Blade Runner Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Man Has Made His Match... Now It's His Problem
A chilling, bold, mesmerizing, futuristic detective thriller.
The original cut of the futuristic adventure. [Director's Cut]
The star of "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK" and the director of "ALIEN" take you on a spectacular journey to the savage world of the year 2019!!
Los Angeles, 2019: Rick Deckard of the LPD's Blade Runner unit prowls the steel & micro-chip jungle of the 21st century for assumed humanoids known as 'replicants'. Replicants were declared illegal after a bloody mutiny on an Off-World Colony, and are to be terminated upon detection. Man's obsession with creating a being equal to himself has back-fired.
| Rutger Hauer | Roy Batty |
| Sean Young | Rachael |
| Edward James Olmos | Gaff |
| Joanna Cassidy | Zhora |
| Daryl Hannah | Pris |
| M. Emmet Walsh | Bryant |
| Brion James | Leon |
| William Sanderson | J.F. Sebastian |
| Joseph Turkel | Tyrell |
| Harrison Ford | Rick Deckard |
| James Hong | Hannibal Chew |
| Morgan Paull | Holden |
| Kevin Thompson | Bear |
| John Edward Allen | Kaiser |
| Hy Pyke | Taffey Lewis |
| Ridley Scott |
8.20 out of 10 (84710 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Blade Runner Movie Review
posted on 24 Aug 200925 years after the theatrical release of Ridley Scott's science fiction masterpiece Blade Runner, the film still retains every bit of its visual brilliance (made even more gorgeous with digitally remastered picture), but it's crystal clear that more than just the imagery makes Scott's 3rd film one of the most important and entertaining films of its genre.In futuristic Los Angeles, androids designed to be nearly indistinguishable from humans are banned from Earth after mutinous actions off-world. These Replicants that attempt to return are to be hunted down and "retired" by special police units known as Blade Runners. When one such enforcer, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is assigned to eliminate a group of extremely dangerous Nexus 6 Series Replicants led by Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), he begins to acknowledge the thin line that defines humanity. In his eventual confrontation with Batty, and through encounters with an unknowing Replicant named Rachel (Sean Young), Deckard will learn what it means to be human.The steady build of each main character is truly flawless and the deliberate pacing allows for more powerful revelations into the intricacies of humanity. Harrison Ford perfectly captures the initially remorseless Blade Runner Rick Deckard, who terminates Replicants for a living and appears indifferent towards their existence – that is until he encounters Rachel. Slowly falling for the beautiful creation, who doesn't even realize what she is, Deckard begins to question what it means to be human (and many believe Deckard to be a Replicant himself, generating even more philosophical questions).Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty embodies the perfect antagonist to Deckard's antihero, a violent and ruthless killer who wants what he cannot have – an extension on life itself. A sporting terminator of sorts, Batty possesses many attributes that Deckard does not (and vice versa), and the two parallel and supplement the essence of each other's existence. Batty starts with a clear purpose and mission, yet ends meeting the inevitable fate so cruelly inherent to his kind. Deckard has a less focused existence and is forced into his unwanted assignment; he only begins to value life when he falls in love with Rachel and acquires a new purpose. He gains life and love as Batty loses both. Batty's poetic final words echo a loss of life, not the simple "retiring" of an android, and Gaff's portent closing admonition accords with Deckard's desire to cherish what time he has left with Rachel.The set designs and look of the film is nothing short of cinematically inspired. Turbid steam flows freely from every mechanical object hovering, gliding and scampering about; murky water plummets from the sky, drips from ceilings and skates across the trash-ridden streets of a futuristic Los Angeles. Styled to look like Tokyo if it had succumb to gross overpopulation, pollution and a totalitarian government, the streets of 2019 L.A. are covered in highly stylized denizens not that far removed from the cantina of Mos Eisley. A feeling of dread, alienation and claustrophobia lingers about every blackened, sordid street, and the various smattering of languages creates a further isolation from the comforts of familiar humanity.Enormous, uninviting skyscrapers tower above the dusky horizon, and blinking spaceships scurry around the bustling airways. Every bit of scenery is blanketed with smog, shadows and smoke, and shimmering neons and electric billboards peek through the dismal vapors. The atmosphere of Blade Runner is wholly unique, and it adds to the striking seriousness of every event, no matter how outlandish or (science) fictional, and gives it the distinct tone of uncertainty, dehumanization and fear surrounding mortality. Pulsing electronic rhythms by Vangelis permeate the grim events and narrate the moody film noir elements that frequent this seminal science fiction epic.Some say 2001: A Space Odyssey is the finest example of science fiction ever to grace the big screen, but we say Blade Runner. With suspenseful action, perfect acting, unbeatable character development and designs, beautifully foreboding sets, poetic dialogue, poignant themes, gripping violence, flawless storytelling and a love story to boot, Ridley Scott's broodingly dark foray into serious science fiction is the uncontested champion.- The Massie Twins
A Fascinating Piece of Film Noir
posted on 15 Aug 2009Blade Runner is a film that has many layers to be uncovered-Ridley Scott is known for his detail in his films, but this is his best example, not in just his visuals but simply everything. First of all, the lighting and sets are managed excellently-already the moody film noir is demonstrated. Secondly, the characters, although subtle, are all created with the details that the sets have.The plot itself is the best example: What can appear to be relatively thin actually reveals many metaphors. The acting is simply brilliant, notably Ruetger Hauer, and an interesting question arises in the (Director's Cut) ending.It is a deep and thoughtful movie I would recommend to most, although some may be bored by its pace-it is a matter of taste.10/10
MY Blade Runner as opposed to Ridley Scott's-rating reflects THEATER release!
posted on 09 Aug 2009From the moment that I saw this film in '82 until today, it's remained among my favorites. For the life of me, however, I cannot understand why the director eliminated the narration from this film.Many of you may not know this, but there once was a movie genre called FILM NOIRE. These movies usually involved a really good, loner type detective, like "Sam Spade" or the like. He would walk you though the film using narration that highlighted what he was thinking while you watched him perform his investigative duties with a featureless "poker face" to fool the bad guys.Periodically, and most often impersonated, the detective would "step out" of a scene he was in and talk to the audience instead of narrating over the action. Perhaps you've seen old Bogart films where he'd stand under a light pole in the rain and recite a monologue to the audience about how he felt the case was going or to highlight another character's actions, behaviors or personalities according to him. THAT is E X A C T L Y what Blade Runner was meant to depict in a futuristic setting. It worked WELL, and it is sorely missed from the director's cut.Honestly, and many will agree, unless you've seen the original cut of this film, you lose a LOT of information that helps you understand the story to the fullest. If I'm "whining" or "don't understand the 'new school' " and you DISAGREE blindly, then don't you EVER use the CAST/CREW COMMENTARY feature on you DVDs again. Yeah…I THOUGHT so!!! So-perhaps those with the "power" can do what many of us are asking: Give us our movie back…the way it was MEANT to be seen…the way WE remember it.
Fantastic Sci-Fi flic of a burned-out detective's ordeal.
posted on 03 Aug 2009Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a former LA Blade Runner who is re-hired to track down runaway "Replicants" and "retire" them. Ridley Scott's direction is incredible. The sets are extremely realistic of an industrial apocalyptic 2019 Los Angeles and an eerie look at the future of mankind. While badly received, this is an exceptional movie that deserves more than it receives.
What??
posted on 31 Jul 2009OK, I don't really know what to think about this movie... Personally I found it pointless. I mean, why does Deckard have to kill these replicants? All they want to do is find their maker. So the thing is; This guy makes replicants, Deckard kills replicants, so why should they care if they want to meet their maker? Why does Deckard care if they hurt their maker? And the whole romantic aspect of this movie is totally pointless. Which is what I think of this movie: "Totally pointless."
The standard for modern Sci-Fi
posted on 16 Jul 2009When I first saw this film I was about 11 years old. I loved it. I STILL love it. Although many sci-fi films were made previous and post - this gem stands out. For example...Logan's Runs was a great sci-fi film back in the 70's. But to watch it today you can only laugh. Blade Runner is different. It's an honest-to-god GREAT sci-fi flick that still holds up today. WHY? Because the images of a futuristic Los Angeles in the film have very much become reality. Ask any Angeleno...a drive through LA's China Town and Korea Town at night - and you'll see! It REALLY looks like the LA that the writers (Fancher & Peoples) imagined for this film. In my opinion...Blade Runner is one of the greatest TIMELESS sci-fi pictures of all time.
JUST A ALL TIME CLASSIC FILM,, NUFF SAID
posted on 16 Jul 2009This film is true class. It never fails to deliver on all levels. every time you watch it. When I first saw this back in 198o something. I was about 13 and I did find it a little hard to watch. I just though it was dank and slow. However even then I thought the music for the end credits was brilliant.Any way I managed to view this film a few years later. I think it was 1992 , When I viewed it. it just blew me away. I got everything. (apart from the missing 6th replicant). Since then this film has became a great fav of mine. I own both version.s on VHS and will view either of them depending what mood I am in. This is one of the few films which gets me crying. as it is truly sad. I would say the film is a endless classic and so many films take influence from it.. I robot is a example. its virtually the same story.. anyway I vote this 10+ out of 10.. if you i never viewed it. then do so asap. but then if your reading this,I bet you already have...
Good but Flawed
posted on 10 Jul 2009My Rating: ***1/4 out of ****. Blade Runner is one of three films that was adapted from a Phillip K. Dick sci-fi story. The other two films were Minority Report and Total Recall. Out of those three Minority Report is the best. Blade Runner ranks as second but it has some flaws that cannot be ignored. I have a complaint about the casting. Harrison Ford is miscast here, I know they wanted to put Ford here after his two excellent performances as Han Solo in the Star Wars films, but I found him flat here. Sean Young and Daryl Hannah dont have much acting to do here, but they do an adequate job nonetheless. The standout is undeniably Rutger Hauer, who is excellent as the bad guy, he is intimidating and he steals scenes from Ford and anyother actor in the film. Nothing is more impressive here than the visuals. The Visual Effects still look fantastic, even 20 years later. The sets and the cinematography are excellent. The film has a dark film-noirish atmosphere to it. Its impossible not to be impressed by the visuals. Blade Runner is an example of style over substance. The movie has loads of style but it also has a thin plot and some uninteresting characters. Visuals reign supreme over the entire movie. However, Blade Runner is still worth watching, even though I do not feel it is the best sci-fi film.
Marvelous
posted on 07 Jul 2009It's a very good, and very well made sci-fi classic.It has it's own style and feel to it, and unlike most sci-fi films it doesn't stretch the boundaries of human knowledge and lend siege to a bunch of aliens or space fights or whatever. It lays down themes that although seem a million light years away, are in fact maybe closer to our time than we first thought.It's a story of the blade runner, played by Harrison Ford hunting down 4 humanoid rebels trying to find their creator, with a bit of killing along the way.With a riveting story, depth to characters and amazing memorable acting from Harrison Ford, Sean Young, Joe Turkel and most of all the superb Rutger Hauer.I think it is only suffice to say that this film is a marvel of it's genre and with criticism and technicalities aside I think you cannot argue that this film is great in all proportions.
All the visual pull of a sci-fi film with the heart of a drama
posted on 01 Jul 2009"Blade Runner" is a film very much like the androids that are in it: innovative creations that appear one way on the outside but are another on the inside. "Blade Runner' has the facade of an action sci-fi epic, but is more a futuristic drama that poses questions about humanity and questions the future.Forget that it's Ridley Scott, epic action filmmaker. Forget that its Harrison Ford, 80s action film extraordinaire. "Blade Runner" is not even close to those genres--it is science-fiction, but with a focus on the purpose, not on the technology. While "Blade Runner" offers some stunning visual effects (for 1982) and some terrific art direction, it's only meant to create the sci-fi aura needed to make the ideas hit harder.Ford stars as Rick Deckard, a Blade Runner in Los Angeles in 2019. A Blade Runner is a cop in charge of hunting down Nexus 6 androids that were banned from Earth under punishment of extermination because they exceeded human strength and knowledge. When 4 of these "Replicants" hijack a ship and find their way to Earth (they are supposed to remain in Earth's off-planet colonies), Deckard is put in charge of taking them down, and he goes around trying to do just that."Blade Runner" moves rather slowly, taking a lot of time with its scenes. Especially when the sci-fi leads you to expect action, it can get really slow. It's the images and the use of darkness and light that make this film good and interesting. While confusing, you start to get the film towards the end.While not Ford's best role because it doesn't call on him to do much, he still continues to be the best protagonist to get his butt handed to him in every film. He's always the most realistic of any hero because he never does it without help or without getting something for his grief.Once you get what the film says about humans and emotions and what truly is human, then you appreciate how the film goes about getting there. An action film simply wouldn't do that. Once again, the sci-fi is simply to establish and set the tone for future L.A., it is not an integral part of the film. Expect some more thought-provoking sci-fi along the lines of an Assimov, Wells or Orwell and "Blade Runner' will surely give you something you enjoy munching on.
Misses the mark.
posted on 28 Jun 2009Blade Runner has so many good things going for it, but the few flaws it has, brings it down. Featuring breathtaking set design and brillant special effects, plus it has a great cast and great direction. But the script is only so-so, and not fully developed, and the film is overlong. Still a very worth while film. Rating: 7 out of 10.
Sexier Than Star Wars, Deeper Than 2001 A Space Odyssey.....
posted on 13 Jun 2009Any movie brave enough to ask the question, 'what does it mean to be human?', deserves some credit. But not only is this a fantastically deep movie, that repays your level of attention 10 fold, it is the visual masterpiece of all time.It is the common opinion that the 1992 directors cut, is the definitive vision. On face value, this may appear to be true. The dead-pan voice-over is gone, as is the 'Hollywood happy ending'. However this takes from the original vision Ridley Scott had, a vision of a classic Bogart-style detective story, set in the future. In the original 1982 cut, all of the detective story cliches are in abundance. Yellow, murky light through Venetian blinds, smoky bars and a monotone voice-over from the hero. Also, the amazing cinematography, that has become to trade mark of Blade Runner, is constantly dark and overwhelmingly moody. But in the Original cut, this dark/pessimistic view, is broken at the 'Hollywood happy ending' by a sun-drenched mountain drive, which comes like a breath of fresh air. The one instance in which the directors cut surpasses the Original cut, is the inclusion of the famous 'Unicorn Dream', which was the main clue to Deckard being a replicant. If this dream sequence was inserted into the original cut, a movie so perfect would be created, that it would rival 'Shichinin No Samurai' as the most flawless movie ever made.So, for the record, Deckard is a replicant, and the directors cut is not nearly as good as the Original.
One of the greatest films of all time...
posted on 29 May 2009From the start, when the somber score of Vangelis begins to thump in the backround, you are already being sucked into its thick atomsphere. Then, the opening titles and prologue come to a close, to reveal in large print: Los Angeles November 2019. Then you are hit with it: one the most stunning, incredibly elaborate, and dazzling visions of the future.Plagued with acid rain, fog, topless skyscrapers and endless advertisements we are now into the horrendously beautiful world of retired blade-runner unit Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford). He is forced from retirement to hunt down 5 replicants (android units that incredibly resemble humans). His mission: to exterminate them. The underlying theme here is the slow, methodical, destruction of ourselves (it has not been determined whether Deckard is a replicant as well). That being the case, the film slowly molds itself into your psyche, where it will NEVER evacuate.It might as well be the most visually staggering motion picture of all time. To this day, I have NEVER seen any movie come close to the eerie reality of it's special effects (it got robbed that year by E.T.--which was one of the biggest mistakes in a long-line of mistakes that the academy has made). The visuals, writing and cinematography, EVERYTHING whisks you away into a gorgeous, harrowing world full of our own numbness to life and humanity.There are two different versions availible. The standard cut and the Director's cut. I strongly recommend the Director's cut (widescreen, of course), because it eliminates the original voice-over (making the film more quiet and menacing), and gets rid of the "happy" ending (creating an amazing ominous feel to it). I've said enough; I'll leave all of the characterizations for you to decide what you think...
Can you pass the Void Kompf Test?
posted on 23 May 2009Blade Runner (1982) is the classic tale of a future-noir Los Angeles. An environment of constant darkness and rain entailing the story. Rick Deckard is a Blade Runner AKA one who retires(kills) replicants, which are artificially created humans with extreme innate mental and physical capabilities designed for slaving in off-world colonies. The scenario is the Detective vs. 4 escaped replicants lurking in the streets of Los Angleles. Their mission is to find their creator, Tyrell, and force him to give them more life; for the replicants life span is only 4 years because of safety measures. The detective's mission is to find the 4 replicants and retire them before they adapt to the society and endanger the lives of others. But the detective's inept mission turns against him as he fights for his life and the moral certitude of humanity.Blade Runner is well known visually for its excelling art design and cinematography. The future "2019" developed in 1982 still looks very good today. Blade Runner is directed by Ridley Scott. It was one of his first films he's directed; second after Alien (1979). Some of his other great works are Black Hawk Down, Thelma & Louis, and Gladiator. Blade Runner (Directors Cut 1992) is to many people one of the best films ever put on screen. Written originally by Phillip K. Dick in 1969 entitled as "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Phillip K. Dick died in 1982 shortly after Blade Runner's release, he is well known for futuristic novels which some have turned into movies: Total Recall (1990), Minority Report (2002).
God Is Dead
posted on 23 May 2009This film is a brilliant attempt to make you feel the existential struggle for personal value in an atheistic world. If your a theist, this movie will remind you why you are not an atheist. If your an atheist, this movie will remind you of the empty and ultimately meaningless life that you live, for "all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain". If you are debating on seeing this film, I would recommend just some basic philosophical articles on nihilism, existentialism and postmodern philosophy. I believe what I posted below will be a good place to start if you want to understand the film.Humanity is represented by Roy throughout the film, especially when Roy kills his creator (Nietzsche's phrase "God is dead" is obviously the background for Roy's symbolic act of killing his creator). Also, in the end we find out that Roy, with the nail though his hand and dove at his side, is the nihilistic Christ (the deliberate comparison to Jesus, and the reversal of his divine proclamation of eternal life cannot be missed). This movie not only asked many questions about life and meaning, it actually answers them with Roy's last "divine" proclamation. Basically put, if there is no Creator that can give eternal life, there is no longer value and purpose in life because all that we experience is ultimately lost. Thus, to search for true personal value in a life thats turns into nothingness is as pointless as trying to find a tear on a persons face when they are crying in the rain. Roy's failure to have his life extended is the means used to make us feel the sadness and despair that is found in an intelligent being who will soon vanish into nothingness. The intent is to make us look at out own experiences with the same despair, because if there is no God, there is no one to eternally extend our lives. Thus, when you cease to exist, and you must, all your experiences and all the work that came to make you the person you are today will be lost. So to truly understand this movie and feel its impact, you have to put yourself in Roys place, because thats where you are. Roy did not kill Deckard because he wanted him to walk in his shoes and feel what he felt; he wanted to "enlighten" him. Thus, we find a purpose in this film; to "enligten" its viewers of their own inescapable plight in an atheistic world.Some have said that another purpose of the film is to show that one must make the best of the time that they have. In other words, the point of the movie is that since we must face this horrid outcome of nothingness, then there is nothing to lose in acting as if there is true purpose and meaning in our lives so as to emotionally overcome the despair. I think there is truth to that also, and the emotional act of "making the best out of the time we have" was represented by the unicorn in the last scene. Throughout the film, Gaff would make origami figures that represented what was going on in the scene. At the end when Deckard was leaving with Rachel he found a unicorn origami which indicated that his dreams were implanted. At this point one must ask why the writer used a mythical animal in his dream, rather then an animal that really existed? I believe the unicorn was used to describe the act of Deckard "making the best of things", or acting as if there is true meaning and value, for such things are just myths (like the unicorn) in an atheistic world. Thus, to act as if such things as unicorns, value and worth were true, one would have to knowingly fool themselves and act as if the unreal is real, which is exactly what Deckard had to do with Rachel, and possibly him self. Where as Roy was not willing or was unable to entertain such emotionally driven human delusions, Deckard was and therefore joined humanity. "GOD IS DEAD" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? - Nietzsche, The Gay Science" "EXISTENTIALISM" From Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia."Books such as DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, by Philip K. Dick, and Toilet: The Novel, by Michael Szymczyk all distort the line between reality and appearance while simultaneously espousing strong existential themes.""much postmodern writing is existential--unsurprising, since postmodernism evolved from the thought of NIETZSCHE and Heidegger""Existentialism is a philosophical movement that views human existence as having a set of underlying themes and characteristics, such as anxiety, dread, freedom, awareness of death, and consciousness of existing, that are primary."
I've seen things you wouldn't believe
posted on 17 May 2009Blade Runner persists, 17 years on, as the shining example of all that a sci-fi film could be. Taking the example of the better sci-fi written material (personally I thought that "Do androids dream..." was OK but not special) the basic storyline is not science dependent; it could be the tale of (for example) someone hunting runaway slaves in colonial america.The film excels in three ways:Firstly, the Imagery is absolutely superb. The scene where Deckhard flies into the police headquarters has a sense of Odyssey, a feel of a visionary perspective into a possible future, that makes the film not just an audio-visual experience, but a true journey of discovery into a very different world.Secondly, the (Vangelis) soundtrack is incredible. Words fail to express the quality of the soundtrack, which beautifully adds to the "immenseness" of the visuals. When the film shows you a "big" scene, the music also touches you with a sense of the emotions underlying the scene; it doesn't let you avoid it.Finally, the acting is great. Neither Harrison Ford nor Rutger Hauer ever portrayed parts with such sincerity of character.
A pioneer in the genre of sci-fi.
posted on 17 May 2009This is one of the five timeless classics that literally shaped the genre of science fiction in modern cinema. 'Blade Runner' is shockingly original in its concept, with considerable depth in its theme and vision. Much has been written in the other user comments about the story and its philosophical implications, the acting, the screenplay etc. I just want to focus on two major aspects of the film.The film brilliantly captures PKD's vision about the future. PKD has always outlined a rather dystopic society, with paranoia screaming out of its every corner. The film's use of dark sets, smoke, faded light, night-time rain, broken buildings, exotic people has effectively set the right mood for what PKD had dreamt of - a society on the verge of breakdown, living on the edge with crime, corruption and misused technology. All credits must go to the art/set directors, the cinematographers and of course to Mr. Scott himself.The original music is just breathtaking. Vangelis created the right sound for every mood, mostly dominated by paranoia and fear of the unknown. The use of foreign music in many scenes only add to the vision of cultural complexity.The director's cut is vastly superior than the original release not only because it excludes the voice-over, but because of the brilliant extra footage and altered ending. It designs a more perfect way to throw out the question whether Deckerd himself was a replicant or not.
Dark, Disturbing, Depressing...One of Sci-Fi's Best
posted on 14 May 2009Blade Runner is probably director Ridley Scott's most engaging, artistic, thought-provoking film. It is the future and world is in ruins. Not by war, but by the extreme separation of classes and exploration of "outer colonies". This film version is based on the Philip K. Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". I think this one of the very few instances, that the movie has outdone the book. Los Angeles in 2019 is a dreary, rain-riddled ghetto where the poor workers live and breath the oppression of the police and big corporations. This fact is deeply emphasized in the novel, but the screen version clearly paints a disturbing picture of hopelesness, fear and low-class slavery to those too weak to fend for themselves. This is a society that immorally creates androids to explore dangerous colonies, and worse - implants emotions and memories into their synthetic minds. Harrison Ford gives a great performance as Deckard, a man reluctantly drawn back into action as a Blade Runner: a special police unit designated to terminate or "retire" stray humanoid robots called "replicants". When an angry band of replicants seek revenge on their greedy creators, its Deckard who must seek and destroy. The film touches on though-provoking aspects of human morality, and poses the question: Should man be allowed to create robots with real emotions. The consequences of playing god turn out to be desasterous when Deckard realizes the murderous nature of his profession. This is a complicated film that has a twisted emotional climax when Deckard comes face to face with the most lethal of his robotic targets. One of the best science fiction films of all time. Final Rating = 8.1/10
Do You Dream of Electric Sheep?
posted on 14 May 2009Excellent flick, some "goof"s with cinematagraphy ( I saw strings on the hovercraft). But otherwise it does not get much better than this. PLEASE see the Directors Cut as it leaves out Harrison Fords' lame overdub as well as the lame ending. My understanding is that the filming of this was so weird and the acceptance by the public so confused, Mr. Harrison will not to this day talk about this flick. Shame since it is so good.
My favorite movie ever. And that's saying a lot.
posted on 27 Aug 2009First of all, watch the director's cut of this film. Although I think it might actually be hard to find the original release these days, make sure you see the real version. It's a beautiful film. Ridley Scott is a genius, and this movie is everything sci-fi should be, as well as everything film noir should be. It is dark and menacing, philosophically challenging, and endlessly interesting. Every time I watch it, I find something new to be amazed by. The attention to detail I think is unsurpassed. And I don't even really like Harrison Ford.