on March 14, 2001
Directors Cut is NOT a cut above!
I always love to get the directors cut of a movie because you get all the scenes put back in that the studio cuts out. Mostly because they only want a movie to run two hrs. and they can turn the audiences over quicker or they want to be "politically correct!" I look forward to the scenes that are missing and detract from what the story is all about.
Alas, this is one time the studio was right. The theatrical release is so superior to the Directors cut that it is an embarrassment. With the voice over you get the feeling of what is on the mind of Deckard, sort of like a Bogart movie. You feel like it is a Sam Spade character and helps with a more in depth view of the character and what he is thinking. I have no idea what the director was thinking, but it was not about telling a story.
I have seen the theatrical release many times, well over 300 times and I can still watch it with the freshness of the very first time. I have seen the directors cut three times and on the third time I feel asleep it was so boring. I was shocked that one of the best science fiction movies ever made was so bad; I could no long watch it. The directors' cut is one of the best examples of a director gone wrong. Thanks to the studio for realizing the potential of this science fiction classic and making Mr. Scott add the voice over. Bravo!
I am sad to say that for once, the studio got it right and the director got it wrong!
on January 5, 2001
Policemen in the future, hired assassins, track and kill artifical people. These people, created from human genes, but specially designed to work in undesirable jobs and environments, learn that they have also been designed to die young, lest they present a threat to their creators. With an unbelievable cast including Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah, among others, and superb special effects; this movie should have been a hit.
With many people, apparently, it was. Not here. This story is an example of an interesting idea which just didn't pan out well in the movie. It moved very slow. There were elements here which were confusing. Finally, some of the effects were disappointing. I don't know, in a world with artificial people and flying cars don't you think they would have invented a better gun? Well, that is a small complaint, I just didn't like it. To be fair, some people do love this film. If you like science fiction which is a little different and moves at a very controlled pace, you might like it. I would guess, however, that most people will not.
on July 29, 2000
The first time I saw this movie, it was in a theater. And what a movie! I saw it three times in a single day: The first time to "hear" the story Deckard was telling me. The second time, to "hear" the dialogues. And the third one was to savor the imagery of it. I wanted to see it once more that day but there was no other run then. Deckard narrating the story was what made this movie unique: it was not a mere science fiction, it was a story someone from a (probable ?) future was telling me, citizen of the past (his past), warning me about loosing the faith or trusting too much in Science. There should be a place for humanity as shown by the last replicant while in his "time to die". I felt like I was inside Deckard's heart and soul while he was narrating his story, trying to explain why he killed and why he did not feel good killing, but doing it. And now, Ridley Scott just "killed" that aura the voiced over version had. Scott killed the soul of this movie (if you saw Babylon 5, which uses the same "narrating" approach, you will understand why B5 is so special). No matter he goes deeper in his version (who indeed wanted him to go deeper ? Not me, for sure), he missed completely the point. I am trying to find the voiced over version. And if you are considering buying this: see it first, see both versions, then buy it if you like. I doubt you would not end up wanting to buy the voiced over version. And if Harrison Ford made it really bad for he didn't want to have the movie voiced over, well, he should watch carefully the scene where the last replicant is "loosing his moments like tears in the rain..." :^)
on May 10, 2000
I have seen the original movie, so "cut-and-paste" here the praises from others.
It is just that I do not see why I should pay to get a partial work.
Come on guys, our family members each spent an average of eight hours to view the bonus features of the Matrix, almost like watching four splendid movies. Go to a friend who has the Matrix DVD and request to "follow the white rabbit", you'll see what I mean.
This is how DVDs must be: Give you so much more to see and enjoy.
From what other reviewers say about this DC DVD, it should have more bonus features, plus multiple endings, plus... plus... You can forgive the directors for wanting to force their ideas in the original release, it is their prerogative, and they offered a good work there; but why "force" again here? Why not offer alternate versions, and /or alternated endings at least, not to speak of behind the scenes?
Sorry, I will suffice with my old deteriorating VHS.
on May 5, 2000
It's really hard giving Blade Runner just one star. I know it deserves more...at least the movie I watched in the theater should. But this is what the Director's Cut deserves.
I remember seeing it when it first came out. I really didn't like it at all. I ended up seeing it again several months later when it was the bottom part of a double feature (they still had them in those days!) because I went with a friend who hadn't seen it. This time around, even though I knew what was going to happen, I found myself reveling in the little nuances in the movie, the performances, the strange quirks of this sci-fi/romance. It then became one of my favorite movies.
When it came out in video, I got a copy. A few years later, Ridley Scott came out with his "director's cut." When I saw it, it seemed so much deader than the original release. I didn't like it and never bought the video or the DVD.
One reviewer stated that Harrison Ford, when called in to read the "narrative" did it very poorly so the studio wouldn't use it. In my opinion, he was still trying to develop his own style between Star Wars and Blade Runner. He had already done two Star Wars and an Indiana Jones by this time, as well as Hanover Street, Force 10 from Navaronne, Apocolypse Now and Frisco Kid. I haven't seen the latter two but, other than the Indiana Jones movie, he seemed really wooden and hadn't developed the ease in roles that began with Blade Runner and became apparent with his next non-Lucas/Spielberg movie "Witness."
I generally like buying "director's cut" movies. I especially like the ones that add more but retain the flavor of the original release. But this DC really presents you with a clearly different and drearier movie. It feels like listening to a re-recorded hit song; it may have one or two of the original singers but it's certainly not the hit that I remember even though the artist may feel that it's truer to what he originally had in mind!
It seems that the LE Collector's Edition will also be the Director's Cut and I'm extremely disappointed. At the least, they could have released both versions. If Scott is the reason that the only version we have now is his DC, then he ought to be ashamed of himself. It may not have been "his movie" that was released but for many of us the original release WAS the movie. Would I have liked his cut if that was the original release? It's hard to say but I really like the melancholic edge of the original which was missing in the DC. I would wager to say that it may NOT have taken on legendary status had the DC come out instead. I'm really disappointed that there is no version of the original theatrical release out on DVD. I guess I'm destined never to own a copy of one of my favorite movies...
on March 27, 2000
Having heard the buzz for many years and being a science fiction fan, I got Blade Runner. Big mistake.
Some of you raving about the missing voiceover ought to take a moment and think about what the movie - to a first-time viewer - is without it: A boring dectective story with little or no detail. The only explainer we get is at the beginning of the movie - one whole paragraph. Otherwise, we're left to judge for ourselves what's happening in 2019 LA. I don't mind complicated stories. Love them. But this one was incomprehensible.
A unicorn? Sorry, if you're not a fan and no one tells you that replicants dream that way, then you've got no idea what it means. AND NO ONE TELLS YOU WHAT IT MEANS. NOT EVEN A HINT!
I do have to give the nod for the ending. The redeption of the replicant in the final conflict is touching. But I didn't know enough about him or Deckard to care all that much.
Plus, there are no special features on the disc. Really a bad buy in my book.
on February 6, 2000
A hack DVD conversion of a classic movie. ¡°Plan 9 From Outer Space¡± had a better conversion than this. There¡¯s nothing good to say about ¡°B.R. The Director¡¯s Cut.¡± There aren¡¯t any extras on a DVD that should be filled with them, considering the richness of the movie and its cult following. Even the scene selections are inept. Perhaps my DVD is different, but the scene selections go in the order of 3, 7, 12, etc. Not only was this DVD put together by hacks, the hacks can¡¯t count. There¡¯s not even a still image from the movie on the DVD¡¯s main menu. Just a generic Warner Bros logo. The picture and sound aren¡¯t up to DVD standards either. The picture isn¡¯t sharp and the sound ¨Cwith the exception of the music and some special effects sounds- is often flat and has a ¡°1970¡¯s¡± toneless quality to it. It¡¯s almost as if it was transferred to DVD from videotape instead of the original negative.
The ¡°Director¡¯s Cut¡± is a confusing mess too. As far as I can tell, the only differences are the omission of Harrison¡¯s voice over, the ¡°flying to safety¡± footage during the end credits and a baffling inter-cut scene of a unicorn running through a forest from the movie ¡°Legend¡± while Harrison is idly playing a piano. Will someone tell me what a unicorn from a bad Tom Cruise movie has to do with airing out replicants in L.A. 2019? I miss the voiceover too. As I understand, it was originally put in because while testing the film, the audience couldn¡¯t follow the plot. With it missing, the scenes where it used to be are awkward because the characters are waiting for the nonexistent voiceover to end. And speaking of voiceovers, a Director¡¯s Commentary would¡¯ve been fascinating; but apparently WB shoved this DVD out before one could be made or Ridley Scott had better things to do.
On the plus side, Vangelis¡¯ rich score shines and is perfect for this leisurely paced movie. I have it on CD and strongly recommend it. The special effects are still strong and awe inspiring after all these years. They show their age only in the fact that there isn¡¯t any computer animation.
This DVD stinks. ¡°Blade Runner¡± has survived the years due to the devoted fans that have stood by it since it was originally buried at the box office by ¡°E.T.¡± This DVD is a slap in the face. WB and Ridley Scott should be ashamed of themselves. I hope both will wise up and come out with a ¡°Special Edition Blade Runner.¡± This version isn¡¯t even worth renting, much less owning.
on September 7, 1999
Blade Runner is a textbook example of style over substance as its obsession with futureshock quickly underminds the movie. It's obivious that Ridley Scott channeled the lion's share of the money toward creating the dismal, urban sprawl of twenty-first century L.A.--a backdrop that,while impressive, suffocates any character development. The few characters we're introuduced to spout stilted, riddle-like dialogue that sounds like it came out of a famous quotations book. Harrison Ford, as 'blade runner'Rick Decker, is supposed to be a throwback to the film noir anti-heroes of the 1940's. But he lacks the charisma of Boggie and isn't given Raymond Chandler's or James M. Cain's snappy dialogue to work with. Instead, Ford looks as overwrought as the L.A. cityscape. The android heavies are an intersting lot, but serve mainly as cannon fodder. Sadly, the dearth of characters leaves us no one to root for or against. Some would argue that's the whole point of Blade Runner. Even if it is, it could have been done better with more emphasis on character development and less on futuristic frills.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on February 4, 2003
As others here have said, why just the director's cut? Where is the original with the voice over? I like them both, but prefer the voice over version. Why hasn't the original with voice over come out on DVD? Why not put both versions on this one? For that reason alone this DVD gets 1 star. Which is sad, because this is definitely a 4 or 5 star movie.
on February 16, 2000
This movie just isn't the same with out Harrison Ford's hard-boiled narration. In my opinion that made this film's gritty Noir-Feel just that much better. Secondly, The ending is completely different, and completely drab. What happened to one of the coolest endings with Harrion Ford saying, "I don't know how much time we have...but then again who does?" and he drives off in a beautiful serene view with Sean Young. Instead we simply see Ford entering an elevator with Sean Young and slamming the door...WEAK! Save your money. This version isn't even worth renting. Without the narration, this movie feels 3 hours long. The ending leaves you feeling like...what? I'm not even going to mention the Unicorn. Ridley Scott should be ashamed of himself to force this version out to the people. The least the movie company could do was give you the option on the DVD to see BOTH versions....now there's an idea.