Rating: 
Summary: balde runner original version
Review: I know that I am going to stir the wrath of the fanatics who understandably believe that the 1993 version is better than the original one. But, in my opinion, the 1982 version is better. The reason is that the narrator's voice (which comes out noticeably more convincing in the french version) adds a humanistic/literary/philosophical flavor to a wagnerian epic portraying a crushing and hopeless world, where the distinction between humans and humanoids has become blurred. Then images and words and music miraculously coalesce to create a stunning, operatic filmic experience, culminating in this crucial realization : the preciousness and undestructibility of individual (human/post-human?) consciousness. Regards, Stefano Manghi
Rating: 
Summary: I liked the studio version better.
Review: Yup, I liked the narration and the original ending. It helped the movie move along. This doesn't have it and I find myslef quite bored.
Rating:
Summary: Bring back the theatrical release of Blade Runner!
Review: Let me state that this is the greatest science fiction movie ever made in my opnion. I am old enough to have actually seen the movie in a theatre. It had a large impact on my life. While many people prefer the sparse style of the director's cut, I would really love to see theatrical edition included in any blade runner boxed set for balance. A lot of newcomers to Blade runner only see the Directors Cut and many of them end up hating the movie. Having Harrison Ford voiceover answers one burning question.
Why the heck did Roy save Decker's life?
The Decker/android/unicorn theory is so contrived that it is not worth adding it into the movie. If you have only seen the Director's cut, please don't judge it too harshly. Wait till you have seen the theatrical version. Good luck finding a copy though.
Rating:
Summary: Not as good as the theatrical release.
Review: This is the only movie that I can recall where the director's version is worse than the theatrical release. The loss of the narrative (which was the only way I understood the movie the first time I saw it) is not worth the brief unicorn dream scene that was added back. I remember an interview (I think it was with Johnny Carson) where Rutger Hauer mentioned the unicorn dream scene and was shocked to find out that it was cut from the theatrical release. When the director's cut came out, my dad and I saw it on VHS and were both terribly dissapointed. I wish I could get the other version on DVD.
Rating: 
Summary: The directors cut STINKS!
Review: Sorry Ridley, but that is the fact. The words directors cut are 100% correct; the theatrical release was 122 minutes and the directors cut is 117 minutes. First of all is this verison 5.1? If so I don't see it. What a waste. This [expensive] verison is the same piece of junk dvd that I have left on the store racks for the past 2 years. No 5.1 & no theatrical = No sale. Plus the theatrical is Much better. The directors cut reaks! Hey ridley thanks but you can keep the stupid unicorn scene! Here is how much I loath this movie I consider Bladerunner to be one of the best Scifi every made I own over 400 dvds and I refuse to by anything but the theatical release.
Rating:
Summary: Let the People Choose
Review: The original theater version of this sci-fi masterpiece is, without doubt, one of the best in the genre. The director's cut is only a tribute to the (understandable) ego of Ridley Scott. A novice viewer of the latter can only wonder about what the heck is going on. I agree with the comments of another reviewer that the death scene of Rutger Hauer is irreparably damaged by the missing voice-over. This drama definitely needs the aspect of humanity provided by Harrison Ford's narration; it is far too dark and brooding otherwise. His narrating words in the ending scene, with Ford driving to safety, provide emotional closure: no one knows how much time they have [so enjoy every moment]. I felt so strongly about all this that I went out and bought a used copy of this movie for 80 bucks on EBay. The DVD medium allows viewers to watch the version of their preference. Why not let them choose whether or not to have the voice-over? It would clearly sell some more DVDs. P.S.: I have always wondered why I have never seen anyone comment on one (irrelevant) flaw in the script: try matching the number of fleeing replicants accounted for in the movie (5) with the number that originally fled the off-world colony (6, according to the skin-job hater). Yeah, yeah, one more showed up later, but she wasn't from off-world. There's still one more replicant running around somewhere. DECKER, COME BACK!
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed Masterpiece of cinematic sci-fi
Review: Having seen the original theatrical release(1982)I was "dismayed"...hardly surprised...that STAR WARS-bred public failed to grasp the depth and wonder of Ridley Scott's visually and thematically provocative presentation of Philip K. Dick's exploration of humanity's relation to itself AND its Creator.STAR WARS "ran" over a year while BLADE RUNNER ran 10 days. Released on video, a marginal expansion (117 minutes)of the original Harrison Ford "first person" narrative version, won universal acclaim...complementing British Academy and LA(where Blade Runner's run a not-too-distant future)Film Critics'awards. BLADE RUNNER was ranked among the few genuinely great science fiction films ever made. The opening-shot of a Dis-like city darkly glowing and spewing hellish plumes of fire, to accompanyment of Vangelis'electronic tonalities, is Dantesque. "ABANDON ALL HOPE,YE WHO ENTER HERE!" rings the mind of informed viewers. The voice of Harrison Ford...reluctant Virgil/Bade Runner cop Decker...then leads descent into"The Inferno" which does not end until he and Sean Young escape redeemed into "Eden" as (perhaps) new Adam & Eve. The fact Sean Young as RACHEL is a wonderously engineered clone(MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN)is an "entendre" whose impact barely registers.She may,indeed, be "mother/Eve" to a renewed human race that is a "new kind" of being.The theme of what it means to be human is focus of BLADE RUNNER. In my estimate, this focus--easily lost by distraction of violent action; bedazzling art direction; and sumptuous sets--depends on Ford/Decker's narrative as anchor and common man's voice amidst a "vision" that's radically challenging. Who is ELDEN TYRELL(played with understated arrogance by Joe Turkel,)the genetic engineering genius who from atop his Babel Tower-of-power is master of a "New Order of the Ages"? Who/what is ROY BATTY? Played magnificently by Rutger Hauer, is NEXUS 6-Super Clone, Lucifer to "god" Tyrell or is he ironic "guardian angel" of a humanity Man seems eager to squander? The EYE is window to the soul: Ridley Scott repeatedly focuses Director's eye on mythological exploration of TRUTH (what eyes can see)that often stuns by its daring. This is only a movie. Yet,like Philip K. Dick whose books(MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE;TOTAL RECALL;THE DIVINE INVASION)probe humanity's destiny; conceptions of Reality; and the Being of God, Scott has pushed a film to ultimate test of medium limits. The problem, in my opinion, with THE DIRECTOR'S CUT, is "cutting" Decker's narrative...presenting a more ambiguous third person viewpoint..has not enhanced challenge and profound impact of themes...it has OBSCURED them. "Less is not more..." Original BLADE RUNNER is unique masterpiece. Its reworking is also a masterpiece, but unnecesarily flawed. Ridley Scott might consider restoration of his visionary film by letting Decker's voice Guide where "eyes" cannot see, but where "ears" might hear...and marvel.
Rating: 
Summary: A One of a Kind Stylish Cop Thriller.
Review: In the Year of 2019 from the Futuristic City of Los Angeles. An Ex-Police Detective (Harrison Ford), Who has been a Blade Runner to Track Down Cyborg, who Passes for Humans, Now he`s Re-Hired to Stop and Hunt Down, the World`s Remaining Rebels Gang of Androids (Lead by Rutger Hauer), who try and wants to be Human. Directed by Ridley Scott (Legend, Someone to Watch Over Me, Black Rain) brings an Impressive Superb Production, Which is Thought-Provoking and Visually Outstanding. Ford is Terrific (In One of Best His Roles). The Film has an Stong Supporting Cast-Including:Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Daryl Hannah, M. Emmet Walsh, Brion James, Joe Turkel, William Sanderson and Joanna Cassidy. Loosely Based on a Novel by Philip K. Dick, which the Original Title from the Novel was (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep). Adapated to a Screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples (12 Monkeys, Soldier) is Equally Absorbing Script. DVD has an terrific anamorphic Widescreen (2.48:1) transfer (Also in Pan & Scan) and an strong-Dolby Stereo 2.0 Surround Sound. DVD only extra is Cast & Crew Information. Although most fans did miss Harrison Ford`s Narration on the Original 1982 Release and it`s also had the Happy Ending. The Movie may be not for Everyone but Those who appreciate something of Subtance will find it Worthwhile. A True Masterpiece in the Sci-Fi Gerne. Panavision. Grade:A.
Rating:
Summary: A warning for the cloning debate.
Review: In the future, the world has become a giant melting pot with all of humanity crushed together into a few megapolises, speaking a hybird language. Off-world has become a dream for some, a nightmare for others, suitable for a few, including androids and clones.
These clones are no better than slaves, with a limited life span so they don't get any ideas about freedom. A ragtag rebel band escapes and returns to earth, only to be hunted down by Ford, a burned out cop who questions everything, including his own value.
Hauer is fantastic as the leader of the clone group. He tries to discover his death date, yet dreads doing so and in the last moments of his life, saves Ford from falling. Life is precious for everyone.
This film is terrific with a modern worning for researchers who want to clone humans, or anything, for medical purposes. When does a clone become human? Does a clone, one created and born in mechanical devices, qualify for the same rights and respect as we do? Troubling questions which aren't answered in this film because they can't be answered. And I hope they never need to be.
Rating:
Summary: Um... no
Review: Contrary to the opinions of the reviewers here, I believe that the Director's Cut of Blade Runner is far superior to the original release. Having both the original and director's cuts on video, and the Director's cut on DVD, I've watched the movies probably fifty times over the years. The original cut worked almost in spite of itself; Harrison Ford's narration moved the movie in a particular direction at a particular pace. Unfortunately, it also left very little regarding the story open to the imagination, or to interpretation. While the narration created a vaguely "noirish" feel (maybe), it actually undercut the ambiguity that Scott was going for (and which the best film noir work has). The Director's Cut remedied the flaws: it got rid of the narration, which slowed the movie down a little bit, forcing the viewer to follow and try and make sense of the film (which to my mind is a _good_ thing); the more ambiguous ending fits far better, I think, with the fundamental questions concerning the nature of humanity which Scott attempts to explore throughout the film. From Sean Young's "personal question" to Deckard ("Have you ever retired a human by mistake?") to Deckard's own struggle between his responsibility as a Blade Runner to off Sean Young's character, and his growing empathy/love towards her. The original cut was a good to very good film; the director's cut is far superior.
| 
