Runtime: 1 hour, 57 minutes
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Harrison Ford,Rutger Hauer,Sean Young
Genres: Science Fiction, Thriller
Studio: Warner Bros.
MPAA rating: R (Restricted)
Buy from Amazon
Rick Deckard prowls the steel-and-microchip jungle of 21st Century Los Angeles, stalking genetically made criminal replicants. His assignment: kill them.
A compelling, thematically-deep SF film
This is truly one of the greatest science fiction films ever made, one thatrequires a thinking viewer in order to understand and appreciate it. Thedirector’s cut is the recommended one to see as it omits a somewhatdistracting narration and avoids an unnecessary Hollywood-style ending thatis at odds with the rest of the film’s tone.
A true science fiction story or film is about ideas, not spaceship battles,futuristic gadgets, or weird creatures. "Blade Runner" fully qualifies asthis in its examination of the impact of technology on human society,existence, and the very nature of humanity itself. These themes are set ina fairly basic detective story that moves slowly but gradually builds poweras the viewer is immersed in a dystopian futuristic LosAngeles.
Harrison Ford fans accustomed to the normally dynamic roles that he playsmay be dissatisfied with the seemingly lifeless lead character that heportrays here as the replicant-hunting detective known as a "blade runner".They should be, for this dissatisfaction is part of the film experience,part of the dehumanized existence in the story’s setting. However, as thestory unfolds, we see Ford’s character, Rick Deckard, slowly come aliveagain and recover some humanity while pursing four escapedreplicants.
The replicants, genetically-engineered human cyborgs, that Deckard musthuntdown and kill are in many ways more alive than Deckard himself initially.Their escape from an off-world colony has an explicit self-directedpurpose,whereas Deckard’s life appears to have none other than his job, one that hehas tried to give up. By some standards, Deckard and the replicants havethin character development. However, this is a deeply thematic andphilosophical film, and as such the characters are the tools of the story’sthemes. Each character reflects some aspect of humanity or humanexistence,but they lack others, for each is broken in ways that reflect the brokensociety in which they live and were conceived/created.
There are several dramatic moments involving life-and-death struggles, butmost of these are more subdued than in a normal detective story plot. Thefilm’s power is chiefly derived through its stunning visual imagery of adark futuristic cityscape and its philosophical themes.
Among the themes explored are the following:- The dehumanization of people through a society shaped by technologicalandcapitalistic excess.- The roles of creator and creation, their mutual enslavement, and theirrole reversal, i.e., the creation’s triumph over its creator.- The nature of humanity itself: emotions, memory, purpose, desire,cruelty,technological mastery of environment and universe, mortality, death, andmore.- Personal identity and self-awareness.- The meaning of existence.
If you are not someone who naturally enjoys contemplating such themes, thefilm’s brilliance may be lost on you. The climax involves a soliloquy thatbrings many of the themes together in a simple yet wonderfully poetic way.Anyone who "gets" the film should be moved by this; others will sadly missthe point and may prefer watching some mindless action flickinstead.
"Blade Runner" is a masterpiece that deserves recognition and longremembrance in film history.
A glorious, timeless nightmare
Dark, deep, uncertain, unsettling – imagine the most beautifulnightmare you’ve ever had – this is Blade Runner (1982).
Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is a brilliantly crafted science fictionfilm that not only touches upon, but bravely plunges into deepphilosophical questions, making it simply ten times more important thanany film of its genre. I love it not only for the initial feeling itgives, but because of its perseverance – none of the visuals, themes ortechnology feel dated but as deep, gripping and current as ever. It istimeless beauty with huge doses of emotion.
Set in 2019 Los Angeles, Blade Runner zooms in on the eerily-lit, urbanstreets of the city and follows Richard Deckard – superbly played byHarrison Ford who brings an exquisite moral ambiguity to his character– a special policeman who tracks down and terminatesartificially-created humans called replicants, who have escaped from anOff-World colony and made their way to earth and need to be stopped.The things Deckard encounters on his detective journey raise manyphilosophical questions like: Who is really a replicant? Are replicantsreally bad? If replicants are bad, when why did we go to such lengthswith our technology to create them? Are replicants really humans? IsDeckard a hero? This truly is a film that demands subsequent discussionand its ambiguous ending leave a haunting and eerie feeling.
In spite of a rich glaze of science fiction and futurism coating thisadventure, there are distinct film noir elements present – primarily inthe bluish haze that the film is seen through and its gritty urbanatmosphere. Whoever thought of this combination is a genius. Since itis all about technology, it fits then that Blade Runner features aridiculous amount of product placement, especially from Atari. In anyother film, this would have felt out-of-place but here it is simplyperfect. The score by Vangelis is strangely gripping when combined withthe striking cinematography of the film.
Blade Runner deserves credit, celebration and remembrance for it issimply an excellent film.
10 out of 10 (and I don’t just throw this grade out like SOME people)
The Last Great Noir
This is a film that is so deep, rich, and multi-layered, it may requiremore than one viewing to fully absorb the brilliance of what you’vejust seen. At first glance, it can be a bit slow. It’s told in aclassic film noir fashion, so this is to be expected. Director RidleyScott seems to want to savor every shot, and an astute audience will beable to sense this.
Now, I say the film is told in a classic Noir style, but this can bemisleading. There is no Humphrey Bogart in Blade Runner, snapping offbrilliant one-liners once a second. Only hopeless people, in many waysvictims of the merciless world of which they are all a part. Deckard isa typically downbeat protagonist, a hard-boiled cynical leading manwith a weakness for heavy drinking. The plot is a mystery in name only,as the audience is allowed to know what Roy Batty, Pris and Leon areall up to before Deckard ever finds out. This only lends to the dreadand inevitability of the film, lending further to its pervasive gloom.There is no final scene at the end where the bold detective puts allthe pieces together and says "Ah-Ha!". Instead, we find Rick Deckardquestioning his own existence and drinking away his constant doubts,all the while embroiled in a romantic relationship with someone he’ssworn to kill.
Blade Runner requires audience participation, particularly in theDirector’s Cut, which is entirely devoid of some rather necessaryexposition provided by the Original Cut’s much-maligned voice-over.Certain facts will not be clear even at the end of the film, requiringpersonal interpretation in order to be appreciated fully. Other factswill be given away in much more subtle ways than in most modern cinema,such as through visual cues and tenuous dialogue.
Finally, visually, this movie is quite simply a science fictiontriumph. It looks better than modern computer effects in every way thatcounts. Superimposed special effect objects don’t give off thatunnatural, clearly computer-generated "Lord of the Rings" sheen commonin today’s effects-driven blockbusters. This, of course, is becauseBlade Runner – while a gorgeous movie – is not effects driven in theleast. Rather, it is a visually driven story that doesn’t rely onspecial effects. This is an important distinction to make in today’sHollywood.
"Touch of Evil" really wasn’t the last of the Great Film Noirs!
Science Fiction Epic
I have an interest in science fiction films and TV programmes. I likeshows like (the original) Star Wars trilogy, (most of) the Star Trekfilms, as well as Star Trek TV series (Voyager for moderntimes,preferably, as it had the least number of useless episodes), etc.In my experience, most SF material turns out to be distilled garbage.Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ was a masterpiece. I am not hesitantto say that I blatantly dislike Spielberg’s definition of SF- ET, CloseEncounters, & (worst of all) War Of The Worlds. Neither do I appreciateany ‘Alien’ film apart from R Scott’s 1979 original (although Alien2was OK)-Alien vs Pred is a disgrace not only to all genres, but to thefilm industry itself. So when I heard of Blade Runner on the net, Iwondered; what could be so good about this film? I have HBO,Cinemax,Star Movies- yet this film has never been shown. So, I got myself theDirector’s Cut at the local video store. I watched it once. Then Ire-watched it two days later. My verdict: This film is fantastic.
It is one of the greatest films ever made, on par with 2001: A SpaceOdyssey. Upon 1st viewing, new audiences may be bewildered. Oneanticipates a futuristic run-of-the-mill 80’s shoot-em-up (in the likeof Outland,say). What you get is a film so deep that it is difficult tograsp the 1st time. There is so much symbolism, introverts andquestions that I was left stunned. The film is hauntingly beautiful,and I doubt that these screen landscapes could be reproduced today aswell as they were here. The plot centres around the question ofhumanity- something we take for granted. It is not an auctioneer, whichwas probably what audiences expected when they walked into theatres inthe 80s, causing the film to fail commercially. Blade Runner is not forthe adrenaline junkie, nor for those who like flashy gadgets and brightexplosions, with a healthy Hollywood-made dose of convincing storylinespoon-fed for their satisfaction.
The film is set in the apocalyptic, suggestively post-war future Earth,where there seems to be a lag in technology. Perhaps there was a warwhich ravaged the world, forcing humans to migrate (the crampedcultural richness of LA), and rebuild, explaining the retro technology.6 ‘Criminal’ Nexus 6 replicates (genetically engineered humanoids),hijack a ship and come to Earth seeking their maker. Theseslaves(machines/automatons// regard them as anything which has beencreated by Man to lessen his burden) have developed emotions, and theyfear death for they cherish their memories (Think robots weeping overphotographs). Their cause: They want a longer life, they want toexperience more, they want to be… human.
Enter Rick Deckard, Blade Runner. His job: kill trespassing replicates;Kill living, breathing humanoids composed of flesh and blood who onlyhave 4 years to live out their miserable lives, seeking haven on Earthrather than serving as slaves in mining outposts on Mars. Kill? Murderseems more appropriate. But that’s his job. replicates which trespassare a hazard. These 6 replicates have killed 23 people and hijacked aship. They have to be killed, right? If you’re planning to take sidesin this film, you will be pleasantly if not unnervingly surprised.There are no sides. There is no good and evil. Harrison Ford plays thereluctant, burned out Blade Runner very well. His character is drab anddull, as it was meant to be; look at him in the Spinner on the way toTyrell corporation- pure boredom. He hates his job. If there were anynarration, it Should sound dull and uninteresting, reflecting hischaracter. Rutger Hauer gives the greatest performance of his career(so far) in this film, playing Roy Batty, Replicant ‘project manager’.He dominates the later part of the film. He is cold, stiff and evil,but in the end speech, one of the Greatest endings I have ever seen,his performance alone makes this film a Classic. The ending isbeautiful, and the score by Vangelis is perfect.
All in all, the film is excellent. Well directed by Ridley Scott,innovative and stunning imagery underlined by Vangelis’ superb score,and plenty to think about (on your own- no spoon feeding). Check outthe trivia for this film; scientists voted it better than 2001:A SpaceOdyssey. Is the quest for humanity a crime? Find out for yourself.Blade Runner is a Must-Watch, and a Must-Have film.
My rating: 8.9 / 10 Thank you for your time. Kris
A movie you have to watch twice
First time I saw this I wasn’t impressed. Maybe because I expected moreaction from a Sci-Fi movie. Then I rented it on VHS, and uponre-watching I figured something out: This is one of the very few moviesthat gets better the more often you see it. It is a subtle movie.Slowly but surely this one has made it into the top 5 of my ‘bestmovies of all time’ list.
I don’t particularly care for the director’s cut version, though. Theinner monologue is missing – which gives you some of the most thoughtinspiring moments, and some of the added scenes downright make no senseat all. if I’d seen that one first I might never have given it a secondchance.
The cast is exceptional. Every one of them does a really fine job.Especially Rutger Hauer who otherwise has very few good movies to hisname (maybe ‘Day of the Falcon’) delivers a stunning performance. Mostof the cast who were unknown before this movie have moved on to fame(and some to fortune) – and rightfully so.
From a technical point of view there is not much to criticize. Morethan 20 years later this movie still doesn’t look dated (apart from’Atari’-neon signs). The atmosphere is created with a lot of attentionto detail, and the models of buildings are some of the most beautifuland believable ones I have ever seen.
Now I recently read the book on which it is based (‘Do androids dreamof electric sheep’ by Philip K. Dick). It’s a quirky read and, frankly,not a very good book. It has too many plot holes, deus-ex-machinadevices and logical inconsistencies, plus a total letdown of an ending.What it does add to the movie is the setup of why the atmosphere islike it is (polluted, dark, many ‘freaks’ around), and the nicequestion whether the Hero might be a replicant himself.
I Finally Get It
I had seen the Director’s Cut (a misleading title) of Blade Runner andwas slightly underwhelmed. I mean, sure it looked great, but thesupposedly deep story just didn’t grab me. Then I got the five discbriefcase for Christmas and immediately put in the Final Cut. Wow. It’sall clear now.
Blade Runner is one of a precious few pantheon of science fiction filmthat has become even more prescient as time passes (the other thatcomes to mind is 2001: A Space Odyssey). Look at the L.A. in this film,then look at present-day Los Angeles. Subtract the flying cars androbots and you’ve got the same city (horribly polluted andoverpopulated with many ethnicities mixing language and cultures). Wefollow Deckard, a specialized cop known as a Blade Runner who huntsdown androids known as replicants. These machines look like humans and,if given time to mature, emote like humans. They are used as labor andsex slaves, but die out after a 4 year period so their emotions do notdevelop (this too has ties to the modern world. Planned obsolescence isthe reason your electronics never last more than a year or two). When areplicant starts to piece things together before it dies, Deckard musttake it out before it harms humans.
As the film progresses, we can see that Deckard doesn’t particularlylike his job despite the fact that he is the best Blade Runner in town.The replicant Rachael (played by Sean Young) seems to trigger are-evaluation of his life, and he takes no pleasure in hunting thegroup of dangerous androids he’s been hired to "retire".
This film is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece, and the one that bestshows his talents. Like his idol Kubrick, Scott knows how to light ascene just the right way, and his use of smoke and blinds and fans andanything else that distorts light is what gives the film its noir feel.He drops clues all along the way to that paramount of questions: IsDeckard a replicant? Every clue can be construed to fit either side ofthe debate, and it proves that there is no wrong answer to thequestion.
The Final Cut essentially omits and touches up more than it adds. Most"director’s cuts" are excuses to throw in material that was cut for areason (and a good deal of them are done without the director’sconsent). Here, Scott digitally touches up a few technical flaws, buthe doesn’t go crazy like Lucas. Also, we get the complete unicornscene, which is crucial to the film’s big question, as well as stickingwith the DC’s omitted voice-over narration (which is such a blessing,by the way).
In the end Blade Runner is a masterful look at that which makes ushuman. Roy Batty’s final act gives us all the insight into replicantswe need and his final speech is perhaps the single most moving momentin science fiction. It serves to underscore the whole film, and itsends chills down my spine every time I see it. Blade Runner is one ofthose precious sci-fi films that actually challenges you to think, andit almost single-handedly founded the film genre of cyberpunk, whichhad been present in literature but hadn’t crossed over. Cyberpunk isunquestionably the most thought-provoking sub-genre of science fiction,and this film is its masterpiece. Many people award a film they like aperfect 10, but this is truly a cornerstone that has influenceddirectors, actors, and entire genres of film.
Living in Fear in a Quest for Life
In the beginning of the Twentieth-First Century, the Tyrell Corporationreleases the evolution of robots in the Nexus phase with Replicantsthat are identical to humans, but with superior strength and agilityand the intelligence of the genetic engineers who created them. Theyare used off-world as slave labor in the colonization of other planets.After a bloody mutiny in a colony, the Replicants are declared illegalon Earth and hunted down by the Blade Runner units, special policesquads that shoot them to kill. The execution of a Replicant is calledretirement.
In November 2019, in Los Angeles, the retired Blade Runner Rick Deckard(Harrison Ford) is summoned by his former chief Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh)that assigns him to hunt down four Replicants that are hidden in LosAngeles. Deckard studies the profiles of Roy (Rutger Hauer), Pris(Daryl Hannah), Leon Kowalski (Brion James) and Zhora (Joanna Cassidy)and finds that they had been designed with four years lifespan maximumand they tried to infiltrate themselves in the Tyrell Corporation.Deckard visits their creator, Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel), in hiscorporation. Sr. Tyrell asks Deckard to demonstrate his Voigt Kampffmethod to discover the Replicants in his assistant Rachael (Sean Young)and Deckard concludes that she is a sophisticated Replicant but shedoes not know. When Deckard "retires" Zhora and Leon, he feels affectedby their deaths and by the question of Rachel whether he has testedhimself to know whether he is a Replicant. But he needs to end hismission and find Roy and Pris.
"Blade Runner" is a melancholic work of art that raises existentialquestions about fear, life, death, emotions, mortality, humanity,dehumanization and love among other philosophical questions in anenvironment totally destroyed by excessive pollution, technology,marketing and consumption. The wrecked Earth is left to police andlittle people only, the others inhabitants have moved to the coloniesin the off-world. The conflict appears when the retired Blade RunnerDeckard is forced to hunt down Replicants again but now with differentfeelings, after falling in love for the Replicant Rachel and in doubtwhether he is also a Replicant. Sean Young certainly has the best roleof her career. The bleak cinematography and special effects are awesomeand the soundtrack of Vangelis is among the most beautiful of thecinema history. I can not precisely say how many times I have watchedthe different versions of this film that is among my five favoritemovies in the movie-theater, on VHS, on DVD and now on Blu-Ray, but myguess is at least twelve times. The last times I had seen this filmwere on 06 May 2000 and 31 May 2003. My vote is ten.
Title (Brazil): "Blade Runner"
A warning and reflection. A film subtly compelling. An experience "More Human Than Human"
How much has the world changed since 1982? The computer wars werebeginning and arcade games were the craze, yet our lives were at aheight of sociability. Things were simple for the sake of simplicity.Life seemed to make more sense. But our minds were unconsciouslydrifting away from reality, whilst reality slowly made its way towardsthe visions of this powerful film. ‘Do Androids Dream Of ElectricSheep?’, written by famous American Science Fiction author Phillip KDick, was adapted to the screen by Sir Ridley Scott into ‘BladeRunner’. Ridley’s masterful transformation of Dick’s nocturnal visionto celluloid, confused audiences who misunderstood a world which wouldseem more like reality only ten years later in the technology boom ofthe 90s. The film gained ‘turkey’ status upon its release and wasquickly abandoned as a mess, soon doomed to gain dust in relentlessvideo libraries.
Ten years later the world only further resembled Blade Runner’s scaryvision. Upon its 1992 re-release, tickets sold out before they even hitthe box-office. Even critic Roger Ebert rephrased his 1982 statementclaiming it a masterpiece. And here began the Legacy of the mostacclaimed Cult Film. Film critics around the world named it the mostimportant science-fiction of all time with Kubrick’s 2001 – and themost visually mesmerizing.
The film follows the enlightenment of a Blade Runner (a cop) RickDeckard (Harrison Ford) in Los Angeles 2019, a dystopia falling apartfrom permanent drizzling twilight, rare natural life and wheretechnology dictates existence. Following early retirement from hispolice unit, Deckard is forced into a desperate assignment by hisex-boss ‘Bryant’. Four Replicants (humanoids) have escaped from an’off-world colony’, taking a shuttle back to Earth for unknown reasons.His mission: To kill all Replicants declared illegal on Earth.Deckard’s unconscious approach to his job in a world deteriorating fromlack of nature,sociability and eternal darkness slowly deteriorateswhen his eyes open to the most important questions in life. Beginninghis investigations in the Pyramids of the Tyrell Corporation,responsible for manufacturing the Replicants, he meets his turningpoint, Rachel, who due to Deckard’s Void Kompff machine (an empathytester) is found a Replicant. Following a cold, immoral revelation toher about her origins, he is inevitably drawn to her emotionally, soonleading to his first sign of awakening, LOVE.
From a cold beginning, without any sign of ’empathy’ towards thosearound him, what Deckard finds out about Rachel, Elden Tyrell, and theso called "EVIL" Replicants he intercepts, enable him for the firsttime to feel and understand Love, Hate and the preciousness of Liferespectively. Roy Batty, the leader of the Replicant mutineers, playedconvincingly by Dutch actor Rutger Hauer, is the most important symbolin the film, and is the ultimate enlightenment in Deckard’s quest forhumanity in learning that no matter if you’re human or not, love,compassion and empathy are the most important human characteristics,and some Replicants are "more human than human". Contrary to initialperception, Batty shows these characteristics and we sympathize withhim, something we wouldn’t usually do with an ‘artificial’ human, withtheoretically no emotions. Tyrell becomes the focal point of humandegradation, in that in his vision of technological advance, he bringshumanity, morality and nature closer to extinction as he sits atop hiscorporation like a ‘Pharoah’.
Finally, there are many evidences to suggest ‘Deckard’ is a Replicant,and this has been immortal debate since release. Either way, the film’smessage remains as strong. It’s filled with overwhelming symbolism andmeaning, that one viewing of this art-work will be exhausting.
The film’s intentions are not only to question what makes us human, butit also makes strong focus on reflecting our current issues of worldConservation, technological advance and the degradation of humanityfrom the media, exploitation, capitalism, and the complacency anddestructive nature of humanity. In Ridley Scott’s vision, the Sun thatgives life has been blocked out by pollution due to the dominance oftechnology, and dreams of Unicorns suggests we long for the past, forrarity in Nature. What one must notice is that ‘Eyes’ play a key symbolthroughout the film in explaining this, for it appears that most are’artificial’ than not.
‘Blade Runner’ is Ridley Scott’s masterpiece and perhaps one of themost poignant films of all time. Countless copycats including ‘TheFifth Element’, and ‘Akira’ have tried to imitate his legendary visionof a dark world gone wrong, which only seems more possible as the yearsfly by. I am happy to see that Blade Runner is so respected and thatpeople understand its vision. It has embedded itself into my moviecollection and along with ‘The Mosquito Coast’, another similar filmwith Harrison Ford regarding humanity, is my favorite film of all time.
The music composed by ‘Vangelis’ is God-sent, sounding so mythical anddream-like. Set designs and cinematography have rarely been equaled –marvelously detailed. The whole cast were superb in bringing theircharacters to life. Especially Joe Turkel (Tyrell) and Rutger Hauer whoplayed opposites of one another beautifully. Harrison Ford wasirreplaceable as the lead, showing his transformation from a cold beinginto an human being expertly – it just seems so natural with him.However I believe Rutger Hauer should have received the Oscar for hisperformance as the human like Replicant. He has a commanding presence.Sean Young, playing Rachel, was a great choice. She’s stunning andprojects innocence well in showing Deckard’s shortcomings. This filmwill be in the hearts of more ‘as time goes by’ and will never againend up accumulating dust in forgotten sections of video libraries. It’smore than a ‘classic’. I recommend everybody who loves film orphilosophy to watch and explore its masterful telling. I have neverseen a film as movingly deep. It’s a poem from beginning to end and"more human than human".
There are several extraordinary things about Blade Runner.
1) It does not state who’s good and who’s bad. 2) It throws you into ascenario that you’ll probably not enjoy. 3) It doesn’t bother toexplain why things are the way they are. 4) It shows us something that,although it doesn’t exist anywhere, still has an existential meaning tous.
Apart from that Blade Runner has the best score ever. Vangelis createda style that in its simplicity strikes you far more as being of thefuture than any more sophisticated electronic music could ever do.
The thing I was referring to in 4. is a grown up without experiences ofhis own. That is a logical impossibility, a paradox. But paradoxicallyit’s one of the most powerful stimuli of existential reflection thatwere ever shown in cinema. The point being that it lets you askyourself what all your experiences were good for.
Not quite so subtle, yet still of interest, is the idea that you couldbe born into life knowing full well what your purpose is and how longyou’ll live. What does that do to you? The film answers that though,it’s unacceptable, you’ll deny it, seek something else, something more.It just cannot be that everything will be lost like tears in rain.
But human ambition is a much broader theme of this film. The worlditself, in which Blade Runner takes place, is a statement about thehuman longing for progress and power, his forwardness and hisbackwardness. Some concepts seem ridiculous from nowadays perspective,but the overall atmosphere is right on the spot. And in this respect Ihave to say that the original cut has the better ending, because of thecontrast, because of all the emotions that are awakened by thatcontrast, which does not appear cheesy, but rather estranged, a releaseinto the completely unknown.
"Tears in Rain"
***Review contains no plot summary or spoilers*** "Blade Runner" is anoppressively dark and sad Sci-Fi noir dystopian film, but undeniablygorgeous and genius in its craft. An outstanding, wonderful classicthat has endured time and criticism. Ridley Scott has never reachedthis pinnacle in his career since, which is so unfortunate. He has aremarkable filmmaking talent like the greats of Stanley Kubrick andOrson Welles. Upon first full viewing of the film, I was drawn in bythe visual effects and the narrative. As the credits rolled, I thoughtwith teary eyes how could humanity be so cruel. The film leavesambiguous questions that may or may not have answers; allowingphilosophical speculation. Many films today give you answers, even ifthe answers are stupid. There is a book called "Eyes Wide Open", and inthe book the author asks Kubrick what he thought about Spielberg’s"Schindler’s List" and the Holocaust. Kubrick replied, "Schindler’sList was about success. The Holocaust was about failure." "BladeRunner" does not romanticize the mainstream Hollywood formula of happyendings (or at least the Final/Directors Cut) and individuals, butinstead focuses on major aspects of the society portrayed in the film.The acting in "Blade Runner" is superb, especially from the wonderfulRutger Hauer. Los Angeles is stunning thanks to visual effects designerSyd Mead and direction by Ridley Scott. Greatest use lighting ever usedin film. A true landmark in the history of art. 10/10