[Brettison]

Dated? You used the wrong wording, you meant aged well. The visual effects are still top notch and looks better than some stuff from these years.

I still really like the movie, but I've always disagreed with this. I think people who think it's aged so well have some rose tinted glasses on.

That being said it's still a solid movie, and it's a big landmark film in the sci-fi genre.

[dygiT]

It's the best Harrison Ford movie. Also tied with Alien for best Ridley Scott movie.

[derExperte]

Stripper robot actually starts choking him, but inexplicably stops to run away

She was interrupted when some other strippers entered the room. The long nosed guy was a robot I guess and so on. A lot of your complaints can be explained away while some stuff only makes sense after you watch the movie a few times and just accept that it's the future and a bit weird.

But honestly if you have problems with these small details and didn't get why Batty rescued Deckard at the end you missed what the movie was actually about. Wait a year, watch it again with lowered expectations, soak in the atmsophere and go with it. It's one of my favorite movies but it took a while and it may not hold up if someone starts questioning everything.

[Metal-Geo]

The visuals and art direction, if you will, were the only things that kept me interested. :(

[phosphor112]

Some movies are out of reach for certain viewers. It is an inherent flaw in the human reproductive system that gets carried over from parent to sibling. You might try to read the book that the movie is based on, but I doubt it would improve the situation. Here are some movies that might be more up your alley: shit.

I just fucking lost it. lmfao.

[dralla]

Mediocre movie for sure. The only thing I can say is that it's not the most over hyped Harrison Ford movie, that title belongs to Raiders...

[blainethemono]

Probably one of my top 5 favorite films

[krypt0nian]

Mediocre movie for sure. The only thing I can say is that it's not the most over hyped Harrison Ford movie, that title belongs to Raiders...

Wow that is the opinion equivalent of shitting the bed.

I look down on people who aren't in love with this and Raiders. Way down. It's honestly like they have no idea what makes a great movie, and then revel in that.

[Woz]

Floored by how terrible it was.

No less.

Oh well, it's an opinion.

[Mr. B Natural]

She was interrupted when some other strippers entered the room.

This, I think, was not in the cut of the movie I watched.

She just let go and did some stupid acrobatic stuff as if about to accomplish some "finishing move" on Ford but it failed. It was "You're going to die...nah...ok, now you die."

And, imo, it is very much a terrible movie wrapped in nice clothes. In the world we live in, we remember the clothes and not the person, so there was no surprise to how shallow it was (even when trying SO HARD not to be) but I still was disappointed. I was hoping it would defy modern trends in taste, rather than be another shining example of it, if not one of the forefathers.

[devilinanewdress]

I still really like the movie, but I've always disagreed with this. I think people who think it's aged so well have some rose tinted glasses on.

[krypt0nian]

Exactly. People in the SFX field worship it for a good reason.

[Gustav]

Exactly. People in the SFX field worship it for a good reason.

Lol. This looks like super overrated and like rose tinted nostalgia.

[Secret Fawful]

Lol. This looks like super overrated and like rose tinted nostalgia.

This might be the case except I only started loving the movie within the past two years.

[Woz]

"there's a dwarf with a long nose in the house of a man who create artificial creatures... it doesn't make sense!!"

[ThLunarian]

I will give the movie some credit. I think the visuals were very good for its time, and I can see how it was stylistically very influential to other films down the line (though I can't quite forgive it for being the origin of that CSI "Magnify and enhance" bullshit).

The problem is that it's just not very enjoyable to watch. I know I nitpicked a lot of the details, but that's because the film wasn't keeping my interest, so I was able to find little things to nitpick about. That doesn't happen in captivating films.

Edit:

"there's a dwarf with a long nose in the house of a man who create artificial creatures... it doesn't make sense!!"

That guy was the only "artificial creation" I saw in that house that was actually played by a real actor, AND he was restrained and struggling to escape, so I guess I made the assumption that he was an actual person being held prisoner.

[Aesthet1c]

I'm with the OP on this one. I didn't see Blade Runner until last year sometime and I hated it. Maybe I was expecting too much from it because it has been so hyped over the years, but it's just not a very good movie.

[Acquiescence]

I did a total reversal on Blade Runner the second time I saw it. I was 14 when I first saw the film and I went in (not the cinema - I wasn't born yet) with the mentality that it was Indiana Jones set in the future. Couldn't have been more wrong obviously and I was sorely disappointed by the end, not to mention wholly confused by just about everything that occured. It's one of my favourite films now however, primarily because it's such a sensory feast. You have the greatest score to ever feature in a film, the effects and art design/production are still astounding to this day and really do create one of the most vivid and comprehensive visions of a dystopia to date. It's not every day you encounter immersion on the level you do in Blade Runner, and that's something to be cherished. Plus the final scenes with Batty are unexpectedly poignant, hence why the "tears in the rain" scene has become so infamous. I think the only Sci-Fi films I like more are Dark Star, The Thing and Dark City, but that's give or take.

Exactly. No CGi bullshit to be found here.

[Jackpot]

I would like to see a breakdown of those who watched it close to time of release and those who watched it in the last 15 years. I think we'd get a strong correlation appearing.

[The Technomancer]

Yeah, I watched it a few years ago and was not terribly impressed. A large part of that was Ford's horrible voice-over that I now know was added at the last minute against Ford's wishes (hence why he completely phoned it in and it drags down the whole movie)

[ElectricBlue187]

It's mostly a bad version of Do Androids Dream... with amazing special effects and environments and more of a film noir feeling. It's worth watching for the latter buts not the greatest scifi film ever (alien is better for one)

[devilinanewdress]

Lol. This looks like super overrated and like rose tinted nostalgia.

I have no nostalgia, I don't have fond memories of the movie at all. BUT LOOK HOW FUCKING NEXT LEVEL IT LOOKS!

[Sub_Level]

I watched Blade Runner Final Cut for the first time a couple years ago. I was 18 or 19.

One of the top ten best movies I've ever seen. There's plenty like it, but nothing as good, except maybe 1995's Ghost in the Shell.

[Nappuccino]

As someone who is 23 and first saw the movie only about 5 years ago.

This movie is amazing and I have no rose tinted glasses.

But, I didn't much care for it on the first viewing. You miss so many interesting details during the first go around. As a "pro-tip" next time around, focusing on the background details and the way Ridley builds up the world without ever telling you "this is the way things is." It is a brilliant visual movie.

I know I nitpicked a lot of the details, but that's because the film wasn't keeping my interest, so I was able to find little things to nitpick about. That doesn't happen in captivating films.

You didn't do a very good job nitpicking considering a lot of your problems have actual explanations.

[Reuenthal]

I saw the film a few weeks ago. It's visuals are great but the film is overall average or averagely good. I thought it was a 6.5 out of 10 or a 7/10 and the rating does take in consideration the impressive visuals which I liked.

[En Ex]

Yeah, I watched it a few years ago and was not terribly impressed. A large part of that was Ford's horrible voice-over that I now know was added at the last minute against Ford's wishes (hence why he completely phoned it in and it drags down the whole movie)

You should give the Final Cut a shot. No narration or happy ending.

[Droog]

How's the book all? Worth reading?

I would say so - but I am quite a big fan of Philip K. Dick anyway. It's very different to the film as one of the main aspects of the book is completely absent in the film. The film's plot could almost be said to be the B plot of the book.

[derExperte]

Lol. This looks like super overrated and like rose tinted nostalgia.

I love the special effects in this, they're perfect for what the movie wants to achieve and I really don't know how they could be improved without looking out of place. Great and impressive back then (and even people that didn't like the movie agreed), great and impressive now but then I can lose myself in old movies without thinking about how this could look today with CGI. Tell me, what movie from around that time with major effects holds up in your opinion?

[Jimothy]

Exactly. People in the SFX field worship it for a good reason.

The movie is essentially a practical VFX showreel. There's no real substance behind any of it.

[Prophet Steve]

I would like to see a breakdown of those who watched it close to time of release and those who watched it in the last 15 years. I think we'd get a strong correlation appearing.

I saw it a year or two ago, thought it was audiovisually very good and thought the story was interesting too. But I did not pay enough attention and want to see it again.

[watershed]

I love Blade Runner and I can also understand people not liking it. But if you watched the final cut (is this the newest cut that came out with the bluray set?) and didn't understand how the film hinted at Deckard being a replicant then you either weren't paying attention to the film or don't know how to pick up on hints.

[krypt0nian]

The movie is essentially a practical VFX showreel. There's no real substance behind any of it.

Nonsense.

Lol. This looks like super overrated and like rose tinted nostalgia.

Yes, it's influence so many years later is just lol nostalgia.

What limited people...this reminds me of the idiotic Beatles hate lately.

[The Technomancer]

Oh yeah, visually its gorgeous, it just didn't feel very coherent to me. I should give the final cut a look.

[Alucrid]

I would say so - but I am quite a big fan of Philip K. Dick anyway. It's very different to the film as one of the main aspects of the book is completely absent in the film. The film's plot could almost be said to be the B plot of the book.

It's a radical translation, which IMO makes it a better movie than if it were a traditional or word for word one.

[Napalm_Frank]

Tried to watch it one time but was bored to tears, had to sop at halfway point I think :).

[Secret Fawful]

The movie is essentially a practical VFX showreel. There's no real substance behind any of it.

I would argue that: but I guess it depends on what you consider substance. Also considering how a majority of sci-fi films look nowadays, I don't think it should look more modern.

[Droog]

It's a radical translation, which IMO makes it a better movie than if it were a traditional or word for word one.

Oh, definitely! I'm not even sure if the original book could really work as a film.

[Jimothy]

Nonsense.

Every time I hear someone talk about how good Blade Runner is, the only thing they mention is how pretty the movie looks. It's one of the best looking movies of all-time, but I'd much rather watch something like T2 or Alien because they look amazing AND don't bore me to tears.

[Fritz]

That guy was the only "artificial creation" I saw in that house that was actually played by a real actor, AND he was restrained and struggling to escape, so I guess I made the assumption that he was an actual person being held prisoner.

Yeah, it's fair to not like the movie but going by this I'd question your judgement over all.

If the fact that the robot was played by an actor makes you favor the idea that it wasn't a robot but a prisoner you're probably too conditioned by cgi to appreciate this.

[Gustav]

Nonsense. Yes, it's influence so many years later is just lol nostalgia. What limited people...this reminds me of the idiotic Beatles hate lately.

I was trying to be sarcastic. Blade Runner is perfection to me.

[krypt0nian]

I was trying to be sarcastic. Blade Runner is perfection to me.

Hard to tell with so many durr boring people in here.

[makingmusic476]

I felt the movie was visually impressive but light on plot. Scott's later works are generally much more involved.

[vaelic]

I agree/ The movie didnt do a thing for me. bland

[derExperte]

This, I think, was not in the cut of the movie I watched. She just let go and did some stupid acrobatic stuff as if about to accomplish some "finishing move" on Ford but it failed. It was "You're going to die...nah...ok, now you die."

That's the other scene in Sebastians apartment, I was talking about the one in the dance club. I can't explain that one 100% but a) every movie does stuff like this and b) she's an extroverted dancer robot, maybe she wanted to show off. Remember these replicants were very young compared to humans and lacked maturity and she wasn't designed to be an efficient killer.

I was trying to be sarcastic. Blade Runner is perfection to me.

Damn, flew over my head too.

[Dommo]

I would like to see a breakdown of those who watched it close to time of release and those who watched it in the last 15 years. I think we'd get a strong correlation appearing.

Are you saying nostalgia is a factor? Because upon release, Blade Runner was not well received at all. It was a critical and commercial failure and only in more recent years has it achieved its beloved following. It was given a second chance because the film operates more effectively on repeated viewings. It's certainly not a matter of 'It was good for its time/back in the day, but time has revealed it for the shit that it is.' If anything time has been incredibly kind to Blade Runner. It's got very little to do with nostalgia.

[The Boat]

Have read the book and seen the movie. Neither are especially striking. Maybe it was because its portrayl of the future (dated by today's standards) was initially ground-breaking and that left a big mark on people?

I read the book for the first time a few months ago and saw the movie for the first time a few years ago and I loved both.

[RadiantScene]

I watched Blade Runner for the first time last year on Bluray and it's my favourite film now.

The nostalgia argument is wrong.

[Woz]

That guy was the only "artificial creation" I saw in that house that was actually played by a real actor, AND he was restrained and struggling to escape, so I guess I made the assumption that he was an actual person being held prisoner.

There was also the bear and the princess/doll.

Edit:

Pris: Must get lonely here J. F. Sebastian: Mmm... Not really. I make friends. They're toys. My friends are toys. I make them. It's a hobby. I'm a genetic designer. Do you know what that is? Pris: No. Sebastian: Yoo-hoo, home again. Toys: Home again, home again, jiggity jig. Good evening J. F. Sebastian: Good evening, fellas. Toy 1: Oooh! Sebastian: They're my friends. I made them. Where are your folks?

[Mr. B Natural]

The movie is essentially a practical VFX showreel. There's no real substance behind any of it.

Didn't you see the dove fly away in the rain?
Substance. Hamfisted, poorly portrayed, pretentious yet enitrely shallow substance.

[Milchjon]

I watched Blade Runner for the first time last year on Bluray and it's my favourite film now. The nostalgia argument is wrong.

Exactly. My first experience was the Final Cut, and I was blown away.

The story is pretty simple, but the atmosphere and visuals are still incredible.

Blade Runner is an example for filmmaking at its best for me.