Rating: 
Summary: One of the Best
Review: Rutger Hauer's "tears in the rain" soliloquy is one of the most moving scenes in all of American cinema, bar none.
Rating: 
Summary: Cloning is no clown-game
Review: This is a film whose meaning changes with time. When it came out it was soft science-fiction and adventure. Ten years later it is completely different. Cloning men to produce slaves, with no past, no emotional growing, no infancy, no memories but also with a limited lifespan was a vague menace ten years ago. Today it is a reality. This cloning implies DNA manipulation and this is today perfectly possible. Then the film gets some renewed interest. If those clones have no past, they have no emotions, hence they are machines. Yet they are stronger than and as intelligent as normal people, which means they develop emotions on the basis of their present experience, hence they rebel because they want an answer to their fundamental question, viz. what is life and what is the meaning of their lives and the meaning of their early deaths. When they do not get those answers, they kill the boss of the corporation who produced them, their « father », rediscovering or reinventing the Œdipus complex. Then the film is no longer an adventure film but an ethically rebellious film. Bladerunners are those who chase and hunt the replicants that have dared come on earth. They don't kill them, they retire them. Ethically unacceptable because they are human, just like us. And this unethical action is emphasized by three elements : the disgust and sickness of the bladerunner of the film in front of killing « human beings », even if they are replicants ; the last act of the last and dying replicant that saves the bladerunner's life to have a witness to his death, to maybe show life is more important than death for him, or even his survival ; the love affair that develops into an elopement with the new generation of replicants who do no have any limitation on their lifespan. Replicants are able to develop feelings and emotions, to become human, even if it is not based on those simple things that are called puberty, adolescence, growth, family life, father and mother, etc. A human « machine » will necessarily develop a human psyche. This is particularly disquieting for us and it should make us think twenty times before trying to be God. Like God who was unable to prevent disobedience in his free-will beings, we will be unable to prevent human development in our intelligent creations. And these beings will overtake us. This is yet shorter than the same problem in the Dune novels, because the Duncans are created, cloned from the DNA of the original dead one, but they recuperate with that DNA all the memories of the original Duncan. DNA has a memory. And then the problem is the discrepancy between what the cloned Duncan remembers and what the world he is thrown into is. This questioning about clones will go on and will become more and more pressing and pregnant in the coming years. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universities II and IX.
Rating:
Summary: LA: Global Warming and "Replicant" Threat
Review: Harrison Ford is "Decker"; a professional "retirer" of rogue androids or "Replicants." Highly advanced replicants return to Earth to discover the key to immortality. A built-in expiration date in them sets them on a mission to find their creator; Tyrell. Decker is forced to rejoin the "Blade Runner" group of police charged with the retirement of renegade replicants. He encounters the latest "Nexus" replicant Rachel (Sean Young) who is infused with actual human memories. She is unaware that she is a replicant. The plot is to retire the rogue replicants and save Rachel. All of the action takes place in Los Angeles which has been dramatically changed by global warming and exotic ethnic/cultural blending.The director's cut is not, in my opinion, as good as the origional version. The director's cut eliminates the narration of the star character, Decker, which is wonderfully matter-of-factly done by Ford. The sound and visuals are very good, although the scenes are predominantly very dark. View and enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome movie!
Review: I just got this movie and watched it for the first time. It is very good, and the visuals are stunning! Even though it is an older movie. I won't tell the plot or anything, because that's already been done here. But this movie is worth your time, whether you rent it or buy it. Although it is rated R, it said rated R for violence. But it does have nudity(upper), which kind of dissapointed me, in the fact that it said nothing of this. But that is pretty much the only flaw, atleast that I see, for a movie I've been wanting to see for a very long time.
Rating:
Summary: Stylish SF Film Noir
Review: Loosely based on the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K.Dick, Blade Runner is a landmark in SF film making. It is set in a near future in which great technological advances have merely brought their own problems rather than delivered some form of utopia. The particular problem of concern in this movie is that of replicants. These near perfect copies of humans are not allowed on Earth and when a small group lands illegally, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is called out of retirement to dispose of them. As the hunt continues, he finds himself becoming attached on Rachel, one of the replicants whom he has been sent to destroy. Where will his loyalties lie? This film works and appeals on many levels. Of course, superficially there is the thriller aspect of the movie. Will Deckard kill the bad guys? Will he get the girl? Will she be allowed to live? But there is also the dark display of the future world. Something such as this is far more convincing that the sort of slick clean and perfect future that seems to be the view of most prior works in this genre. Finally, there comes the whole matter of identity. Can the replicants really love? Should their lives be valued as much as those of the humans and finally, the big question raised by the film, is Deckard a human or a replicant given false memories and sent out to kill his own kind? This last matter caused a lot of controversy. In the original book, Dick feels that the matter is sufficiently important that he has Deckard submit to tests to prove that he is human. The movie is more ambiguous. Many year after making the film, director Ridley Scott claimed that Deckard was a replicant. Reports from the shooting of the film say that there was a dispute between the director and his star. Ford wanted the audience to be with Deckard and did not want conclusive evidence that the killer was a replicant. It is this very ambiguity and the questions that it raises that is at the heart of the film's enduring popularity. The movie is available in two different versions. The original version has a Raymond Chandler style voice over narrative done by Ford. This was forced on the director by the film's financial backers who feared that audiences would not follow the plot. The subsequent "director's cut" version drops this and adds a single dream sequence scene which is designed to reinforce the impression that Deckard is a replicant. In an ideal world, you could buy a DVD with both versions on it but sadly, you cannot do this. In that case, the director's cut version is truer to the intentions of the films creators and it is inevitable that anyone watching the earlier version will feel that they are missing something.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie!
Review: This is and has been my favorate movie for a VERY long time. It really stirs up the imagination. There is one thing: where can I find the original version - the one with the narration. I think everyone should see the original one before they see the director's cut (I personally prefer the original movie more than the director's cut). In short, this is a brilliant piece of work! It is a masterpiece classic.
Rating:
Summary: A great film made greater
Review: The director's cut of "Blade Runner" is a rare instance of a classic being improved. By removing the voice overs and original theatrical ending, the movie takes on a much more somber, tense feeling. Furthermore, the lack of narration serves to heighten the importance of the very spare dialogue, and reveals a great deal of nuance that had been previously masked. Finally, this is a movie that was begging for DVD. Its dark settings and towering buildings demand high resolution. While the DVD doesn't offer much else, it is worth buying for just this reason. This film is an haunting masterpiece, and of the rare breed of movies that make you think. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: The Director Had It Right the First Time
Review: When Ridley Scott decided to make a movie version of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," he took on a daunting task. This short novel grabs the reader from the beginning and won't let go until the story is over. I couldn't put it down. To translate that to the screen, Ridley Scott appropriately added a voice over narration to help explain the development of the story. In his director's cut, he removed this voice over and made it all but impossible to truly understand what is happening in the story. I love this movie, but refuse to buy... ...the Director's Cut. Even though I know the story, the film is just not complete without the narration.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Like Directors Cut, Like the First Theater Release.
Review: I don't know why people like the directors cut but having seen the first release in theaters with Harrison Fords Narration on it, to me makes more of a classic. Also, I have seen the Director's Cut and to me the ending seems boring when Harrison Ford doesn't expond on why he gets saved by the replicant. With out some of the other narration the movie seems vague on some points. I have been looking for the theater released version for awhile now. Can any one at this website help me find out if they might release the other version on vhs.
Rating:
Summary: Notes on picture quality and DVD version....
Review: This is my favorite movie. Other reviews explain why it is so good. My only reservation concerns the DVD. Maybe you should just get the VHS because the DVD version is just a port of bad quality film. I saw the movie in a theater as late as 1998 and was astonished how the actual film had aged in terms of quality of the stock. The DVD is no better. It just duplicates the quality of the aged film. Aside from that the DVD comes with few bonuses (subtitles and wide screen versions) but has a nice snap-case. This film would benefit from being digitally remastered.
| 
