details I love about it: the city, the geisha add, Sean Young's entrance, Harrison Ford's character remembering how his wife used to call him sushi (cold fish), Daryl Hannah's acrobatics and eye make-up, Rutger Hauer's coolness, the hunger for life only the dying can experience, its slick dirtiness and tragedy.