Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Sergeant_Tibbs I love Blade Runner as much as the next film fan. It probably misses or only just latches onto my top 100. I owned the 5-Disc boxset in a tin which came with this 4 hour documentary Dangerous Days which only takes 8 years until you feel like watching it. Frankly, while interesting and somewhat worthwhile, the only thing notable about it is that mammoth length. While it has a wealth of outtakes and b-roll to enjoy, there's not much juicy insights to really enjoy besides the stress the film was to make. As a long form documentary, it runs more like a sequence of chapters in a row rather than a coherent piece. Some chopping and flair could make it less dry. Nevertheless, it's still a solid piece of work and there's nothing remotely bad or particularly bland about it. I have grown a newfound respect for its special effects and production design work as well as for Harrison Ford as a professional actor. That man has a work ethic to die for.7/10

gary-burley I love this movie (not religiously) and the making of shows you how much went into this film. Bladerunner was the first film I saw that had real weight to it: a punch looked like a real punch, a landscape looked like a real cityscape and characters had real depth. as a kid in 1982 all I remembered was the opening scene issuing forth gasps from the audience of "Jesus Christ", I was hooked. today I still think it has many layers and still deserves its place as a masterpiece. In Dangerous Days, I love the way the cast were shell shocked by the screening of the film with some going on to ask how do they top this. The Bradbury Building is haunting to look at as it was, not now that it has been renovated. P.K.Dick at first hated it then couldn't believe how they had recreated his vision.If any of you liked this but felt it didn't touch upon enough, here are a few pointers to Bladerunner's rich development: Moebius (who now regrets his refusal to work upon the film) wrote and illustrated "The Long Tomorrow" a very good template for Ridleys Vision of the film and a must read for fans of the film. The artwork of Syd Mead is as haunting and beautiful as the film, again a must see. The novel is different to the film but strangely compliments it and is its equal counterpart. and lastly what is odd about the scriptwriters of blade-runner is they haven't just picked upon the novel to encapsulate the theme of the film, but have encompassed most of Dicks entire works in its dark futuristic feel. I bet you didn't know that PKD wrote many books with blade-runner like cities that included ruthless detectives, flying cars or white haired black cloaked replicants or psychotic female counterparts with high intelligence. Bladerunner isn't the book that portrays the film best, there are other books by him that portray the film better. In fact his vision is so much like blade-runner that you can't imagine anything else when reading some of his other novels. I would say that there is a blade-runner signature in nearly all of his books, that would explain his surprise upon seeing a draft of the film because you can see it in his work.hope this helps those out there who want to dig a little deeper.

lewiskendell "This movie, to me, embodies the elegance, the power, and the uniqueness of a film experience."Dangerous Days is an exhaustive (almost 4 hours!) documentary about the making of Blade Runner. It's (obviously) mostly for hardcore fans, but it's quite a treat for those people who can't get enough information about that landmark sci-fi movie.Almost everything you could possibly want to know about the film, from its conception, to casting, art, filming, set design, and its release, is covered in detail. There are tons of candid interviews with the actors, writers, Ridley Scott, financiers production designers, and many other people who were involve with the creation of the movie, as well as reactions from other directors like Guillermo del Toro about their own personal thoughts on Blade Runner. Plus, we get an entertaining view of all the backstage drama (and there was quite a lot of it) that went on during the film's production. There is also a lot of unused scenes, behind-the-scenes set footage, and designs sprinkled liberally throughout, that (as far as I know) you can't see anywhere else.  I actually learned a lot about the filmmaking process in general, from watching this.  Despite the lengthy running time, I was interested the whole way through. This is a gold mine for people who love all things Blade Runner. I wish these kinds of thorough documentaries existed for more of my favorite movies.

j_graves68 When seeing the original 1982 release at ten years old, I remember it being exciting (since it was the very first rated R movie I saw in the theatres) ominous, and weird. Weird because it wasn't the Indiana Jones/ Han Solo flick that I was secretly expecting; and weird because there was something that compelled me to the film with every viewing. It was something I never talked about to anyone else around me because it just wasn't "cool" to like since it wasn't a box office suck-sess or simply because it was a mature film. The dialogue, the humor and most of the film's themes are just not "Star Wars"-y and black and white. The bad guys are not necessarily that bad, and the good guys aren't all that likable, and the film itself is not riddled with hope like popcorn flicks are. After leaving the theatre, I remember looking at the landscape differently and asking myself just how much believability was in that film. Living in L.A. at the time (since that was the film's location) made me pay even more attention to that idea. Throughout the years, whenever I would see any kinds of urban decay in buildings, I would immediately associate it this film and the impending despair of the future.There were at least 45 minutes of deleted/alternate scenes that were compiled into a mini-film, and turned out to be interesting. Not to the point in where it surpassed the original film, but made you appreciate the finished original film by the end of it. There were also elements sprinkled throughout the outtakes that I remember were original ideas from the writers (namely Hampton Fancher's). Harrison Ford's voice-over narrated and was somewhat clichéd (to the point in where I began to enjoy the original voice-over in the film), and it reminded me of the director's cut of "Superman II" at times (yes, I am a cinegeek, ladies and gentlemen). I've watched this documentary at least four times now and I'm fascinated by it. The sets; the art direction; the actors and their stories: it brings back memories of the summer of '82 and the fall of '92 (when the director's cut was released). It's so inspiring to see thirtysomething filmmakers my age and see how moved by the movie like I was. But yes, I agree- this documentary can be quite boring to those non-fans out there and I don't think this is for everyone. However, the film itself never wowed me to the point in where I thought the film was religion. In the documentary, a fan states that "there are no casual 'Blade Runner' fans out there" before showing off her whole arm encompassed with tattoos of the movie's icons. Well, I have to pleasantly disagree. I think I AM a casual fan BECAUSE I don't riddle my arm in unsightly green and orange hues that's on the same level of those crazed "Star Wars" fans who get the Millennium Falcon or stormtroopers stenciled to their appendages.