Blade Runner

A sci-fi cult-classic for true connoisseurs. I remember years ago when I was at the premiere of the Director's Cut, there were three of us sitting in the cinema. Enjoying the visual beauty of Blade Runner on the big screen back then was a completely different experience than a cropped image on TV. It's not easy viewing, it's not popcorn entertainment. The whole film follows an ambient mood that has to be felt. And if you see Blade Runner with perfect sound, you can really enjoy Vangelis' masterful soundtrack and catch the various sonic flourishes in some scenes, like all sorts of whispering or ambient sounds that add to the mood of the film. Ridley Scott created a fascinating, dark, futuristic world, and even if he hadn’t made anything else after that, he would still have been an immortal director. (26.05.2002)

Wonderful atmosphere, great execution that makes it look a quarter of its age, excellent actors, several very intense scenes, but terribly boring at the same time. This is what the old cliché of form over substance looks like. Blade Runner failed to win me over, even after a recent second chance (2011). (15.01.2009)

Even after more than twenty years, this is still a young, fresh, and innovative sci-fi film that has lost none of its appeal. However, Scott's visual vision, supported by Vangelis' music, completely overwhelms the content, which is far too simple in its nature and I certainly wouldn't call it a philosophy. I also don't see much soulful romance in Deckard's relationship with Rachael. I was much more impressed by the demonic Roy Batty whose speeches about the experience of living in fear and tears in the rain resonated with me for the rest of the film. This is a film cult for connoisseurs and for me an extraordinary experience after a two-year hiatus from it, which probably won't be as long next time. (03.01.2007)

I think I already know why I didn’t think the Blade Runner was my cup of tea when I first saw it. It is a visual orgy without a hint of emotions. Harrison Ford, who usually plays a hundred percent lovable characters, is in this movie almost invisible. In his case, it is a completely different role, which the audience may not like, but it fits perfectly into the visually precisely sketched future, which really enchanted me. (09.10.2017)

Das Genre der filmischen Science-Fiction in seiner Reinform. Scott ist es gelungen, eine hervorragende Ausstattung, gute Schauspieler und vor allem Dicks charakteristisch intellektuelle Geschichte zu einem faszinierenden "Noir"-Krimi aus der Zukunft zu kombinieren. Die Atmosphäre wird durch die Musik von Vangelis und die Tatsache, dass sich der Film auf Dialoge und langsame Vorwärtsbewegungen statt auf Action stützt, sehr unterstützt. Die fiktive Welt um Sie herum wird dadurch plastischer, und bei der richtigen Konstellation nimmt sie Sie in sich auf und prägt sich endgültig in Ihre Seele ein. Und die Geschichte von Menschlichkeit/Nichtmenschlichkeit/Kunst gewinnt an Bedeutung, nicht umgekehrt. Interessant ist auch, dass der Film nicht "saisonal", sondern quer durch die Zeit Zuschauer gewonnen hat. Das ist natürlich ein großes Kompliment für seine Qualitäten. (27.01.2004)

It is unbelievable how, by removing needless monologs, making an amendment here and there and by making a little change to the final few seconds can turn a fairly solid sci-fi movie into one of the most atmospheric, hypnotic gems of world cinema. And this is clearly the most influential movie ever, because it influenced all sci-fi that followed it, no exaggeration. An ingenious, dismal noir vision of the future that provokes questions to this day. I don’t necessarily mean questions like whether or not Deckard is a replicant; which seems to differ from version to version, and this ambivalence is due to the fact that Hampton and Ford always acted as if he is, while Ridley acted like he wasn’t, just to be difficult. But more, this movie poses those “eternal" questions such as where is the border between life and humanity and, primarily, whether it matters at all who is or isn’t a replicant. This puts Blade Runner side by side with The Last Temptation of Christ, rather than any movies of the sci-fi genre. This isn’t a movie for everybody (that’s right, it’s s-l-o-w and taciturn, for instance, at the end Deckard doesn’t say a word for a whole twenty minutes despite being on screen constantly), but those who find their way to it will certainly never wash out this gem from their memory like tears in the rain... Original movie theater version: 3/5, Director’s Cut 1992: 5/5, Final Cut 2007: 5/5 (17.01.2008)

Even after all these years, still a mystery. Sci-fi with a noir touch, which revels in technical and visual gloominess and unfortunately, also in visual weirdness. Scott is afraid to take even a small step and show us more of the future world, instead he just lets it rain on Deckard and tells a relatively ordinary story. Replicants lack psychology, and in the end, I still don't know why I should feel sorry for their fate and destiny. And I would also like to see Blade Runner's average rating if it wasn't directed by Ridley Scott himself. Maybe my opinion would be lower because thanks to its pleasant visuals and especially the excellent cynical performance by Ford, on a background of an amazing soundtrack, it wasn't such a disappointment as I initially frowned upon. Loads of raindrops, saxophone melodies, and Vangelis' fairytale-like music stay in the viewer's mind for a long time. (06.04.2007)

I said to myself: "Don't turn it on. You're up early tomorrow. Can’t you hear school calling? You need to get some sleep. It's nine o'clock. If you press play, you won't turn off the computer until eleven. Hardly a full night's sleep! So be a good girl and turn it off." I replied to my schizophrenic self: "Okay," and pressed play. Often when I go to bed with a head full of questions, I wake up refreshed in the morning. What is it, I wonder? Tomorrow – and I know this for a fact – I will be rested. For I've had a few bugs planted in my head. I'll lie in bed with my eyes closed and reflect on what a wondrous world I've visited. I ask myself: "Their world was so artificial that it seemed the only living creature on the planet was human. What was left there for such a person?" And my other self answers pointedly: "Feelings. Emotions." Then I run my fingers over my temples. "Maybe that's why they wanted to kill the replicants. That even the last real thing they had was appropriated by organometallic compounds, if I put it that way." I fall asleep thinking about that dark and rainy world. Weird. I still don't understand what’s making me give the movie 4 stars. I'm confused – I feel nothing. Just neurons transmitting impulses. Maybe it's because Blade Runner gave me inspiration. It gives me something to dream about, think about, and write about (and damn do I love doing that!). Still; it was so morose... (09.11.2008)

A classic of the sci-fi genre, Philip K. Dick, always attracted filmmakers with his sophisticated stories, and there are now several film adaptations of his work. Blade Runner is probably the most famous, although I'm not sure how satisfied he would be with Scott's version. After the worldwide success of Alien, Ridley Scott was chosen to direct the film, thanks to his refined visual style. It is precisely the visual aspect that is the main strength of the film, which has become a classic of its genre and is part of the golden age of sci-fi cinema. Until then, no director had succeeded in portraying the idea of a futuristic megacity full of dehumanized technology and giant advertisements on the walls of houses so perfectly. The film now exists in two versions - the original with a happy ending of the main character flying off with the android Rachel to the idyllic countryside, and then in Scott's own director's cut, which is more complete and darker. The strong cast was led by Harrison Ford, and for his partner, Sean Young, it was a role she could never surpass. Daryl Hannah showcased a wonderful acrobatic performance as an android. Scott's Blade Runner is not strong in terms of plot but rather in visual stylization and atmosphere. Because of this, it is a good idea to watch it on a big screen. Overall impression: 90%. (18.01.2008)

I’m not sure if I have ever seen anything like it. Scott’s Blade Runner is so different that it’s even hard to compare it with Dick’s novel. There are so many differences between the original book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the film interpretation that it’s not at all worth trying to compare it. Nevertheless, most of the characters and part of the plot are the same. I must say that the dreamy, ambient atmosphere that pervades the whole movie made my eyes heavy with drowsiness and I almost fell asleep. Vangelis’ magical music augmented that sleepy feeling even more but I lasted out :-). The nearer it gets to the end, the more absorbing and thrilling the picture becomes. Furthermore a lot of existential questions and debates concerning the relation of an android with his “death" (my favorite topic). The special effects are completely revolutionary considering when the movie was made. In short, Blade Runner is an unusual movie which won’t appeal to the audience as easily as it seemed at first glance. (10.10.2006)

Ein klassischer melancholischer Science-Fiction-Noir, an den es gelungen ist, auch Jahre später noch anzuknüpfen. Wir können also in der Welt der Replikanten mehr Zeit verbringen als nur auf den Seiten der Buchfortsetzungen, wenn wir Lust dazu haben. Am Anfang stand der Roman von Philip K. Dicks "Träumen Androiden von elektrischen Schafen?" aus den 1960er Jahren (abgeleitet von seiner Kurzgeschichte "The Little Black Box"). Natürlich entwickelt der Film in erster Linie eine 80er-Jahre-Ästhetik, so dass er aus heutiger Sicht eine sehr interessante Mischung darstellt, insbesondere mit Harrison Ford, der seinen Rick Deckard wie das Private Eye Philip Marlowe spielt. Das Duo Daryl Hannah und Rutger Hauer ist ebenfalls hervorragend. (02.06.2022)

Ridley Scott shows us his dark, futuristic world without any good guys, without any light or sun. He shows a dark, harsh, and relentless future in an captivating audiovisual performance, with the help of fantastic actors, ethereal and hypnotic music by Vangelis, and an outstanding script where something “more” is felt in every word. (08.05.2005)

An audio-visual feast for the eyes and ears that has not aged with the passage of time, but on the contrary reveals more and more the unmistakable charm and functionality of classic film effects. The actors are precise, the camera works artfully with the space, and Scott maintains the suffocating atmosphere with a creeping, almost noirish style of production design. Content-wise, however, it’s disappointing. While the story is essentially very simple and much more scientific than mysterious, it’s constantly blown up into philosophical and existential dimensions that are impossible to fully embrace or capitalize on. In the finale, even less than two hours seem a bit too much, although we will never get bored thanks to this timeless gourmet form. That's exactly why A Space Odyssey is a whole other level of experience, and it’s half an hour longer and 14 years older. 75% (30.09.2011)

The biggest problem with this film is that the creators bet on breathtaking shots of a futuristic metropolis. It's just that what was futuristic in 1982 wouldn’t impress anyone today, so the breathtaking shots are just boring now. The story did have something to it, but the pace didn’t suit me, the plot was too draggy and only a radical shortening of the running time could bring it to life. (19.02.2018)

One of the most amazing sci-fi movies that somewhat messes with your mind, because the viewer will most likely think it's a cool action ride. It's not, and that's a good thing. This is the only proper way to translate Dick's philosophical science fiction, because otherwise it would simply be ordinary sci-fi. Harrison Ford is great, but Rutger Hauer is simply unforgettable. (01.09.2014)

In the context of Ridley Scott's entire oeuvre, this film can be considered one of Ridley's best, if not the best. Amazing elaboration of exteriors, imaginative futuristic styling, remarkable attention to detail, and a "femme fatale" storyline that makes the whole story more "human" and fated at the same time. In the way Blade Runner is produced recalls Cameronian perfectionism and Spielbergian precision and bombast, while Ridley Scott's own directorial trademark still remains very strong, even breathtaking in some moments (e.g. the disposal of the first replicant as she leaps through the shop windows to the tune of perfect Vangelis). Despite the fact that the whole story takes place in the 21st century, the overall atmosphere is pleasantly "old-school" and gave me a nice nostalgic impression. It should be noted that despite the aforementioned nostalgia and lovable old school, Blade Runner is a film that still feels very inventive and modern even today. It’s Hollywood, but at the same time very high quality popcorn at the highest possible level – similar to some of Steven Spielberg's films. (26.10.2011)