Was Blade Runner a bad film?

Question

I asked a question along the lines last night and I didn't expect some peoples comments, out of 15 answers, 11 said the film was awful.
Now I probably appreciate that most of those 11 people who said it was crap probably think that Titanic was a masterpeice... says it all really.

The pro and con of it all is that at the box office, it was a flop, for its release (1982) it was a visually great movie.

So, please, if your going to knock or praise it please give a reason, I'm dead curious to see what people REALLY thought of it.

Answer 1

It was a great movie on two levels:

1)Visually stunning, even to this day.

2)It raises the question of what is makes someone a human? Is it that they are born human or can they learn to be a human? Yes, Roy Batty was a violent man, but he was made to be that way. He was trying to overcome all of that though and had several very human moments:His reaction to the death of Priss, rescuing Deckard even though he wanted to vent him, and his holding of the pidgeon. Was Roy any less human than the humans wanted to kill him just for existing?

Answer 2

I think it's one of the best post-apocalyptic film noir influenced films that were ever created. The interspertion of the humans versus the replicants - the ever human curiousity of are we real, are the imaginations of someone else. I think it's an intellectually deep film, full of philosophy. And Phillip K Dick was a genius for writing such ideas. Which is probably why it was initially a flop, because it makes you think, and most people go to the cinema to be entertained by humour, romance. But probably missed the mark on this one, because it is entertaining in so so many ways.

Answer 3

I watched the directors cut the other night, and I really felt it was inferior to the original movie version. I know people say that the voice-over detracted from the story, but watching it without this addition, I felt it left a gap.

But I still feel it was an excellent movie. It is interesting, watching it in the early 21st century, to see which bits of technology have actually materialised. No flying cars or off-world colonies yet, and we don't look to be having replicants any day soon, but the multi-cultural, urban distopia dominated by mega-corporations looks depressingly familiar!

Visually great, as you say.

Answer 4

Blade Runner, while not a brilliant film, is neither a bad nor dull science fiction film. The original version, which is the one with the narration is the best of those released, giving the film a noirish quality in keeping with its visual bleakness. There are also moments of real power, but overall it might have been better served shortened slightly, and without the unresolved ending.

Answer 5

It's the best symbol of Riddley Scott's style film. Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer play very well off each other. But the effects still look tight today. I love how the beginning has the text paragraph setting the stage for how the "Replicants" got loose. It has simple and powerful themes: we can't control who we are, we all essentially want the same thing, and there is good and bad in everybody. Love the character with the very thick glasses - the genius / chess player.

Answer 6

"Ah, ha,ha ,ha ,ha ,ha , ha, ha, ha, ha, ahem."

Sorry, but the "Titanic" comment rang so true.

I have to admit that in 1982 the movie looked to be such a bomb compared to the other filma out there but that was then and when it went to vdeo many people who did not watch it came to appreciate it.

It hinges on the Azimov question of robotics "Should you make a robot human?" Sooner or later the robot will want to kill the human in order to survive and achieve freedom. If you think about it this in I Robot and in Bicentenial Man. It is a common plot these days. Back then it was not.

As for the movie, was a bit dark and Rutger Howard was not a sign the movie was good. Harrison ford was not Indiana Jones yet. And, Daryl Hannah was still thought of as that naked mermaid standing in front of the Statue of Liberty in Splash.

At any rate, it was a good movie that could have been better received today, but woould probably have a better cast today.

Answer 7

Blade Runner was class, part film, part prediction. It was unique at the time and was a flop because it involved thinking as opossed to letting some midless plot wash over you. I love this film from the way it looks and feels to the actors that play in it. I would understand if someone did not get it but that should be the limit of their comment and not 'it was rubbish'. Titanic was kak by the way.

Answer 8

Claims it is product placement are unproven. It's especially absurd to claim they paid millions for such a thing, when the budget was only 28 million/ There are a lot of real products in the film, very likely coke was chosen for the same reason that Andy Warhol chose Campbell soup. RCA, GE, Atari, Cuisinart, the Bell System, Pan Am, Tsing Tao beer, and Coke .

Answer 9

Bladerunner.

It's a fair film, bought to life by a stunning soundtrack. Without Vangellis' music it would be a mundane adaptation of a fair book. The film would be lost without the emotion stirred by the score. There's about a zillion continuity errors, badly hidden stunt extras and in the 'cut' version, a distinct lack of unicorn dream sequences.... If it had been Titanic, they would have left out the iceberg ?

Fair film, excellent score.

Answer 10

Flop or not at the box office BLADERUNNER has become a classic movie in it's own right which I fully agree with as I love this movie for it's acting and it's atmospheric approach to a possible future world where mans folly has got him into trouble yet again.