Blade Runner 1982

Blade Runner is one of the more gaping holes in the list of films I haven’t seen (or at least, don’t remember well enough to talk about). Yesterday’s viewing of The Martian got me thinking about Ridley Scott’s past work so here I am.

I really should have done this sooner.

L.A. 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a ‘Blade Runner’ - a policeman whose sole purpose is to hunt and kill replicants; machines almost indistinguishable from humans, yet banned from Earth. Four have been detected on the planet so he is called up to hunt and kill them.

Scott’s dystopian LA draws you in and holds you captive for 2 hours. This is a masterfully shot, timeless, beautiful piece of work. Every single frame is a work of art. The visual effects are not only highly effective, but incredibly creative and unique; never has anything like this been made before or since.

The plot is simple, one man chases another. However it’s driven almost entirely by its central themes; what is it to be human? Who deserves to live or die? Are we responsible for the things we create? What happens when our creations surpass us? All of these questions go unanswered, yet Scott somehow revels in the ambiguity.

Decker is a blank canvas of a character. The replicants he is chasing are complex, unique individuals. It’s no accident that Rutger Hauer plays the most human character in the film. His is the stand-out performance here, if only for the closing monologue.

Still fresh & still relevant, Blade Runner is indeed a modern masterpiece.

http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/10/31/bladerunner/

A true science fiction story or film is about ideas, not spaceship battles, futuristic gadgets, or weird creatures. "Blade Runner" fully qualifies as this in its examination of the impact of technology on human society, existence, and the very nature of humanity itself. These themes are set in a fairly basic detective story that moves slowly but gradually builds power as the viewer is immersed in a dystopian futuristic Los Angeles.

Harrison Ford fans accustomed to the normally dynamic roles that he plays may be dissatisfied with the seemingly lifeless lead character that he portrays here as the replicant-hunting detective known as a "blade runner". They should be, for this dissatisfaction is part of the film experience, part of the dehumanized existence in the story's setting. However, as the story unfolds, we see Ford's character, Rick Deckard, slowly come alive again and recover some humanity while pursing four escaped replicants.

The replicants, genetically-engineered human cyborgs, that Deckard must hunt down and kill are in many ways more alive than Deckard himself initially. Their escape from an off-world colony has an explicit self-directed purpose, whereas Deckard's life appears to have none other than his job, one that he has tried to give up. By some standards, Deckard and the replicants have thin character development. However, this is a deeply thematic and philosophical film, and as such the characters are the tools of the story's themes. Each character reflects some aspect of humanity or human existence, but they lack others, for each is broken in ways that reflect the broken society in which they live and were conceived/created.

There are several dramatic moments involving life-and-death struggles, but most of these are more subdued than in a normal detective story plot. The film's power is chiefly derived through its stunning visual imagery of a dark futuristic cityscape and its philosophical themes.

Among the themes explored are the following: - The dehumanization of people through a society shaped by technological and capitalistic excess. - The roles of creator and creation, their mutual enslavement, and their role reversal, i.e., the creation's triumph over its creator. - The nature of humanity itself: emotions, memory, purpose, desire, cruelty, technological mastery of environment and universe, mortality, death, and more. - Personal identity and self-awareness. - The meaning of existence.

One of the earlier film that started cyberpunk genre in Hollywood cinemas. Considering the time it is made, the panorama of cyberpunk L.A. is impressive - it doesn't look old/fake, and you can see the way it influences the depiction of "high tech, low life" setting in later years, with tall and dark skyscrapers looming over the meagers' life of its citizens, police almost omnipresence appearing instantly as if they had eyes everywhere in the city. In the same time it is also indeed a film of its age: with ceiling fans, analogue devices, and low-res screens contrasting with its futuristic setting. Still, it is understandable how the atmosphere alone can leave a remarkable footprint on modern cinema.

However, the movie suffers from a terrible pacing. It is inconsistently slow, with ups and downs in a very sharp turns. There are moments you wished the movie can explore more, especially on exploring the fantastic atmosphere and the existential crisis of the Replicants. Meanwhile, there are other moments that you wished could've been cut short. For being a neo-noir thriller the movie hits the spot in maintaining its dark, mysterious atmosphere, but misses a lot in keeping the thrill high.

The final confrontation especially leaves a lot to be desired - as Deckard (the main character) just ran mindlessly, or, borrowing Roy's (the antagonist) line, just "being irrational", until the climax of the film. Which, again, leaves a gaping hole. The movie presents us the existential problem, the supposedly main theme of the movie, right there at Roy's dialogue. But minutes later after the monumental speech, the credits already rolled.

It's still a cult classic though. The setting was great. Worthy to be watched at least once.

So, this is it - THE UNDISPUTED SCI-FI CLASSIC!

Well, that's really up to what you as the viewer prefer. Do you like scares and a creepy atmosphere? Go for Alien or Predator. Do you like high flying action and exhilarating chases? Then maybe Star Wars is better suited for you. Blade Runner is not a horror movie, nor is it particularly exciting (even if action was the genre Harrison Ford mostly worked in during the 80s). This is a creepy, dark and gritty science fiction tale set in a post-apocalyptic world not farm from Tim Burton's Gotham City. It has a slow, dreamy tone and its script focuses on long moments of contemplative silence. The incredible visual style still holds up today, and it's made even more iconic by Vangelis' electronic score.

The movie has real depth but the story isn't hard to follow. It's more of an manifest really, a bit like another great slow sci-fi, Arrival. And because this i not a thriller or an action movie, it requires a specific mindset to really be enjoyed. And even if you haven't got that mindset you can't but marvel at Ford's minimalist, flat but utterly brilliant performance. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Ford's greatest performance yet.

But its not a flawless movie, mind you. The story never really sets of properly and we barely even see the replicants Ford is chasing. A shame really, cause Rutger Hauer's replicant baddie is probably one of the greatest in all of cinema history. His acting can be compared with Arnie's, only creepier. Some of the quieter moments feel out of place in the story and barely bring anything else than more length to the story. The second act of the movie is the slowest, and weakest. After a promising start, impressively setting up the world and the story, the movie almost totally freezes before entering the memorably surreal third act.

All of the above being said, Blade Runner is a remarkably memorable and original piece of cinema. It's gritty, violent and disturbing. It's surreal, slow and contemplative. Its few actions scenes are stylish, its performances are top notch. It's a type of moving art that they just don't make anymore.

Blade Runner" is a masterpiece that merges exceptional cinematography and intricate art direction to craft a visual marvel. This film brings to life a future Los Angeles with such richness and detail that it feels palpably real. The use of light and shadow in each frame not only serves the narrative but also transforms every scene into a work of art, pulling viewers into its dystopian embrace.

"Blade Runner" stands out for more than its striking visual narrative; it plunges into the philosophical depths of our existence. The film intricately explores the nuances of creation and our complex relationship with it. Imagine confronting your creator, questioning the fabric of your existence, challenging the very nature of your design. It ponders profound ethical dilemmas: If given the chance, would we seek enhancements from our maker, or would we confront them with resentment for our perceived flaws? These questions simmer beneath the surface of the narrative, inviting viewers to reflect on the essence of humanity and the moral complexities of playing god, all while cleverly avoiding definitive answers. Something that becomes increasingly relevant in our time with the galloping developments in AI.

The soundtrack by Vangelis is an integral part of the movie, enhancing the narrative with its haunting melodies. It's not merely background music but a crucial element that complements the film’s philosophical depth and visual splendor, enriching the overall experience.

For those seeking to fully appreciate the nuances of this film, watching the final cut in 4K resolution and Dolby Atmos sound is highly recommended. This version elevates the viewing experience, highlighting the meticulous details of the movie's design and its immersive soundscape.

"Blade Runner" transcends the confines of its genre, offering a rich exploration of futuristic themes while engaging with fundamental human questions. It is a film that not only captivates the senses but also challenges the intellect and stirs the imagination, making it a compelling cinematic journey.

Rating 2024: 9 out of 10.

Blade Runner, without a doubt a visual masterpiece with one of the best cinematography I have seen in a movie ever clearly ahead of it's time. The score is also terrific, combined with the atmosphere it immerses the viewer into this dystopian world with intricate world building and our main characters. The movie itself looks so cool and elegant, but besides all of the beauty it barely manages to pack a powerful punch in terms of storytelling. The movie tackles some important topics such as the mere existence of humanity and our future. Ridley Scott tries to immerse the user with some deep quotes such as Roy's "Tears in Rain" hypothesis. Although a really deep and a thought provoking quote it was and how subtly well it was, it should have had more development. Personally I liked Deckard's character and wished to see more of Roy. I think Deckard, brilliantly played by Harrison Ford was plain blank and boring. There's zero backstory that makes you care about him as a character despise the stellar performance by Harrison Ford. Throughout the runtime we see him going through the "generic cop solving crime". The pacing was also handled pretty okay, its not terrible nor it is amazing. Some parts were so slow and had no intention of hooking me, I wish they would have given Deckard more backstory and development during the runtime. The movie also tries to play with the viewer's mind by adding the mystery to see if Deckard is a replicant or not, but it failed to intrigue me to even the slightest due to the lack of context and development. Blade Runner is much like Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" which I thought was a huge bore-fest. I might need to rewatch both those movies to appreciate them or even understand the hype they get. You might say I haven't watched enough movies but I really do not understand the hype any of these 2 movies get. Overall "Blade Runner" got stunning visuals and a great score which deserves all the praise it gets. However, it tries too hard on establishing deep themes which ends up being more of a style over substance movie. The movie as a whole is in the middle of Great and Meh. I might improve my rating in the future after watching 2049 thus for now I give it a solid 6/10 rating.

DISCLAIMER: I did not see this movie in its original language(English), but in a dubbed version(Italian). I may have missed some nuances.

Blade Runner had been on my watchlist since forever. Now that I've seen it, I wish that I could have been born to watch it when it came out in 1982. I would have loved it then; but today, having seen the many movies Blade Runner itself inspired, it's just not that exciting.

World building is definitely the best part of the movie. It is the starting of cyberpunk in movies. Los Angeles in Blade Runner is shiny from above, but when you get down in the streets it's filthy and chaotic. There is a lot of neon lights everywhere. The buildings are all run-down with wires added and not hidden in the structure.

While the idea of the main plot is definitely interesting and thought provoking, I felt that the length of the movie is detrimental to its enjoyment. With that I don't mean that the movie is too slow, but rather that a lot of scenes felt useless to me. Almost pretentious, almost like they were put in just to be analyzed in film school or something.

The cast is impressive. While many say that Ford's character was bland, I felt that that was what his role was about and he played it pretty well. Obviously, a great deal of praise should be given to Rutger Hauer, if only for that last monologue.

The soundtrack was on point. The use of the synthesizer was brilliant.

In the end, I enjoyed Blade Runner far less than I had hoped. While its contributions to the sci-fi genre are undeniable, I can't really recommend it to a lot of people. But I can say that if you've enjoyed 2001:ASO, you'll definitely like Blade Runner.
Still, it left me wanting to see Blade Runner 2049, so it must have done something right.

6.5/10

Looks amazing. The dialogue delivery is mellow and together with the atmosphere it puts you in a slight a trance, which can make you miss things. I think this is why some get bored.
I dont don't see why people can't see a messsage in the movie. The replicants are basically a class of slaves, and the escaped ones wants to stop more being made to cease an existance they see as empty and cruel. Is it cruel to give human feelings to a replicant? They're just a company robot after all. The human design has consequences, but who cares? It's the basic morality twist of who is right and who is wrong. Then how does the blade runner character fit into all of this. I watched the final cut. I liked the ending. You're even left like the characters at the end questioning what's important in life.
So it's a commentary on technology and human society. In the end you can draw simularities on human exploitation and class systems, especially concerning corporations and business which is probably why big billboards appear throughout the movie. In the end its a sad movie. It's a slow movie but luckily its very escapist in atmosphere when viewing. If you come into this movie expecting a robot action movie you'll be disappointed.

I've been reading a lot of lists including this movie as one of the greatest of all time, and I have no idea why. Visually it is absolutely amazing, Ridley Scott's direction is amazing and it is incredibly stylish. The score is perfect for the movie as well. Harrison Ford's performance was just not good, I have no idea how no one criticizes just how incredibly wooden he was. The entire movie I was expecting him to say "Hey guess what I'm a robot, that's why I've been acting like an exhausted teenager this whole time".

I watched the movie without the director's cut and it included his awful narration. That was a big mistake, Ford sounds like he got called in to the studio on his vacation and just wants to get it over with. Ford isn't the only issue though, the main idea is kind of creative but the execution is just confusing. I have no idea what leads Ford's character from one clue to the next, and his jumps are incredibly convenient. The story itself just seems like a glorified twilight zone episode. It's not a bad movie, but it just seems so basic. ultimately I give it 5/10, If you look at style alone it is a masterpiece, and I can see just how influential it is, but the pacing is far to slow and the plot seems to basic for it to be much more than a stylish bag of tricks with nothing else.

I watched Blade Runner twice in quick succession. My plan was to watch the Final Cut, the Director's Cut, and the original theatrical cut, in that order. I had the chance to watch the Final Cut in a proper cinema (The Ones We Love series at Riffraff, Zürich). A few nights later, I watched the Director's Cut from a DVD which I had at home for almost 25 years, unplayed, as I was waiting for the perfect moment to finally see it – only to find out that Final Cut and Director's Cut are practically the same thing! It's an interesting early DVD, though, with no extras apart from a few biography tableaus, pressed on a double-sided disc with the widescreen version on one side, and a cropped full-screen one on the other.

Because I'm very fond of film noir, enjoy dark, dystopian visions of the future, and appreciate ambiguous films which get me to think about big topics, I was almost sure I was going to love it. However, I was a bit disappointed after first seeing the Final Cut at the theatre. It was all I had hoped for in terms of visual style, mood, and music, but the way it handled the tricky questions it's so famous for asking fell quite flat for me. Maybe it's because my expectations were too high after having read and heard so much about the core story and its interpretations before seeing it – this isn't a movie I was afraid of having spoiled for me, that ship had sailed years ago. Blade Runner was over forty years old by the time I watched it, and its core themes have become very popular in books, movies, and games that came after. I was left feeling that in the meantime, others had done a better, more subtle job.

I love the idea of the story, the things it leaves unsaid and unresolved, and the philosophical questions it asks. And there are many scenes where it does an excellent job with the core concept of showing replicants as beings with emotions, wishes, and suffering. The parenthetical line about Leon's precious photos, the gruesomeness of Deckard "retiring" Zhora, or Roy's breakdown when telling Pris about Leon's death are moments where it does this really well. In those scenes, Blade Runner goes all-in with asking about what it means to have memories and emotional attachment, an identity, to feel friendship and love, what it means to be human, and if the replicants aren't sometimes in fact more human than the humans. These few moments are what make it a great film, and more than just a sci-fi-themed Western.

However, this clashed with many other scenes where it fell back into painting replicants as the stereotypical unhinged bad people, in order to shoehorn in some worn-out action and horror movie clichés, especially in the final third of the movie. It destroys a lot of the emotional impact it so carefully built just moments earlier, where it contrasted human remorselessness and brutality with replicant, well, humanity. I'm not referring to the brutal things they do, which they do in order to survive in a world that is hostile to them. It's how they are repeatedly portrayed as psychopathic monsters who enjoy the brutality. Especially considering that I was watching the cut which is described as pandering less to mainstream audiences, I felt way too often that giving people a thick layer of cookie-cutter Hollywood, black and white, good versus evil was high on the list of priorities. Now I'm curious about the happy ending of the theatrical cut, which the back of my DVD case says was removed, because it still felt like a pretty happy ending to me.

Another scene that really works against the film is the sexual assault scene near the middle, which apparently was meant to be interpreted as a love scene, not least suggested by the cheesy erotic saxophone music that starts playing after Deckard forced himself onto Rachael. It's disturbing to watch, took me out of the story, and goes a long way to work against and destroy the movie's romance subplot. It alienated me so much that I ended up looking for some comments on how other people felt about this scene. Some arguments in its defense are that Deckard is still acting from a position of seeing replicants as machines, of lesser value than humans and with no real emotions, and that Rachael is falling back on her programming as being a servant to humans, and that the dynamics of the scene can be explained by both of them struggling with losing those certainties. I think that's being unduly generous with the script writers, though. There's no indication on screen that this is what they were going for. In fact, the violent moment immediately follows one where Deckard starts treating Rachael as an individual worth connecting to on an emotional level. Everything suggests that the filmmakers didn't intend the scene to feel as uncomfortable as it did, and that it simply stems from their "no means yes but be more forceful" understanding of sexual advances. It's the definite lowpoint of the movie, and had it been removed from the Director's Cut, the rest of the romance plot would have been more believable and less creepy.

I also read an interview with Sean Young where she shared her own thoughts on the scene. Apparently, she felt that Ridley Scott directed the scene to be so violent as a revenge for her refusing his real-life advances on set. Most importantly, Young herself feels that the scene doesn't make sense and shouldn't have been in the movie.

On my second viewing, my impression was rebalanced a bit. I found the over-the-top action/horror clichés less obnoxious and disruptive than the first time, and got a better appreciation for the scenes that work well. Because some of them work exceptionally well, which makes up for a lot. The final scene with Roy cyring in the rain as he is about to die, mourning the memories that will disappear with him, is one of them – "all those moments will be lost…" – also because it hints at the wider scope of the world the movie takes place in, all the things we didn't get to see, which often works in making something stick around in my mind for a lot longer. But most of all, it's about the moment when Deckard brutally reveals to Rachael the truth about her. It's an absolutely heartbreaking scene, where the movie really lives up to what I had hoped it would be, and the performance of Sean Young, who is clearly the star and highlight of the movie anyway, is simply amazing. I was almost sure before watching it that Blade Runner would make my list of favourites, but wasn't so sure after my first viewing. Seeing those two scenes in particular a second time, however, sorted it out: it goes on the list.

What really, really works are, predictably, the visuals. The set design, backgrounds, costumes, props, and lighting are all simply stunning. It's clear that there's very little in dark sci-fi and tech-noir which came after it, but wasn't heavily inspired by it. Stylistically, movies don't get much more influential than Blade Runner, naturally including its soundtrack. What I found particularly amazing considering the visual quality is how short the credits sequence is. Around a hundred people were involved in this production, not counting the cast, and it just looks perfect. Compare this to current-day Hollywood, where you get movies with 4,000 people in the credits sequence, and yet the resulting CGI effect excess looks like total garbage in comparison. In terms of how good they look, movies truly seem to have peaked some decades ago. I hope that there will be a change of thinking again some day soon, and that people remember how much better real sets, real actors, real stunts, and real visual effects look than the rendered rubbish we are being shown by major studio movies today.

It took me two tries, but I now appreciate Blade Runner for the influential classic it is. Some parts of it really didn't age well, but those also just stick out so much because in turn, the rest of it aged exceptionally well. The philosophical themes and ambiguities have been written about so much over the decades that it can feel surprisingly heavy-handed and lacking nuance when actually seeing it, but that's also because it suffers from being compared to the massive reputation it has built after the fact. On its own merit, it's still an essential watch.

In the far-off landscape of 2019, the Earth has advanced to a technological zenith. Now truly masters of their domain, humanity has reshaped the world in its own self-centered image. Overburdened and sullied with waste, the landscape flickers in neon hues and fluorescent glare. As gas-powered fireballs spit on the horizon and acid rain drips steadily in the streets, our collective rush to conquer has almost rendered essentials like daylight and animal life extinct. Mere victims in the name of progress. That same callous attitude is applied to the artificial workers we employ for physically demanding off-planet work. Dubbed replicants, these synthetic beings are sent to fight our wars and pave the way for new interstellar colonies, but are also hamstrung with an extremely short lifespan and a strict prohibition from visiting Earth. Crucial failsafes, lest they harbor any undesirable thoughts about throwing the yoke.

Fresh off the success of 1979’s Alien, director Ridley Scott dips a toe in similar waters for this gloomy, epic, long-simmering Philip K. Dick adaptation. Set in an equally dark, lived-in future society, Blade Runner provides a strong tonal match while exploring a very different set of themes and ideas. In this case, we’re concerned with the very fabric of conscious thought. Now that the human race has effectively opened Pandora’s box and created a manner of life (the replicants), where do we draw the line between their brand of being and our own? Why are their lives considered so much more disposable? It’s a rich question, later mirrored in films such as Ghost in the Shell and Ex Machina, and one for which there’s no simple answer. Especially when the creatures react so emotionally, resorting to murder, deception and violence when their pleas for emancipation fall on deaf ears. These rebellious replicants don’t make for objectively good people, but then, neither does a majority of the human race.

Blade Runner is the best kind of science fiction. Morally thoughtful and conceptually ambitious, it puts the audience in a mixed state of awe and discomfort, then leaves us to grapple with the consequences. We’re dazzled by the atmosphere of this foreign-yet-familiar scene, but repulsed by the effect it’s had on our collective nature. Strip away the enveloping scenery and immense soundscapes (an outstanding contribution by the composer Vangelis) and we’re left with a series of timeless human debates... plus one incredible closing monologue. This gets better with every viewing.

Blade Runner left an undeniable mark on pop culture. There's no way I can say the movie is not good. The set design still cackles with ambition and vision, and holds up perfectly to this day. And yet, so many other things about the film left me cold. Harrison Ford is said to have been bored and frustrated on set, and that boredom bleeds into his performance. He only seems to buy into the world around him when a certain other actor drags it out of him, but you can hardly blame him with a character as bland as Deckard. This may very well be intentional, to highlight the humanity of the replicants in contrast, but that does not make the scenes focused solely on Deckard any less of a drag to sit through. His romance with with Sean Young's Rachel is awkward, lifeless, utterly lacking in chemistry, and a bit disturbing in one scene. I cannot blame Scott for trying to shoehorn in a certain infamous theory- it's the only thing that makes Deckard halfway interesting in of himself.

Olmos makes the most out of every second he has, and Daryl Hannah does stellar work with a character that starts out strong but sadly falls into the one sexy but mentally unhinged evil girlfriend archetype, and neither are enough to elevate the film. If it weren't for one aspect, a light in the dark, I'd say the film had more value historically than artistically, something to watch only to see how media took influence from it and did things better.

But oh, what a light Rutger Hauer was. When he's on screen as Roy Batty, the film burns bright. You can't take your eyes off the screen. A terrifying killer one moment, bloodlust in his wild eyes. The next, he's a morose teen, dying far too soon, wanting more time with his love, friends, and life itself, his hangdog, lost expressions wringing sympathy. He walks a fine line and the man walked it with the grace of an acrobat. If there's one theme that comes through on the first viewing, it's the humanity of Batty versus Deckard. Hauer had to sell that this machine was more of a man than Deckard ever was. He had to sell that Roy was the man, the ideal of humanity in all its beauty and flaws, its glory and its excesses, and he achieves it with aplomb.

Every second he's away you wait for his return, and in his presence everything comes together. The swooning synthesizer soundtrack, representing his machinery and his romanticism. Ford, who only seems to bring his A game in the big climax, both he and Hauer cat and mouse at the same time, an invigorating comparison and contrast. And of course, his final scene, one of the most iconic soliloquies in all of cinema, that Hauer himself altered to perfection. This film lives and breathes on Hauer. If everything around him feels a bit sterile, it only makes Roy Batty feel all the more alive. Even setting aside the inspired set design and the cultural impact, Hauer alone would make the film worth watching in a performance that will never be lost to time.

“Blade Runner” might have its flaws, but it is still the quintessential cyberpunk blockbuster. The undercooked love story and the goofy action sequences are the inevitable product of its time, but aesthetically it was miles ahead. I recently watched the director’s cut 4K remaster and, hairstyles and old TV sets aside, it could almost pass as a fairly recent film. Ridley Scott goes for a neo-noir kind of investigation and paints the dystopian streets of Los Angeles in a decadent, almost gothic tone that reminds of his rainy London.

Thematically, the plot raises questions about what it means to be human in a time where there is no perceivable difference between man and machine, to the point that even the nature of memories is to be questioned. These are pretty common reflections in sci-fi literature, and I always thought that “Blade Runner” limited itself to giving some cues without digging too deep into the mind of its characters for the sake of the few moments of action (the critics basically did the rest writing pages and pages of overanalyzing). Rick Deckard’s motivation for what he does is never fully explored, and so is his rather forced relationship with Rachael. He walks around and defeats one replicant after another like in an arcade fighting game. The film makes a point to show how the androids are more united and human than the morally decayed men of 2019, but little screen time is devoted to exploring their nature.

An impressive film for its time and solid cyberpunk neo-noir, but definitely not what I would call an all-time masterpiece.

The version I watched was the Final Cut (which according to a lot of folks online is the best version). I'd never seen this before and well....I'm going to be honest, I wasn't exactly sure what to think after watching this movie. I think I'm another victim of "I see people giving it so much praise so that made me expect an epic flawless masterpiece".

I really liked the setting of the world, the cyberpunk LA was very impressive and it is definitely easy to see how it inspired future films such as The Fifth Element or The Matrix. This film's score is actually amazing, combining synthesizers and classical instruments which goes extrememly well with the film's settings. It has a bit of a slow pace and not a whole lot of action but that's because this is a film that wants to make you think. I think that the majority of the praise the film gets comes from the message it is trying to convey and Rutger Hauer's last speech in the film. You really should not go into this expecting it to be like the sci-fi movies you've gotten used to since this is probably what set the bar for modern day sci-fi.

I can't say I was a fan of Harrison Ford's performance here, I found his character to be a blank canvas from beginning to end. The actors that play the Replicants are the ones that shine, especially Rutger Hauer and Brion James. As a matter of fact I would even argue that perhaps the Replicants are the real protagonists. Also did anyone else think that the love between Rachel and Deckard felt rather shoehorned in?

Overall I think it is a pretty decent film but if you go into it expecting a hardcore sci-fi thriller you will be disappointed, it is more of a sci-fi noir film than a sci-fi thriller. These days you may find it boring or overhyped but try to watch it while keeping in mind that it is a product of its time. It actually just might be one of those films you need to watch more than once to truly appreciate it.