Dangerous Days: Making 'Blade Runner' (2007)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

hyped garbage

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Personally speaking, the story of how "Blade Runner" was made is just as fascinating as the movie itself. And "Dangerous Days" tells a terrific story. For one thing, it's 3 and-a-half hours long, so "comprehensive" is pretty much a given. And at that length, it's surprising how engaging this thing actually is. Things move pretty well. The filmmakers interviewed nearly everyone involved, and they all had plenty to say. Just about every step and beat of the process is covered here: the struggle to come up with a shooting script, the tensions and grueling work on the set, the disappointing box office failure and subsequent home video rebirth. Just an obscene wealth of material, and Charles de Lauzirika did an impressive job putting it all together. I have no idea how the casual moviegoer would receive this documentary. I imagine it's runtime alone is pretty daunting. But for me, it's a thrill, and a well-produced doc. Maybe it's best left to the more ardent fan, and if that's the case, then this is your rare instance of a studio finally catering to those who have thirsted for new material for many years. And for that, you can color me grateful.9/10

From the second time I saw the film 'Blade Runner' I loved it. The first time was not so good for me, totally disjointed; the theatrical release was a big disappointment. Having now watched this 'making of' documentary, I can now appreciate just how that happened and how it evolved into the version(s) we know (and love) today. I should say, for the record, I saw a cut-down version of this documentary; just the 120 minutes as opposed to the full 214 minutes. I would like to see the full version at some point though.The film tells the story of how the film got made via interviews with those involved and a lot of footage that was shot on set as it was in production. There is a surprisingly large amount of this footage; much more than I expected. The interviews are very revealing with Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, Joanna Cassidy, Sean Young and Edward James Olmos all taking centre stage. The people behind the scenes are also allowed their say, the likes of; Michael Deeley, Douglas Trumbull, Alan Ladd Jr., David Webb Peoples and Hampton Fancher all getting their say. The many trials and tribulations that went on behind the scenes make for an interesting and absorbing documentary. It helps that it is one of my all-time favourite films, but even so, an interesting piece nonetheless.For fans of the film it's a must-see; if you're just interested in the process of filmmaking but not particularly a fan of this picture, I'm sure you will still find plenty here of interest. Many things are revealed that some may find quite shocking; for instance (SPOILER ALERT) the fact the Ridley Scott was in favour of the voice-over at the beginning of the theatrical cut. Harrison Ford, on the other hand, didn't think it was necessary. Personally, I am very pleased that in later cuts it was dropped; I'm with Ford on this one! (SPOILER ALERT: END). Over all, an absorbing and quite revealing insight into the making of an iconic film… RECOMMENDED.My score: 8.1/10IMDb Score: 8.5/10 (based on 649 votes at the time of going to press).MetaScore: No Data: (Based on 0 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: No Reviews Yet (based on 0 reviews counted at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 34/100 'Want to See' (based on 353 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

I love this movie (not religiously) and the making of shows you how much went into this film. Bladerunner was the first film I saw that had real weight to it: a punch looked like a real punch, a landscape looked like a real cityscape and characters had real depth. as a kid in 1982 all I remembered was the opening scene issuing forth gasps from the audience of "Jesus Christ", I was hooked. today I still think it has many layers and still deserves its place as a masterpiece. In Dangerous Days, I love the way the cast were shell shocked by the screening of the film with some going on to ask how do they top this. The Bradbury Building is haunting to look at as it was, not now that it has been renovated. P.K.Dick at first hated it then couldn't believe how they had recreated his vision.If any of you liked this but felt it didn't touch upon enough, here are a few pointers to Bladerunner's rich development: Moebius (who now regrets his refusal to work upon the film) wrote and illustrated "The Long Tomorrow" a very good template for Ridleys Vision of the film and a must read for fans of the film. The artwork of Syd Mead is as haunting and beautiful as the film, again a must see. The novel is different to the film but strangely compliments it and is its equal counterpart. and lastly what is odd about the scriptwriters of blade-runner is they haven't just picked upon the novel to encapsulate the theme of the film, but have encompassed most of Dicks entire works in its dark futuristic feel. I bet you didn't know that PKD wrote many books with blade-runner like cities that included ruthless detectives, flying cars or white haired black cloaked replicants or psychotic female counterparts with high intelligence. Bladerunner isn't the book that portrays the film best, there are other books by him that portray the film better. In fact his vision is so much like blade-runner that you can't imagine anything else when reading some of his other novels. I would say that there is a blade-runner signature in nearly all of his books, that would explain his surprise upon seeing a draft of the film because you can see it in his work.hope this helps those out there who want to dig a little deeper.

When seeing the original 1982 release at ten years old, I remember it being exciting (since it was the very first rated R movie I saw in the theatres) ominous, and weird. Weird because it wasn't the Indiana Jones/ Han Solo flick that I was secretly expecting; and weird because there was something that compelled me to the film with every viewing. It was something I never talked about to anyone else around me because it just wasn't "cool" to like since it wasn't a box office suck-sess or simply because it was a mature film. The dialogue, the humor and most of the film's themes are just not "Star Wars"-y and black and white. The bad guys are not necessarily that bad, and the good guys aren't all that likable, and the film itself is not riddled with hope like popcorn flicks are. After leaving the theatre, I remember looking at the landscape differently and asking myself just how much believability was in that film. Living in L.A. at the time (since that was the film's location) made me pay even more attention to that idea. Throughout the years, whenever I would see any kinds of urban decay in buildings, I would immediately associate it this film and the impending despair of the future.There were at least 45 minutes of deleted/alternate scenes that were compiled into a mini-film, and turned out to be interesting. Not to the point in where it surpassed the original film, but made you appreciate the finished original film by the end of it. There were also elements sprinkled throughout the outtakes that I remember were original ideas from the writers (namely Hampton Fancher's). Harrison Ford's voice-over narrated and was somewhat clichéd (to the point in where I began to enjoy the original voice-over in the film), and it reminded me of the director's cut of "Superman II" at times (yes, I am a cinegeek, ladies and gentlemen). I've watched this documentary at least four times now and I'm fascinated by it. The sets; the art direction; the actors and their stories: it brings back memories of the summer of '82 and the fall of '92 (when the director's cut was released). It's so inspiring to see thirtysomething filmmakers my age and see how moved by the movie like I was. But yes, I agree- this documentary can be quite boring to those non-fans out there and I don't think this is for everyone. However, the film itself never wowed me to the point in where I thought the film was religion. In the documentary, a fan states that "there are no casual 'Blade Runner' fans out there" before showing off her whole arm encompassed with tattoos of the movie's icons. Well, I have to pleasantly disagree. I think I AM a casual fan BECAUSE I don't riddle my arm in unsightly green and orange hues that's on the same level of those crazed "Star Wars" fans who get the Millennium Falcon or stormtroopers stenciled to their appendages.