Blade Runner (1982) Other movies recommended for you
Blade Runner(in Hollywood Movies) Blade Runner (1982) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Blade Runner on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: In a cyberpunk vision of the future, man has developed the technology to create replicants, human clones used to serve in the colonies outside Earth but with fixed lifespans. In Los Angeles, 2019, Deckard is a Blade Runner, a cop who specialises in terminating replicants. Originally in retirement, he is forced to re-enter the force when six replicants escape from an offworld colony to Earth. Runtime: 117 mins Release Date: 24 Jun 1982
A compelling, thematically-deep SF film (by joelhoff)
This is truly one of the greatest science fiction films ever made, one that requires a thinking viewer in order to understand and appreciate it. The director's cut is the recommended one to see as it omits a somewhat distracting narration and avoids an unnecessary Hollywood-style ending that is 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 as this in its examination of the impact of technology on human society, existence, and the very <more>
nature of humanity itself. These themes are set in a fairly basic detective story that moves slowly but gradually builds power as the viewer is immersed in a dystopian futuristic Los Angeles.Harrison Ford fans accustomed to the normally dynamic roles that he plays may be dissatisfied with the seemingly lifeless lead character that he portrays 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 the story unfolds, we see Ford's character, Rick Deckard, slowly come alive again and recover some humanity while pursing four escaped replicants.The replicants, genetically-engineered human cyborgs, that Deckard must hunt down and kill are in many ways more alive than Deckard himself initially. Their escape from an off-world colony has an explicit self-directed purpose, whereas Deckard's life appears to have none other than his job, one that he has tried to give up. By some standards, Deckard and the replicants have thin character development. However, this is a deeply thematic and philosophical film, and as such the characters are the tools of the story's themes. Each character reflects some aspect of humanity or human existence, but they lack others, for each is broken in ways that reflect the broken society in which they live and were conceived/created.There are several dramatic moments involving life-and-death struggles, but most of these are more subdued than in a normal detective story plot. The film's power is chiefly derived through its stunning visual imagery of a dark futuristic cityscape and its philosophical themes.Among the themes explored are the following: - The dehumanization of people through a society shaped by technological and capitalistic excess. - The roles of creator and creation, their mutual enslavement, and their role 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, and more. - Personal identity and self-awareness. - The meaning of existence.If you are not someone who naturally enjoys contemplating such themes, the film's brilliance may be lost on you. The climax involves a soliloquy that brings 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 miss the point and may prefer watching some mindless action flick instead."Blade Runner" is a masterpiece that deserves recognition and long remembrance in film history.
A glorious, timeless nightmare (by Flagrant-Baronessa)
Dark, deep, uncertain, unsettling Â– imagine the most beautiful nightmare you've ever had Â– this is Blade Runner 1982 .Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is a brilliantly crafted science fiction film that not only touches upon, but bravely plunges into deep philosophical questions, making it simply ten times more important than any film of its genre. I love it not only for the initial feeling it gives, but because of its perseverance Â– none of the visuals, themes or technology feel dated but as deep, gripping and current as ever. It is timeless beauty with huge doses of emotion.Set in <more>
2019 Los Angeles, Blade Runner zooms in on the eerily-lit, urban streets of the city and follows Richard Deckard Â– superbly played by Harrison Ford who brings an exquisite moral ambiguity to his character Â– a special policeman who tracks down and terminates artificially-created humans called replicants, who have escaped from an Off-World colony and made their way to earth and need to be stopped. The things Deckard encounters on his detective journey raise many philosophical questions like: Who is really a replicant? Are replicants really bad? If replicants are bad, when why did we go to such lengths with our technology to create them? Are replicants really humans? Is Deckard a hero? This truly is a film that demands subsequent discussion and its ambiguous ending leave a haunting and eerie feeling.In spite of a rich glaze of science fiction and futurism coating this adventure, there are distinct film noir elements present Â– primarily in the bluish haze that the film is seen through and its gritty urban atmosphere. Whoever thought of this combination is a genius. Since it is all about technology, it fits then that Blade Runner features a ridiculous amount of product placement, especially from Atari. In any other film, this would have felt out-of-place but here it is simply perfect. The score by Vangelis is strangely gripping when combined with the striking cinematography of the film.Blade Runner deserves credit, celebration and remembrance for it is simply an excellent film. 10 out of 10 and I don't just throw this grade out like SOME people
I have an interest in science fiction films and TV programmes. I like shows like the original Star Wars trilogy, most of the Star Trek films, as well as Star Trek TV series Voyager for modern times,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 hesitant to say that I blatantly dislike Spielberg's definition of SF- ET, Close Encounters, & worst of all War Of The Worlds. Neither do I appreciate any 'Alien' film <more>
apart from R Scott's 1979 original although Alien2 was OK -Alien vs Pred is a disgrace not only to all genres, but to the film industry itself. So when I heard of Blade Runner on the net, I wondered; 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 the Director's Cut at the local video store. I watched it once. Then I re-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 Space Odyssey. Upon 1st viewing, new audiences may be bewildered. One anticipates a futuristic run-of-the-mill 80's shoot-em-up in the like of Outland,say . What you get is a film so deep that it is difficult to grasp the 1st time. There is so much symbolism, introverts and questions that I was left stunned. The film is hauntingly beautiful, and I doubt that these screen landscapes could be reproduced today as well as they were here. The plot centres around the question of humanity- something we take for granted. It is not an auctioneer, which was probably what audiences expected when they walked into theatres in the 80s, causing the film to fail commercially. Blade Runner is not for the adrenaline junkie, nor for those who like flashy gadgets and bright explosions, with a healthy Hollywood-made dose of convincing storyline spoon-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 war which ravaged the world, forcing humans to migrate the cramped cultural 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. These slaves machines/automatons// regard them as anything which has been created by Man to lessen his burden have developed emotions, and they fear death for they cherish their memories Think robots weeping over photographs . Their cause: They want a longer life, they want to experience 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 only have 4 years to live out their miserable lives, seeking haven on Earth rather than serving as slaves in mining outposts on Mars. Kill? Murder seems more appropriate. But that's his job. replicates which trespass are a hazard. These 6 replicates have killed 23 people and hijacked a ship. They have to be killed, right? If you're planning to take sides in this film, you will be pleasantly if not unnervingly surprised. There are no sides. There is no good and evil. Harrison Ford plays the reluctant, burned out Blade Runner very well. His character is drab and dull, as it was meant to be; look at him in the Spinner on the way to Tyrell corporation- pure boredom. He hates his job. If there were any narration, it Should sound dull and uninteresting, reflecting his character. 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 is beautiful, 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 out the trivia for this film; scientists voted it better than 2001:A Space Odyssey. 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
What can be said about this film that hasn't already been covered in preceding decennia? Blade Runner either version stands the test of time as an epic story which transcends a disparity of genres, as well as the seminal "dark" sci-fi film which has been mimicked so frequently to varying degrees of success since its original release. The interplay of film noir, sci-fi, and what is one of the most philosophically symbolic and academically analyzed narratives of the modern era holds its ground on both visual and cerebral levels even in the face of today's CGI laden <more>
blockbusters. The new director's cut, contrary to many cinematic re-hashings, actually serves to clarify many of the more nebulous aspects of the plot and makes a great film even better, arguably allowing it to be modernized and polished for a new generation of viewers who are more picky and yet simultaneously less idealistic. All while sustaining the feeling and flavor of the original. Call it restorative work if you will. The tinny and meandering score by Vangelis is pure 1980s at its most brooding and fits the texture and mood of the film beautifully. Indeed, for many reasons, finding this film in someone's DVD collection makes a true statement about their discriminating and refined taste in movies, and equally their appreciation of film as an artistic medium. I would suggest picking up a reader by someone like Nietzsche, Foucualt, Descartes, Kierkegaard, or any of the great existentialist philosophers after viewing this film in order to appreciate the story & its concepts at a whole new level, regardless if you're watching it for either the 1st, or the 100th time. An enduring classic and an intrepid piece of film-making with rich & often haunting visuals designed to entertain and promote introspection amongst its viewers. 9/10.
Still outshines the others 17 years later (by Ivan-28)
Blade Runner belongs on a list of 2 or 3 movies that had me walking out of the theater in a stupor as though hit by a sledgehammer, the first time I saw it. It fulfills one of my requirements of great films in that I walked out of the theater a different person than when I entered. And it fulfilled another requirement in that it improved with repeated viewings.There is so much to take in visually, intellectually, and emotionally that my mind was overwhelmed at the first viewing trying to sort it all out. Unlike the so-called "entertainment" we get today at the movies, this film <more>
didn't spoonfeed its meaning to you. It left the ending ambiguous so your imagination has to supply it.The film demands discussion. There are so many topics to debate. Is Deckard a replicant? Do Deckard and Rachel live happily ever after? Why is there a unicorn in the director's cut? Is Deckard a hero? Or are the replicants really the good guys? Every time I watch it, my answers change.I may be one of the few that really likes the original. Probably because I've seen that version a couple dozen times since 1982 before the director's cut came out. This may contradict what I said earlier about being spoonfed, but I liked the narration because it explained what was going on in Deckard's mind. And I didn't mind the "happy ending" because it still implied that their troubles may not be over. "I don't know how long we had together. Who does?" But with that version memorized, I now appreciate the directors cut. It probably has the better ending. At least I think so until I view it again! It's also fun watching actors before they became more famous later like Sean Young, Daryl Hannah, M. Emmet Walsh, William Sanderson, and Edward James Olmos. I think they all did a great job. And Vangelis did a beautiful, moving score.After "Blade Runner", most of the big blockbuster science fiction movies boil down to good guys vs. bad guys with lots of loud explosions and in-your-face effects. Very simplistic messages, if any. That's why I still contend that an "oldie" like Blade Runner still outshines them all. It has incredible special effects, but never at the expense of the story. The cityscapes do more than dazzle you, they involve you.The more I think of it, the more I realize that "Blade Runner" is not only my favorite science fiction movie, but one of my favorite films in any genre. I wish Ridley Scott would return to science fiction, but then again today's Hollywood would never release a movie like "Blade Runner."
New Blu-Ray Disc Made Me A Blade Runner Fan (by ccthemovieman-1)
Sometimes you just need to give a film a second chance, even if it is 20 years later! Only some rave reviews about the picture quality of this new 5-disc "Complete Collector's Edition" enticed me to watch this again. Wow, I am glad; this was a very entertaining and a tremendous visual and audio treat.I actually appreciated the audio best because, even in this new Blu-Ray era, one doesn't often find a film with very active surround speakers. However, this "restored" version did and the sound is, at the point, the best I've heard on a Blu-Ray disc....or any DVD, <more>
for that matter. The visuals? Well, fans of Blade Runner know all about them. They are fantastic. Scene-after-scene reminded me of a Stanley Kubrick film or another bizarre 1980s movie called "Jacob's Ladder."Because there are so many things to see and hear, and the story is different, one filled with strange characters, I can see where people would watch this film multiple times and enjoy it very much each time. The "Collector's Edition" has the best picture ever, according to director Ridley Scott, and "is the version I'm most pleased with." It has added scenes one didn't see in earlier versions. The rest of the DVD has those earlier versions. Apparently, there are several including those with Harrison Ford doing narration, like out of a late '40s film noir.Speaking of the latter, that's what this film looked like: a combination film noir or neo-noir and sci-fi movie. It has many dark images, fantastic night-time scenes, wonderful closeups and an always-interesting color palette. Sci-fi films usually get dated in a hurry, thanks to ever-increasing special-effects progress in the movie industry, but this still looks very good. Despite being made over 25 years ago, Blade Runner still looks very much state-of-the-art.Scott says this is the best version and the best his film has ever looked and sounded. Since it's his movie, who am I to argue. So, if you're like me and never gave this movie a chance I lost interest halfway through with my VHS look at it , give this a second look on this Blu-Ray edition....and you will be blown away. This is, indeed, an amazing film.
An incredibly beautiful-looking film as one would expect with director Ridley ScottÂ… (by Nazi_Fighter_David)
But it's almost like an art movie, the first science-fiction art filmÂ… It's a futuristic film beautifully put togetherÂ… It's really impeccably made by one of the great visionary directorsÂ… And you really saw a future that looked very different from the future you had seen beforeÂ… A future that looked very believable like the visual-effects shots of the flying car going over a futuristic cityÂ… The fight sequence doesn't prepare you for the traumatic emotional side that there is in the film, it leaves you sort of brokenÂ… There is a beautiful, delicate emotional great scene <more>
that I remember when I first saw the movieÂ… I'm in the theater and I'm so drawn in what Rutger Hauer's doingÂ… I'm so drawn in by what the theme of the movie has brought us toÂ… The magnificent moment where he is letting go of lifeÂ… And in those last moments of letting go of life he's really learned to appreciate life to the point where he spares Deckard's life, and where he's even holding a white dove because he just wants to have something that's alive in his handsÂ… It's an amazing sort of crescendo that's going and there's Rutger saying: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. All these moments will be lost in time like tears in rain." Hauer puts all the things that are so amazing about people: sense of poetry, sense of humor, sense of sexuality, sense of the kid, sense of soulÂ… Scott brought out the best qualities in his performersÂ… He coaxed and very gently manipulated performances from his actors that in some instances I think they've rarely toppedÂ… You feel the story, you feel the emotions of the characters and you will be lost in the middle of this wild world, you know, it's so rich and it's painfulÂ… I mean it's a very bluesy, dark story and told very compassionatelyÂ… The overpopulation, the sort of crowd scenes is so rich and varied and there's such an extreme detail designing the magazine covers, designing the look of the punks, the Hare Krishnas, the biological salesman, everything is designedÂ… You have just Piccadilly Circus punks walking byÂ… You have a sense of layers in that societyÂ… That is one of those things that you see again and againÂ… The city landscape with the big billboards Ã la Kyoto or TokyoÂ… Scott was able to create the look based on what goes on in various cities all over the worldÂ… Whether it is Tokyo, Kyoto or Beijing or Hong Kong or whatever, you're right in "Blade Runner" countryÂ… "Blade Runner," to me, embodies the elegance, the power, and the uniqueness of a film experienceÂ… It's the most classical, beautiful, purest movie-making writing and then the film-making itself isÂ… The images and the sound and the music, it's pure cinemaÂ… Ridley came out with an amazing, brilliantly executed future of an absolute dystopiaÂ… The intensity of his perfectionism on "Blade Runner" made the movieÂ… This is a master at his bestÂ…
When you watch movies like 'Blade Runner' or 'Alien' you realize how much Ridley Scott was a typical director of the 80's and you wonder how he now became a typical director of the 90's. With these two films I mentioned he directed the two most important science-fiction movies since 'Star Wars' and defined a style which became regular in films like 'Dark City', the other 'Alien'-films, 'Outland' or 'Terminator'. This dark, quiet tone with not too much action, not too much story but a lot of style and atmosphere. Today it seems <more>
impossible to make a film like 'Blade Runner'.Maybe one of the most important differences is the look of the special effects. I like big CG-effects which make you go 'Ah' and 'Oh', but the effects in sci-fi films of the 80's are different and somehow better than today. Most of them are models and matte paintings and this looks somehow more realistic. You see that the big complex the industrial named Tyrell lives in is real. It is standing there. This always amazed me.But 'Blade Runner' has more than special effects, although they were and are really impressing. I was pretty sure there was more and during watching the film the second time after several years this time in the Director's Cut I wondered what. I mean, the story isn't really so complicated and hard to understand. Cop has to find four replicants. Replicants don't want to die. I mean, that's it. The characters all seem to be unhappy and with a lot of secrets but that's nothing new. This hasn't changed pretty much. And you don't get to know so much more about them.I think the films lives nearly entirely out of his atmosphere. Everything looks so dark and so much full of atmosphere you nearly can feel it. It's always raining and it does in most dark science-fiction-films, because there are less things that produce more atmosphere and always dark the same . The characters are looking more at each other than they talk. They look at each other and into mirrors and in to the dark sky. This is what makes them alive, since you don't know anything about them.Consider Harrison Ford's character. At the beginning he sits in a Chinese fast-food bar. He says he quit his job as a blade runner and he doesn't want to do it anymore. Why? Why can his former chief M. Emmet Walsh so simply put him back into his old job? You see some photos in Ford's apartment but never get to know who the people on it are. But still I think it's his best role ever. It's his only role where he plays a character who isn't simply good. He does a bad job and he knows it.Still, this a really fascinating movie with lots of neat details like the big elevator at Tyrell's or the puppets at Sebastian's who always run into the same door. And the showdown between Ford and Hauer who had definitely his best role here is just fantastic. But does anything of this make real sense? I'm not quite sure. And I'm less sure if I think about the work of the author Philip K. Dick on whose novel the film is based. Dick is a fantastic sci-fi writer and he has always a lot to say. He makes us think. 'Blade Runner' made me think too. But I just didn't get anywhere. Maybe I'm just stupid.
"Blade Runner's" themes are encapsulated best by a brief scene during which a replicant called Deckard - who doesn't know he's an android - reveals to another replicant that her memories are not her own, but belong to the niece of Tyrell, the head of the corporation that built and programmed her. "Those aren't your memories," Deckard says mournfully. "They're somebody else's."Contemporary materialists echo these sentiments, applying Deckard's cyborg speech to all of humanity. According to the theory of materialism there are now no <more>
subjects, there is only subject-matter. Selves are nothing but electronic packets, while private persons are "simulacra", Rationalism rejecting the notion that there is some ineffable "thing" over the genetic, neurological and social coding that makes us "us", maintaining instead that the personal and the biographical are only explicable in machinic and impersonal terms. The question raised by film-fans â€“ "Is Deckard a replicant?" â€“ thus misses the implications of the film completely. The criteria for rating the human above the replicant have been evaporated. Deckard, like man, is a machine that thinks it is what it is not and is certain that it is not what it is. As all identity is construction, everything has been produced and nothing is given. As man is defended by his own narcissism, Deckard struggles to come to terms with this. Like most subjects faced with this trauma, he oscillates between retreating to either the Symbolic Order the social world of linguistic communicationÂ…of The Law or The Imaginary Order the fundamental narcissism by which the human subject creates fantasy images of both himself and his ideal object of desire , both of which are tragic flights.But, as philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues, the lesson of "Blade Runner" or rather Philip K Dick's lesson is not only that everything in the personal is in fact the product of impersonal processes of cause and effect, but that it is the very act of delineating the underlying nexus that regulates our lives, that marks our freedom. For this reason, "Blade Runner's" replicants are actually the film's only pure subjects precisely because they testify that their "content", including their most intimate fantasies, are not their own, but already implanted. i.e, it is only when I acknowledge my replicant status, that I become a truly human subject.What the film fails to do, however, is recognise that the "replicant as pure subject" is itself not an identity, but the product of a machinic process which mis-recognizes itself as the process's final cause. So rather than a subject, we have the continuous production of subjectivity in which the personal is always the "sim-personal"; the simulation of the personal by the impersonal . In this algorithm, self-consciousness as pure introspection simultaneous with what it is introspecting, is impossible, as subjective reflection must always exists "two steps removed" or "behind" the process, consciousness, like memory and habit, always an "after the fact" reflection on the unconscious processes which produce it. In this sense, the subject is by definition always nostalgic, a subject of loss.For this reason, for the pure subject to have reflection is for it to automatically realise, nihilistically, that consciousness is itself nothing. Unless this happens, the replicant remains a "simpersonator", able to simulate personalities, but always confusing personality-function with consciousness-as-essence. In other words, unlike Deckard, the pure subject would not go from "it does not know what it is" to "it now knows what it is", but from "it does not know what it is" to "it knows it cannot know what it is becoming", which is the kind of morbidly fked up place Cronenberg now resides.But, philosophically, "Blade Runner" doesn't go this extra mile. If the film is about nostalgia and loss, it remains trapped on the level of thinking in terms of "memories" and "death". IE â€“ whether replicant or human, memories aren't ours and all existence ends in death, as bemoaned by one dying, rain-drenched replicant.In this regard, the film is a lamentation more in the style of such Westerns as "Once Upon A Time In The West", "Unforgiven" and "The Wild Bunch". Indeed, "Blade Runner's" screenwriter, David Peoples, injects many western motifs into the film, borrows heavily from "High Noon" a 1952 western that features a lone bounty hunter tasked with killing four outlaws and would himself go on to write "Unforgiven". Fused with these are director Ridley Scott's motifs â€“ an emphasis on eyes, photographs, pictures etc â€“ photographs are objects of place, sentiment, history, and memory. Similarly, phrases like "we get the picture" or "world picture" show that consciousness can be discussed in terms of a picture all of which stress the recording and capturing of memories.Of course, stylistically, the film does borrow from the noir genre. Deckard Harrison Ford is a trench-coat wearing detective, navigating his way through a future Los Angeles every bit as oppressive as that of classic noirs. The film also deals with noir fate. But rather than the cosmic webs of betrayal so favoured by Chandler, here fate becomes the universality of death programmed obsolescence and the "inescapability" of the human OS, of source code Homo sapien. Incidentally, "Blade Runner's" "elevator ending" references "The Maltese Falcon's" "elevator ending", another noir which ended with the "stuff that dreams are made of". Fittingly, all those involved with the picture, EXCEPT Ridley Scott, believe Deckard to be human. Fancher and Peoples wrote about a human Deckard, Ford played a human Deckard, and yet Ridley Scott continuously states that Deckard is a cyborg. Of course, as director, Ridley Scott becomes the Noir God of the picture. He is the head of the Tyrell Corporation. He is the implanter of memories. He builds the androids, falsifies information, keeps them misinformed and in the dark. The film works precisely because Ford thinks he's playing a human whilst Scott KNOWS he is a machine.8.9/10 - Worth multiple viewings.