2
(spiritual parallels but nothing direct)
4
(violence, nudity, sex)
8
(one of the best of all time)
It only took 25 years, but finally "Blade Runner" is now considered "complete." Touted by many to be ahead of its time, that takes on a whole new meaning considering director Ridley Scott has only just now given his final stamp of approval on the product. (That's almost as bad as George Lucas.... almost).
"Blade Runner" opens in the dismal, dingy future where androids are so human-like only specialists can tell the difference. The androids are banned on Earth because of the fear that these "replicants" will act violently against humans. When several replicants hijack a shuttle and come to Earth to find the mastermind behind their design, a Blade Runner (a detective that specializes in replicants) named Deckard is sent to hunt them.
Their plight is understandable, they want their lifespans increased to more than just a few years. Because they have been programmed in such a way that allows them to develop emotions (which is why their lifespans have been shortened), they want to be able to live freely and share their experiences with others. However, they have no empathy and are perfectly willing to take human life as a means to reach their goals.
Besides the physical struggles Deckard must face when hunting the much stronger criminals, he must also deal with his own lonely existence and his romantic attraction to a female replicant. She has also been marked a criminal, and it's Deckard's job to kill her.
There are many themes of life throughout the movie. The replicants have short lives but love it and wish for more time to embrace it. The humans, for the most part, are more like zombies and are really just letting life pass them by. Deckard himself is a borderline drunk and not much of an amiable person- kind of an anti-hero, I suppose. It takes the replicants to awaken in him a desire to really live.
The atypical characters help create a unique story. Harrison Ford goes a long way towards making Deckard memorable. He manages to play Deckard as rather dull while at the same time keeping him from being boring, a major contrast to his other exciting swashbuckler types like Han Solo or Indiana Jones. Rutger Hauer likewise brings antagonist Roy to life balancing him between distasteful and sympathetic. On the one hand he is a villain, on another he is the victim, and on still another he’s almost a hero.
Pris manages to be innocent and sinister, and Tyrell can be seen as a scientific genius or a heartless mad scientist with a God complex. The shades are gray for the entire cast of characters. Is Leon evil for attacking the police? He is fearing for his life. Are the police bad for wanting to stop Leon? They obviously have good reason to fear him.
Another malleable element is the lack of explanation about certain things. For instance, is Deckard a replicant himself? Some say he is, others say he is not. I can think of a compelling argument for either side. Coupled with the gray characters the movie comes off like a poem that means different things to different people. "Blade Runner" may not have had the best box office returns initially, but it has developed a fierce following which I think is in large part due to the way individual perspectives are allowed to work to create a more personalized experience.
Another interesting point about "Blade Runner" is that it is not really a sci-fi movie. Sure it's about humanoid robots, has flying cars, and takes place in a time when people are moving to other planets. Yet while so much of it is fantastic the rundown look of all the futuristic technology, the sterile and decayed settings, and the general dingy atmosphere are a far cry from the typical shiny, polished look of other movies. In that respect "Blade Runner" takes a page from "Star Wars," creating a high-tech society that looks used rather than new, but it takes the idea even farther.
The score by synthesizer composer Vangelis is fitting (and a great soundtrack on CD). It has an electric sound befitting of the technology in the movie and heightens the dismal mood.
The look of the movie is fantastic. It looks far better than average. I think that's one reason it has held up so well over the years. The settings and effects create a nearly perfect suspension of disbelief with its incredibly rich detail and unique appearance. I feel like that if I could find this place I could walk around in it and see all of the buildings as they are here. Of course, some of the buildings ARE real (though modified), but even the ones that aren't feel like they could be just down the street.
I think anybody willing to invest a little of themselves could enjoy this movie although those not accustomed to sci-fi may have a hard time swallowing the concept of the replicants in order to get on to the main story points. There are no aliens, mutants, laser swords, blasters, space battles, or other such elements that some have trouble accepting in their movies. On the other hand, the flying cars, futuristic society, and other such elements are going to hook many a sci-fi fan. It is not a movie you want to watch for an adrenaline rush or to feel better about life. It will, however, wrap many viewers in its rich detail and troubling concepts.
The downside to so much detail is that it can be overload for some viewers. Not everything is explained very well either in concept or in the narrative. You can't come into this looking for mindless entertainment. It may also be too dark and dismal for some to enjoy, although others will love it precisely for that reason.
Anyone that enjoyed the original story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" should know that the movie does not at all follow it. There are certainly some commonalities, but these are pretty much two different stories. I actually didn't think all that much of the original short story. It didn't get my attention nearly as much as the movie does.
Morality
A lot of the movie feels like it could be PG13, but there are times it definitely earns its R. It has some nudity (a scene with a topless woman as well as shots of her wearing very little) and some rough sensuality that some could take as borderline rape. While the rough scene implies sex we don't see it get as far as the clothes coming off.
The strong language is not frequent, and even at its worst it's mild for an R rating. One instance of the “F-bomb” comes to mind, but even that one instance has been replaced with “father” in the new cut of the film (which makes more sense to me in the context of the scene).
The violence varies between versions of the movie. Across all of them there aren't very many violent scenes but some are graphically disturbing such as a man having his eyes gouged out with copious amounts of blood. There are a few graphic moments of people being shot, and Deckard is beaten to a bloody pulp.
There is a great deal of smoking and drinking with it being passed off as no big deal if you're worried about that king of thing.
Besides all that it just carries a dismal mood that some may find overly depressing.
The DVD features contain additional nudity, sexuality, and strong language mostly in the deleted scenes.
Spirituality
There are parallels to God here. Roy makes references to meeting his maker. Of course, he means Tyrell, not God, but he seems to be purposefully using the kind of language we would use when referring to God.
There is little if any other direct mention of the spiritual, but the nature of the story leaves itself open to interpretation. In many ways this is a Frankenstein story. Mankind creates life, that life form turns violently against its creator because it feels cheated in some way, and man must face his now lethal product. Is that so different from how we view our creator? We shake our fist at or turn away from God because we disagree with the way things turn out either from death or an affliction. But what does that gain us? We are still going to have problems and die. We can pout and shout about it or we can accept that if God designed and created the universe he is in a better position to run it than we are even if we don't like how it goes at times. Part of being a Christ-follower is trusting that even in the worst of time ultimately God's got this, and he's not a heartless bully laughing at our troubles.
These kinds of deeper concepts are a large part of what interest me so much in the movie. Author Philip K. Dick reportedly became a Christian later in life. I don't know the exact nature of his beliefs since different sources give conflicting or vague information with some saying his brand of faith might not even be considered as “true” Christianity. I don't know, though. I've heard similar accusations about Stephen Baldwin and Brian Welch and have often found more evidence that the accusers are the ones with questionable motives: proof that people can say whatever they want – it doesn't make it true.
The reason I bring that up at all is because at least one of the DVD extras brings up Dick's faith. It doesn't get into much detail, but the subject is handled with respect which I appreciate.
Final Thoughts
"Blade Runner" is a unique movie that carries heavy themes and exceptionally rich visual detail. It’s not flawless, but the new version clears up the glaring mistakes. The new version is worth seeing for longtime fans and a great movie for new ones. Even though this is now in my top 5 movies of all time, that wasn't the case the first time I saw it. I had to revisit it a couple of times and let the depth of the themes sink it. It's largely for that reason that I recommend giving yourself a chance to see this one more than once.