Blade Runner (1982)

This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

A different way of telling a story

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

...i had really great expectations but this movie is just a piece of crap. Hard to beliebe that it is rated with 8 or more.... I'm completely disappointed!!

After hearing so much about Blade Runner, I finally saw it for the first time. The one thing that can't be taken away from it is its beautiful art direction. Nearly every set was a delight, and I can see how this movie influenced the visual look of sci-fi movies and comic books. (A lot of graphic novels in Heavy Metal back in the day mimicked its style.)With that being said, as soon as I finished watching it, it reminded me of The Phantom Menace. Why? Just like TPM, Blade Runner did an amazing job of plunging audiences into a fantastical world that felt and looked very convincing. It also had amazing visuals that set a new standard for world building and special effects. However, for all of its sumptuous visual details, it was an incredibly shallow film with a paper thin plot.Let's face it: this movie practically has no story. Don't get me wrong: it has characters. It has a setting. It has a premise. It has themes. But once it introduces all four in the first 20 minutes, that's it. Then it's just a random jumble of disconnected scenes that don't really flow together or make sense. At times the movie was so disjointed it felt as if scenes were missing. That leads me to the next biggest problem with this film. Ironically, even though the set design, blocking of shots and cinematography couldn't have been more perfect, the movie messed up in the most basic of film techniques. For example, the editing couldn't have been more choppy; at times, they felt like jump cuts. Another thing I noticed is that the movie recycled the same handful of footage, establishment shots, sets and dialogue over and over again. It was like something out of a low budget 1980s Filmation animated TV show, where they would always keep using the same animation, backgrounds and footage repeatedly. Think I'm kidding? Count how many times these show up: 1) Leon's test 2) The blimp advertising the Other World 3) The green tunnel 4) The street corner with the odd pillars 5) The establishment shot of the Los Angeles skyline with the gigantic billboard on the right hand side 6) The set where Priss first meets Sebastian 7) The noodle stand where people walk by with neon umbrella handles 8) The street level shot of LA with the glowing skyscapers. Other problems: the twist in the end revealing that the Replicants had fee fees the entire time felt like a weak limitation of I Am Legend. Plus, it rang hollow. Maybe if they hadn't been such diabolical sociopaths I would've bought it but this twist came across as cheap and lazy after the movie worked so hard to set them up as sadistic monsters.But the biggest problem of all for me with Blade Runner was Harrison Ford. I've never cared for Ford as an actor but I would always try to give him the benefit of the doubt. His performance here finally confirmed what I've always suspected about him, that so much of what people think as him playing a rogue character to perfectiom is him in real life showing up on the set with a bad attitude. He does not act in this movie. He sulks as if he doesn't want to be there or has contempt for the material, and his narration sucks. The entire time all I could think of was how terribly miscast he was and how much better someone like Dennis Quaid or maybe Jeff Bridges would've been in this role.So count me in as one of those people putting Blade Runner in the overrated camp. If you want to see truly groundbreaking futuristic sci-fi that actually has a plot and deserves to be considered a classic, watch Metropolis. But Blade Runner, outside of its amazing visuals, is a big fat meh.

This is easily one of the most overrated sci fi flicks ever. I challenge anyone to read the screenplay the whole way through without falling asleep. Yes, it's very visual and Vangelis did a good, appropriate (not amazing) soundtrack to give it that dark depressing "dystopia" bit....OK, fine...but that's it. No characters of even the tiniest interest to either love OR hate, a laughably bumbling love angle, and almost zero action except for one brief flurry around half-way through and another at the end. Speaking of which, a totally stupid ending...not Roy saving Decker, that was a great idea (and where it should have ended), but then Decker and Rachel hooking up and going....? where? And do we care? No. This movie was loaded with over-the-top pretentiousness and about zero believability, even given the premise. I saw it in the 80s and went "eh." I just saw it now for the first time since then, as I was interested in the new one and wanted this as a base, but found it's even worse than I remember. Read the review titled "So very very boring"....a bit harsh but sums it up fairly well (and is more entertaining than this entire film).

I expected more from this. I was a little bored and nothing really happened.