Rating: 
Summary: Not Impressed
Review: Never having seen the movie (or at least remembering it), I bought the dvd because I hear of it being one of the great science fiction movies. The movie is slow without much plot and character development, and contains entirely too little action for a movie of it's theme. The music I think is terrible - I wished someone would've rescored the whole movie. The art direction is very good although some special effects are less than par (too often you see cars suspended from cables). The dvd is about as bare as you can get, containing basically no extras - even the "jump to a scene" option only gives about 9 "jumping in" places, about every 3-6 chapters. It should at least have the theatrical trailer which is standard on nearly all dvds. I find the fact that the dvd contained both the standard and widescreen versions to be a plus though. Even if you like the movie, you will find much lacking from the dvd.
Rating: 
Summary: Do androids dream of immortality?
Review: Harrison Ford has created an amazing number of memorable roles in his career but one of the most understated of these was in "Blade Runner". He plays a cop called Deckard who is responsible for "retiring" rogue replicants, genetically engineered beings who are used by humanity in all those tasks which are dull, distasteful or dangerous. These futuristic slaves have abilities that are beyond the mere human but pay for it with very limited life-spans. Ridley Scott adapted the film from the Philip K Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." Scott is famous for cinematic visuals and whilst he doesn't stick very closely to the book, the overall design and special effects make this a ground breaking science fiction film. Released in 1982 it took the "gritty Sci-Fi" crown from "Alien," Scott's film from three years earlier. The world in 2019 is over populated, crime is rampant, the Japanese own the economy and most animal species are extinct. This is not an unnatural projection from an early eighties perspective. Before I get too heavily into the narrative, I'd like to touch on the sensitive issue of version envy. The history of Blade Runner takes at least two turns. The initial theatrical release had less than brilliant exit polling. Apparently cinema goers thought it was confusing and too dark. The studio forced Scott to make changes, including Deckard's voice-over and a more upbeat ending. More recently, the directors cut transformed the film back into it's original format with a few extra minutes to flesh out some of the important relationships. In my opinion, both versions are worth watching. The film focuses on Deckard for the most part. He is the character the audience most identifies with, since he is apathetic and cynical by turns, as he goes through the motions of his meaningless existence. That is, until he meets his first Nexus 6 replicant, Rachael, who is posing as the niece of Eldon Tyrell, the genius (owner of the Tyrell Corporation, manufacturer of the Nexus 6 line). Rachael Tyrell(?) is played to perfection by Sean Young. She is not aware of her inhumanity and, thanks to implanted memories, plays her part so well she almost passes Deckard's replicant test. The poignancy of her enlightenment is not lost on the audience, nor is it lost on Deckard. Their reluctant attraction forms one of the stronger sub-plots in the film. The first half of the story made me wonder if there was going to be any plot at all. Mind you, the setting was sumptuous and therefore enjoyable enough to mask the lack. We had glimpses of the group of Replicants Deckard was hunting but it is not until Roy Batty enters the picture in full, that we start to wonder if Deckard can pull it off. Roy, intensely played by Rutger Hauer, is a military model; strong, fast, smart and persistent. He is the leader of the escaped replicants and has come to earth on a mission of his own. Like many of us, he does not want to die and is intent on infiltrating the Tyrell Corporation in the hope that some way can be found to side-step the untimely fate of all replicants. The film is rich in symbolism and flooded with small but detailed characters like the origami artist Gaff. But the true heart of the story is the moral grey area. Can a good man condone what amounts to slavery? Is there no moral limit to genetic engineering? Is love possible between a man and a construct? Must we condemn a man for wanting to live, at any cost? In the end, when Roy has Deckard dead-to-rights on a crumbling and rain-swept roof, he says, "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain." Roy allows Deckard to live, even as he dies, leaving us with the conclusion that Roy's only way to live past his use-by date, is through the memory of the man who set out to kill him.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best ever
Review: Maybe the worst mistake in the history of film-making was releasing "Blade Runner" with a 'happy' ending. The ending in the theatrical version basically destroyed much of the meaning of the movie. Fortunately, Ridley Scott saw to it that there was a video release of the 'real,' restored ending, which is this, the director's cut. This movie is one of the most impressive movies ever made. It combines a great plot, awesome acting, deep characters and spectacular special effects. Put simply, there is nothing wrong with this movie, and everything is very right. Harrison Ford deliver's the performance of a lifetime, and is complimented nicely by Sean Young. But Rutger Hauer steals the show providing some of the finest acting ever captured on film. Toss in some wonderful visual effects and cinematography, and you've got the greatest sci-fi movie ever (no offense to "Star Wars" fans). So get this movie, and be amazed. If you've only seen the theatrical version, get this director's cut and see what its really about.
Rating:
Summary: A less than stellar DVD
Review: First off the Director's Cut blatantly disregards most of the book especially at the end. But since I am inclined to base my rating on the DVD itself, I'll not count that against it. My big complaint with Bladerunner is that the movie was released with two versions and only one is present on the DVD. Thus, the viewer is forced to watch the Director's Cut. The DVD is also a little shy on extras. The movie itself isn't too bad, although its pace is a tad slower than many other good science fiction movies and may cause many viewers to become bored. I suggest holding off on purchasing this DVD as it is rumored to be scheduled for re-release around December of this year. Hopefully the new release will have both versions of the film and the additional extras such a famous film deserves
Rating:
Summary: :)
Review: Dreams of 'lectric sheep Taunt androids in Scott's future Ford -- you just can't tell
Rating: 
Summary: not what I expected....at all
Review: I honestly thought this movie would be better. Firstly the picture quality is not at all good. Even Jaws has a much better picture. The sound is not so bad... But the big dissapointment was the story. Not very good, very slow and lame. not much action either. I guess that was how they made sci-fi's in those days, right?
Rating:
Summary: Best sci-fi movie ever
Review: This movie is a complete experience. I saw this movie for the first time as a 3rd grader (too young) back in 1983, and it is still my favorite. Visually it is flawless - not a "1990's-looks-like-it-was-done-on-a-computer" crap that every studio churns out now. This movie spawned a vision of the future that is now the standard in japanese animation. Ridley Scott is THE most visually- oriented director of our time and this movie is a perfct example of his "look". Now, there are other great looking sci-fi movies out there (Star Wars), but this movie does not have a simple good vs. bad theme. S.W. was an excellent vision of the future, but for adults it lacks the "grey" areas of human existence. It also lacked adult passions. NOT BLADERUNNER. In this movie, the essence of what it means to be human is questioned, love between a man and a "woman" is explored, and androids wrestle with the idea of death. Humans have wrestled with these matters since the beginning of time, and seeing them projected into humans (and non-humans) in the future are what really make this film work. NOT your typical "guy movie" about the future that focuses on technology - but one that can appeal to both sexes equally. A good choice if you want your girlfriend to watch a sci-fi movie with cool guns, androids, and flying cars. BEAUTIFUL PLOT, BEAUTIFUL LOOK, BEAUTIFUL MOVIE.
Rating: 
Summary: Blade Crawler
Review: Policemen in the future, hired assassins, track and kill artifical people. These people, created from human genes, but specially designed to work in undesirable jobs and environments, learn that they have also been designed to die young, lest they present a threat to their creators. With an unbelievable cast including Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah, among others, and superb special effects; this movie should have been a hit. With many people, apparently, it was. Not here. This story is an example of an interesting idea which just didn't pan out well in the movie. It moved very slow. There were elements here which were confusing. Finally, some of the effects were disappointing. I don't know, in a world with artificial people and flying cars don't you think they would have invented a better gun? Well, that is a small complaint, I just didn't like it. To be fair, some people do love this film. If you like science fiction which is a little different and moves at a very controlled pace, you might like it. I would guess, however, that most people will not.
Rating:
Summary: Best Science Fiction Movie Ever Made
Review: "Blade Runner" relies on two tremendous driving forces. The heralded visuals which have been imitated countlessly over the years, not just in science fiction, but music video, thrillers and commercials. While Blade Runner itself borrows a few elements from Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", it distances itself from the great German piece with a realism that is uncharacteristically grounded (pun intended) for science fiction. The startling thing about Blade Runner is that every year that passes by, Los Angeles bears a closer resemblance to this skin grafting, smog congested, racist society that was projected by novelist Philip K. Dick, director Ridley Scott, visualist Syd Mead and screenwriters Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. Organ and tissue implants are better known today as plastic surgery. LA is a town in which such an emphasis is placed on physical appearance. Inevitably, clones created from a superior genetic stock would arise in a society such as this. The Director's Cut gives the smoky and towering visuals more breathing room and the subtleties of Ridley Scott's detail come to light. The central conflict and irony of this film is that you have a sardonic Humphrey Bogart disenchanted Blade Runner commissioned to seek and retire all androids, regardless of their own personal involvement in a crime that was committed Off-World. This forces the androids to kill in order not to be killed. Just who is the true protaganist of this film? Deckard is just doing his job, and is, for the most part, a static character. One moment largely affected by the additional unicorn scene is when he finds the origami unicorn on the floor. This is one of the few intuitive moments where Deckard reflects on the human nature of his own being. The unicorn is a dream that Deckard imagines, and dreams are our own to treasure and fear. The origami folding Gaff places the very mythical creature in his dreams. He dissects Deckard's mind much in the same manner that Deckard smashes Rachael's precious childhood memories. I could go on much longer, but for the sake of this recommendation, I hope the complexity of this story speaks for itself. It is emotional in a deep sense and the visuals are stunning for its time. Many of the model techniques and wire effects outdo its contemporary rivals who utilize digital effects. They are close to 20 years old, and still drop jaws all across the world.
Rating:
Summary: Deep
Review: This is not a movie for you if you like movies that allow you to turn your brain off and have everything spoon-fed to you. This futuristic movie takes a look at the definition of life and the conflict between humans and technology. It also addresses some ethical questions about creating or destroying life. The music is awesome and is perfectly matched to the tone of the movie and its themes.
| 
