News Ticker

REVIEW: Blade Runner (The Director’s Cut)

REVIEW SUMMARY: Cool visuals, but ultimately a boring movie.

MY RATING: (Add 1 if you read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep)

BRIEF SYNOPSIS: Cop hunts for criminal replicants in the 21st Century

PROS: Stunning visuals.
CONS: Boring. Boring. Boring. No characterizations. Boring.
BOTTOM LINE: Not worth the time.

Ridley Scott’s 1982 Blade Runner is loosely (and I mean loosely) based on Philip K. Dicks Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The things I liked most about the movie were the visuals (futuristic cityscapes, lighting, and photography). The thing that stands out the most, though, is that it was just plain boring. To me, that’s the worst error a movie could make. Isn’t that why people watch movies in the first place? To relieve boredom?

It doesn’t make sense to go into how a movie differs from the story it is based upon. They almost always do; usually with good reason, though. Film is a different enough format to warrant certain stylistic and plot changes. Thus, in my opinion, a movie should be based on its own merits. And what are the merits of Blade Runner? The noir visual effects.

Set in a bleak future (next stop: Los Angeles, 21st century), the story follows Rick Deckard’s hunt for criminal replicants, outlawed on Earth when some of them kill humans off-world. Blade Runner’s futuristic cityscapes are fun to watch and show great imagination and creativity, right down to the product placement ads for Atari and Coke on huge television billboards. Even the indoor shots are infused with ever-changing lighting that makes it visually interesting to watch. Even in this day of multi-million dollar special effects and CGI, it’s still a treat to see.

But that’s where the good stuff ends in this movie. The story moves way too slowly. Reading the book beforehand will help immensely with filling in story background, but casual viewers, methinks, will feel lost. Characterizations are almost non-existent, but how could they exist with such little dialogue? The most likable characters were the evil replicants because they, at least, had motivation. They had a strong desire to live past their 4-year life span. I was semi-wishing I had a 1 hour life span about midway through this snoozer.

The edition reviewed here is the Director’s Cut released in 1992. But, back in 1982, someone thought the story needed more explanation via a Harrison Ford voiceover. I do not remember the voiceover version very well (Omigod! That was, like, the 80’s!), but I DO remember being immensely bored by that one too. From a noir aspect, though, I think the voiceover could only help.

Skip this one.

About John DeNardo (13012 Articles)
John DeNardo is the Managing Editor at SF Signal and a columnist at Kirkus Reviews. He also likes bagels. So there.

44 Comments on REVIEW: Blade Runner (The Director’s Cut)

  1. Heh, now I know where you son gets it from!

    I actually found it to be a fascinating movie. It is, in fact, one of the few movies I own on DVD, and if I remember right, I put it on my top 5 all-time favorite SF films.

    Why did I like it? Well, the story, for one, was thought-provoking, asking questions about the nature of consciousness. Can machines have a soul?

    I also completely enjoyed Scott’s view of the urban sprawl of the future. For me, it gave a face to the gritty cyberpunk vision of a city separated into the haves and have nots.

    And you’ve gotta admit, Sean Young is kind of hot.

  2. Are you on crack John? Maybe you need to go back to reading your chick books (Mysts of Avalon) and leave movie reviews to the men.

    This is one of the best sci-fi films of all time. Harrison Ford’s acting is great, and it is clearly the best job Sean Young has ever done (which isn’t saying much.) And you don’t even mention Rutger Hauer who I felt was a fantastic villian – his brutality and ruthlessness was just awesome.

    Blade Runner is on AFI’s top 100 list of most thrilling films of all time. Roy Batty is the 19th most horrific villian on the top 50 greatest villains.

    Suggesting that people give it a miss is extreme. You didn’t like it and that’s OK but you have to acknowledge that a lot of others think this is a great film.

    Personally, my complaint is that the big Director’s Cut version doesn’t include even an option to hear the voiceovers. That’s the version I saw first in the theatre and liked, and that’s the version I saw on cable and liked – but I can’t get that version on the DVD. Bummer.

  3. You know, last time I checked, it was possible to express a difference of opinion without actually slamming the reviewer.

    Oooooh…I didn’t like Blade Runner. So what? How about this: you “real reviewers” can stick to the 5-star Harriet Klausner reviews and I’ll give honest feedback.

    I hope I don’t sound antagonistic here. If I wanted to, I could say something like” Oh yeah? Well your mom gets zero stars because she sucks!”

    But I’m not saying that.

    Or am I?


  4. I think there must be something wrong with John. Shouldn’t that be: “Oh yeah, well your mom is a black hole because she sucks!”. That’s a more flavorful SF feel….

  5. Huh? What web do you read where you can express a difference of opinion without slamming the reader?

    I’m reminded of a Homer Simpson quote:

    Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn’t, it’s that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such and such.

  6. What are you on? Blade Runner was the best movie made. It has character and depth. You should stick to girlie movies.

    Oh yeah..most people who enjoy BR have at least average intellect or above.


  7. I’m not sure whether to delete that or leave it. Hmm…

    I wanna see John’s response! Keep it clean John.

  8. Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion. After all, there are millions of Britney Spears fans, Yu-Gi-Oh fans and even Tom Green fans. However, I am neither of those. And neither, as far as I know, is anyone above the age of eleven.

    But maybe Liam lives a sheltered life and hasn’t experienced any form of entertainment other than Bladerunner. When compared with white noise, yes, Bladerunner rocks. (Although white noise comes in a very close second.) Read the book, Liam, and then tell me Bladerunner is good.

    Or?it could be Liam is incapable of forming his own opinion and, instead, blindly echoes the distorted sentiments of some other mental pre-teen who once heard that Bladerunner was “cool”. It?s called “Your Own Opinion”, Liam. Get one.

  9. Yeah, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was a good novel. But Blade Runner was after different game altogether, and is, methinks, wonderful. Blade Runner may be slow, but it has depth. And a great death scene. What matters is that, by the end, Deckard realizes that this supposed machine has lived life much more fully and rewardingly — in only 4 years — than he himself has in 30-some years. And Deckard’s life is the only one of the two that society has respected. Ironic, philosophical, and sad.

  10. I have to weigh in against the reviewer here, who strikes me as a member of the Short Attention Span Generation. If it doesn’t have X-Wing fighters blowing up every 30 seconds, they start to yawn. Your use of the word “boring” in relation to this film is almost incomprehensible. Bladerunner is a mesmerizing film in all respects, cinematography, lighting, acting, story and soundtrack. “Characterizations are almost nonexistent.” You’ve got to be kidding! I can line up a good 100 friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances who would beg to differ. Roy Batty’s character alone has spawned quite a few discussions. Considering the accolades this film has garnered, the praise it has received, the discussion it has spawned, and the number of Top 10, Top 50, Top 100 style lists it graces, I would hazard a guess that the reviewer doesn’t “get it.” Note, I *have* read “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” along with most all of Dick’s novels, as he is one of my favorite SF authors, and I do think Bladerunner is “good” – not only “good” but great. Yes, the novel and the film are radically different, but that doesn’t detract from either one. Both stand on their own as works of art. Considering that Dick himself thought very highly of the film (he died before it was released but saw it in pre-release), the reviewer might want to give it another viewing with a more open and attentive mind. Now if you really want to use the word “boring” so many times in succession in another review, I suggest you try watching the original 1972 version of Solaris – its better than valium (the 2000 version of Solaris was superb, though). BTW, the fact that the reviewer thinks the main purpose of watching movies is to stave off boredom speaks volumes about his mindset.

  11. Personal attacks aside, it is actually possible to have an opinion different from others. As you are entitled to yours, I am to mine. Ragardless of the numerous accolades received, I just didn’t like it; even on a second viewing. Get over it.

  12. Ken, they don’t (all) have to beg, but I would like to see you line up all those 100 friends, family, coworkers, acquaintances, former roommates, maids you’ve paid, men you’ve dated, hookers you’ve laid, who can attest to your opinion…

  13. No, there are other things that speak to the reviewers mindset (how many lists does he have?). I can see why some people might not like BladeRunner. It does tend to drag a bit in some places. Ford’s voice overs are wooden and stilted, but I still liked it. I wouldn’t say it was the best SF ever though.

    And just because something is considered a ‘classic’ doesn’t mean that everyone is going to like it. See Stranger in a Strange Land.

  14. John…It is not something I need to “get over.” Of course it is “possible to have an opinion different from others” and I couldn’t care less what you think of Bladerunner. But when you hop on your website platform and blast that opinion into the ether and advise others to “skip this one” so that they don’t even have a chance to form *their* opinion, then I have to weigh in and balance the scales a bit.

    Peter…I’ll bet you really strained your brain coming up with those cute phrases. I assume your implication is that you find it implausible that I could produce 100 people I know who share my opinion in this matter. You must have a very small social circle.

    JP…I agree that there are many things that speak to a reviewer’s mindset, but this one (the fact that he believes movies are watched merely to stave off boredom) I thought was rather revealing. Anybody who watches movies with the what-can-I-do-to-get-through-the-next-2-hours mindset is obviously not giving those movies their just due and needs to find another avocation than that of reviewing movies.

  15. Ken, I suppose that depends on why the reviewer is reviewing movies. In John’s case, he isn’t reviewing movies in a critical sense, for others to read (although that is a small part of it), but more for himself, to remind him of what he liked, what he didn’t like, and why. And I don’t think he watches movies just as a way to kill 2 hours. He had no idea about what type of movie BR was and ended up being disappointed with it. C’est la vie. I believe you’ve made assumptions about John’s mindset based on a very small data set, which is a dangerous thing to do, but easy to accomplish on the Internet.

  16. Ken, talk is cheap. Put up or shut up — line up your army of Bladerunner enthusiasts. In fact, I’ll make it easier for you, just get 99, I’ll be the 100th since I happened to like Bladerunner.

  17. JP…I’m sorry John was disappointed by Bladerunner as I genuinely think it is an excellent film but, as you say, c’est la vie. That’s fine. I’m not psychoanalyzing John the person (I obviously don’t know him from Adam), I’m merely responding to what he himself put in his review. No assumptions are required (and there is therefore no “danger,” as it is right there in black and white). He clearly states his opinion of the movie he is reviewing and also what he thinks is the main rationale for why people watch movies in general – namely to “relieve boredom” (the latter being an “assumption” if I ever heard one.)

    And I have to disagree with your assessment of why John is writing these reviews. A “note to self” about which movies he likes or doesn’t like could easily be placed in a text file on his local HD. A review like this placed on public display is obviously intended as a critique for an audience, complete with advice to that audience (“Skip this one”). If he “isn’t reviewing movies in a critical sense, for others to read” then why in the world is he publishing them? This review was clearly intended as a critical assessment of a film and also clearly intended to be “read” by “others.”

    Note, that I do not knock the reviewer’s right to pen such reviews or publish them or hold his own opinions. Those things were never in question. However, he has comments turned on and this invites discussion, some of which is going to contain dissenting opinion. I happen to disagree with his assessment of the film in question. I also happen to disagree with his assumption that people watch movies in general to “relieve boredom.” I also think that someone who approaches an art form (any art form) with the mindset that it is simply a boredom reliever is probably not qualified to take on the role of critiquing that art form.

    Peter…you obviously are more interested in picking nits than discussing the actual topic. I don’t give a damn whether you believe I know 100 people who share my opinion of Bladerunner (even though it happens to be true and is probably more than 100, as I happen to be associated with a local SF club and know a lot of people who go to SF conventions, and I can honestly say that John is the first person I’ve come across who *didn’t* like Bladerunner). Your grade school mentality is pretty obvious from your “Am, too! Are not!” type of comments. Talk is only “cheap” when you don’t have anything to say and, while my comments may be just my “two cents,” yours are not worth anything at all.

  18. Ha! that’s easy to say that when you can’t. Just like it’s easy to shoot your mouth off and can’t back it up. All you have to do is to get your 100 or so SF club friends (this reminds me of a saying from the great sage, Judd Nelson: “…pathetic and sad, but social…”) into a group photo holding a sign that says “Ken is my friend and I agree with him. Holy Blades! I got the Runs!” And you’re off the hook after that…

  19. Sigh. Where to begin?

    I suppose with a question. Perhaps, Ken, you can explain to me why you watch science fiction movies? I suppose it must be for the educational value or the highly intellectual world view that it provides. Or maybe it’s for all that marvelous singing and dancing. Or maybe it’s the social aspect of talking with your fellow moviegoers in a darkened theater. Of course it’s none of those things. Seriously, and leaving aside those involved in the industry who may do so for vocational reasons, do you watch science fiction for anything other than entertainment? And why do you seek entertainment? I say it’s to relieve the tedium of everyday life. It’s a release from the stresses of rush hour traffic and squabbles with neighbors and work deadlines. It’s escapist fun. Or at least it’s supposed to be. For me, Blade Runner was only marginally entertaining.

    My “boredom” comment was geared towards my opinion that leaving the viewer bored is one of the worst offenses a movie can make. Have you never seen a bad movie and thought you just wasted 100 minutes of your life? For me, that movie was Blade Runner.

    My review clearly states that the movie should be judged on its own merits and not on its consistency with the book. I merely mention that I enjoyed the book way more than the movie. So, your implication that I disliked the movie because of its divergence from the book is without merit.

    As for the “action = excitement” comment: I like cerebral movies as much as the next guy. Gattaca, for example, while not a knock-down, slam-bang action flick, was a highly enjoyable and though-provoking SF film with some interesting themes and concepts. It was not very well received by the general populace, but I still liked it. And, contrary to your colorful suggestion, I neither stated nor implied that I require action (X-wings or otherwise) to relieve boredom. Ultimately, I am watching movies to be entertained. For me, Blade Runner was only marginally entertaining.

    I must disagree with your statement that you “couldn’t care less” about my statements. Clearly, the quantity of your rebuttals and the violence with which you give them life is proof enough that you do care. I just wonder: Do you care because of other unfortunate would-be viewers who would miss out on the glory that is Blade Runner? Or, are you undeniably opposed to others holding a point of view opposite of your own? If the former, I would say the popularity of Blade Runner (evidenced most recently by it making the blog-rounds as British scientists’ favorite movie), all things being equal, would outweigh my single veto. If the latter, might I suggest that your life would be much happier if you could accept people as autonomous creatures with enough mental faculties to form their own, independent opinion. In either case, your contributions to this post offer nothing of value.

    Take your own assessment of Solaris for example. While I have not seen it, I am sure it conflicts with other people’s opinions. Why is your assessment correct while others are wrong? The answer is that your own opinion is correct for you.

    That said, I must say I am enjoying your participation in the blog.

    Which brings me to the next item up for bid on The Review is Right. As JP stated, the main reason I started writing reviews was as a memory jogger. In B.B. (Before-Blog) times, this was done on my local hard drive. When we started the blog, it was natural to post my reviews. And now, knowing that I will post the reviews to the blog, I do tend to target the wording in my reviews to others instead of the older “note to self” style. And yes, there is also a satisfaction in having others read what you write. Tell the truth – isn’t that why you yourself keep commenting here in the first place?

    Or are you in it for the cheap shots? Instead, if you hold an opinion other to that stated and also feel the need to voice that opinion, then, may I request that you do so without personal attacks? My “thirty-something” generation (is that the “Short Attention Span Generation” of which you speak?) might start to think I’m conversing with a pre-teen with un-monitored access to the Web and a need to “relieve boredom”.

    I will admit to one flaw of my review. While I gave my own opinion, I did not clearly state the information others would need to judge whether or not they would enjoy the film themselves. To that I would reiterate what was already stated in the review in two summarizing sentences: “The majority of people do like Blade Runner and thus, chances are that you would enjoy it too. However, if slow-moving stories with long periods of silence are not to your liking, then skip this one.”

  20. John, I’m in it for the cheap shots… I don’t think you should admit flaw where there isn’t one. Everyone knows that a review is subjective. There’s no need to state that others’ opinions might differ. I mean, just look at Ken, he’s clearly wrong in the absolute — not about the movie, but about the fact that you can have your own opinion about the movie that might be vastly different from his.

  21. I guess I am against the cheap shot mentality. It is playgroundish and accomplishes nothing. I do remember the lessons of my logic class in college and the idea is to attack the argument not the person – thats how you win an argument.

    Ken – I know John (not well and I am going to pay for actually admitting that), and I think you really ought to take his review as what it is. A different opinion on a movie that you find quite good. I like Blade Runner but we are all allowed to speak our mind on a given topic which is why this blog exists. I won’t attack you but I will reiterate John’s question (in my own words of course): Have you seen a movie you didn’t like? And did you ever give your honest opinion to somebody? What if I liked that movie? Think about the answers to those questions and realize that somebody else can come read them or hear them and use them out of context or imply something beyond what they were intended to mean.

    Remember, we are not imposing our will on folks – we post what we think. Some will agree, and others will not. That is the nature of things.


  23. Well ZOD, if that is your real name, first of all, check for a key called ‘Caps Lock’ and press it. You won’t look like such a maroon.

    Second, most of the SFSignal authors are married with kids. I dare say we have ‘lives’. So that argument is out the airlock. So that leaves us with opinion. Everyone is entitled to theirs, even if when silly and all CAPS…

  24. JP, you failed to mentioned the fact that he also picked the name of the gayest of the super villains — I mean, who wears a glittery V neck and tucks their pant-legs into their boots before they leave the house to battle Superman? Can you thay, “FLAME-ING!!”

  25. Wow, two necros in one week. Better comedy in this one though :).

  26. i can honestly say that has to go down as te worst film review ever written by a human, a replicant snake could have done a better job. i think you should quit writing film reviews mate and live in some off earth colony. you said its not worth the time of day it only appears in nearly every top 20 film of all time survey ever made.

    There are some wonderful hidden implications of character development and racial issues, breathtaking stuff.

    Go HOME u android.

  27. // December 6, 2005 at 4:45 pm //

    o also that zod guy who said non of us hav lives wot r u doing posting messages to us if non of us hav lives u gay twat. its an interesting film debate u no wt i mean. ur g.friend or probly boyfriend u got (coz ur called zod) does she sit with u whilst u post such comments. infact change ur name zods even 2 gud 4 u change it 2 nightcrawler or sumthin o wait even thats 2 gud erm i no how bout bib fortuna.

    p.s bet u am better lookin dan u

  28. When did this become pile on John day?

    And for Carl, and Caitlin, just because a movie or a story is on a bunch of ‘best of’ lists doesn’t mean everyone will love it. No more said because the risk of a flamage is high…

  29. Nothing like opening this can of worms again! 😉

    Ms. Kiernan’s comments are sure to cause the activity on this post to pick up a bit, I’d imagine. Even so, I couldn’t help but reply.

  30. “p.s bet u am better lookin dan u”

    And with that, we are utterly devastated with the wit and intelligence you have displayed in your witty and brilliant attack upon our intelligence and physical appearance!

    By the way, have you ever heard of a “spell checker”? How about a “dictionary”?

  31. For what it’s worth, E.M. Forster said:

    “Some reviews give pain. This is regrettable, but no author has any right to whine. He is not obliged to be an author. He invited the publicity and he must take the publicity that comes along.”

  32. Thats a great quote Mervius and I would have to agree with you. The best part about living in our time and in our country (US) is that we still have some semblence of free speech and free opinion, and if we all had the same opinion, this would be an extremely boring place to live.

  33. And let us not forget the great equalizer – the Internet! It moved commentary and opinions out of the media (mainstream or not) and into the hands of everyman!

    I can personally insult whomever I want and potentially, millions of people will read it. Of course, I’ll still be an ass for doing so.

  34. (H)

    Found this site through google, thought I’d add my two cents worth. I respect John’s opinion and right to display same. That said, I could not agree less with his review. John seems to have little or no patience with plot or story development; calling him a Gen-Xer may be spot-on. What he obviously overlooks is that BR is not about action, shoot-outs, explosions, etc. Even when this film hit theaters in late 1982, it was described as “adult-themed”, meaning plot and character study weighed more heavily than sci-fi content.

    The whole intent of Ridley Scott’s interpretation of Dick’s novel DADOES was to analyze both the ambiguity and the irony of humans behaving like machines while chasing down and “retiring” machines that behave like humans. “More human than human” is creator’s motto, and the brilliant portrayals by Hauer, Ford, Cassidy, Hannah, and Olmos only underscore what Dick must have thought would become reality one day. Which is capable of more humanity? The man or the machine?

    BR is one of the best sci-fi/film noir movies of all time and should never be discounted or taken for granted as simply “boring”. Given that broad stroke, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, The Big Sleep, Chinatown, etc. would be labelled simply “BORING”.

  35. Watching directors cut on DVD right now, and decided to google “blade runner is boring” and this post came up. The fact that I took the time during this movie to do this ought to tell you something. Sure, the visuals are really great (for a movie from those ancient times), but you can’t say it’s even remotely a riveting film. It’s art, and I can’t very well stop it and not watch the rest, just on principle. (I have to be able to at least say I saw it), But the cheesy saxophone music is painful, and the analog tube TV’s are really killing me. Also, I didn’t realize Darryl (you know, the one from Newhart with the brother Darryl and the other brother Daryl) is in this. Pretty funny.

  36. It took 5 years, but…victory is mine! (H)

  37. After getting through the whole thing, I must say that I get now why people thought (and still think) it was a great movie. And I also think that voice-overs would have probably cheesed it up and ruined it for me, at least. But man was that ever a tough movie to get through. Much too slow, and definitely suffered from the slow, ’80s editing style and terrible music choices. I still say the first Matrix is the best sci-fi movie of all time. Blade runner isn’t even in my top 10.

  38. Methinks Bladerunner is ultimately extremely boring in a post-apocalyptic kind of way. In fact, watching this film made me want to hasten the apocalypse. Indeed, the 1:50 I wasted watching this film would have been made more thrilling had the CERN Particle Accelerator gone awry and started sucking up the universe into a man-made black hole. As it stands, the only thing that ended up sucking was Bladerunner. Yawn.


    Ps. I searched for Bladerunner is boring in google and got to this page. Hooray!

  39. I concur, to a point, with your review of the film— namely, that it was texturally rich and thematically evocative.

    I disagree that it was “boring”— I wasn’t bored. I was indifferent.

    It was never an issue of being “entertained”. To me, entertainment is an intellectual activity; watching things explode is masturbatory. Neither is necessarily superior/inferior to the other, and each should be judged on their own merits. That said, I’d rather sit through a Michael Bay movie than another viewing of “Blade Runner” (given only those two choices; and what an awful, awful world it would be).

    I “got it”. I got all of the themes, the philosophical touchstones; the source(s) of wangst & angst; the inevitable mental/intellectual/moral/spiritual/physical decay and self-destruction of man; the inherent hubris of the species; the fact that Deckard was a replicant (I’m still confused as to why the latter remains a point of contention; it seemed pretty clear to me, even in the pre-D.Cut version); the rest of the kitchen, right along with the sink.

    When I first viewed this film, I wondered if Ridley Scott was aiming to induce the “feeling” of having a Penfield organ. Personally, I thought that would have been a wonderful conceit, as none of the characters were designed or presented in such a way as to induce empathy of their own accord. Indeed, it seemed they were all constructed with an eye on the viewer, in an effort to “drive home the point”. That proved not to be the case, and the symbolism was, at times, yawn-inducing; otherwise, I was awe-struck by the theme-reflective artistry of the production elements themselves. Not a lot of “in-between”; which may be one point in the film’s favour. But then again, the appeal of noir, I think, is instinctual, hardwired to the nature of man, somewhere in our ever-feral portions of brain. Mmm, noir.

    My main complaint is that the manner in which the “Big Questions” and “Super Thoughts” were presented wasn’t compelling. It was bogged in cliche and predictability, with absolutely no one for whom to root. Antiheroes, tragic heroes, and Byronic heroes (this film combines several of these traits, plus some others) only work if the audience can invest themselves— whether it’s to hiss and boo, cheer, quietly reflect on their own mortal/moral soul, or simply be seriously, seriously opposed to doing any of those things (active apathy?). Whether it was a problem with characterization or an issue with acting, “Blade Runner” didn’t do that for me. (Of course, I have some fundamental issues with the construction of the philosophical questions posed, so I must admit that was likely influential in my viewing of the film.)

    Even cliche and predictability are wonderful attributes, especially to material that demands it as a backdrop for hanging philosophical ideas. In this way, I believe the production design got in the way of the film. But it’s definately worth watching for this aspect alone. I had an old VHS, and ran out and got one of the remastered discs, just because the film is so beautiful.

    The “Gigantic Overarching Question”— what constitutes “human”/”humanity”, and once we define it, how can/do we hierarchize ourselves— didn’t do it for me. If human history has shown us anything, it’s that higher cognitive function doesn’t amount to much, in that arena. What would be truly compelling: a world where “transhumanism” is an accepted practice, individuals do not mistake “existence” with “significance”, and the most profound philosophical question is “What purpose do I serve by continuing to live?” (And any flamers/angry detractors wanting to hurl that one, enjoy.)

    And the twist on the above? It’s a healthy, functioning, sustainable society, nowhere near utopian collapse. That, to me, would raise quite a few more soul-searching, gut-wrenching issues than that of a society with a slow-bleed femoral vein and no one to blame but itself, which, rather than addressing the issue, has choosen exsanguination.

  40. JAKE BEESLEY // September 24, 2009 at 12:04 pm //

    There are some pretty big explinations in here about peoples views on this film….sad to say but it is boring, so boring in fact that a 23yr old had decided to look at picture frames on ebay for the posters in his living room. Acting is fine, sets are wonderful, but has bored me to tears. Actually rather watch a steven seagall movie. Love ridley scott en’all, done some crackin films. This ain’t one of them.


  41. Brian in Wisconsin // March 28, 2010 at 9:08 pm //

    Funny, I thought I was reading something from myself when I read the comment above about watching the movie (sorta) while Googling “Blade Runner is boring”. All my life I’d heard about what a great film it was, how it was a must see. Zzzzzzzzzz. I think people allowed themselves to be taken in by the sets and visuals. Actually, I was distracted by some of the visuals because I kept thinking while looking at video phones and all the things they thought would be hip or even still in play (e.g., some of the technology or the ability to smoke indoors in California), “If they had only known.”

  42. I always questioned the merit of this blog with it’s emphasis on vampires, werewolves and other drek.  I dug back and found this blog entry and now my worst fears are confirmed.

    ANY self labeled science fiction fan who thinks Blade Runner is a terrible movie (regardless of how close it does or does not conform to DADOES) needs a serious head check.

    I now wash my hands of this site.  Maybe you should consider renaming it

  43. Is it perverse that I found ZOD’s comments to be the most insightful and ultimately humorous?  The person responding, asking “if that is your real name” was surreal.

    So are the repeated arguments saying “it’s okay to have a different opinion” as if they are instructing the world on proper behavior, because we plebians didn’t understand.

    Too funny not to comment.


  44. BORING? I loved this movie. It was dark. It was a bit depressing. And Ford’s performance is understated but that’s deliberate. It definitely was not a character piece. It was more about concepts and the world. But I still enjoyed it much when it firrst came up and when I rewatched it last weekend. It’s interesting to see it now without the narration. I still find it quite powerful a statement on how man’s scientific ambitions can lead to problems and on the ethics of cloning/AI. Sorry you didn’t like it. To me, it’s still a classic that gets mostly deserved praise.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: