Retirement - Replicants - Resplendent. Blade Runner is one of those glorious films that has gained in popularity the older it has gotten. Ridley Scott's follow up to the critical and commercial darling that was Alien, was by and large considered a flop and damned for not being a science fiction action blockbuster. There was of course some fans who recognised its many many strengths during the initial weeks of its 1982 release, but many who now claim to have loved it back then are surely looking sheepishly in the mirror these days, for the hard-core minority of 82 fans remember it very differently. Remember the spider that lived outside your window? Orange body, green legs. Watched her build a web all summer, then one day there's a big egg in it. The egg hatched... Anyway, that's by the by, the point being that a film can sometimes be ahead of its time, misunderstood or miss-marketed, Scott's masterpiece is one such case. Story, adapted in fashion from Philip K. Dick's story, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Is pretty simple. It's a dystopian Los Angeles, 2019, and there are four genetically engineered Replicants - human in appearance - in the city, which is illegal. They were designed to work on off-world colonies, any Replicant who defies the rules will be retired by special police assassins known as Blade Runners, and Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is on this case. A case that will prove to have many layers... A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure! Ridley Scott gets to have all his cakes to eat here, managing to blend intriguing science fiction with film noir. That the visuals are outstanding is a given, even the film's most hardest critics grudgingly acknowledge this to be an eye popping piece of visual class - the mention of eyes is on purpose since it's forms a key narrative thread. That it is awash with eye orgasms has led to critics calling a charge of beauty over substance, but the deep themes at work here tickle the brain and gnaw away at the senses. Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave. Mood is set at perpetually bleak, a classic film noir trait, and paced accordingly. Scott isn't here to perk anyone up, he's here to ask questions whilst filtering his main characters through a prism of techno decay, of humanity questioned to the max, for a film so stunning in visuals, it's surprisingly nightmarish at its core. The emotional spine is ever present, troubled when violence shows its hand, but it's there posing an intriguing question as the Replicants kill because they want to live. And this as our antagonist, Deckard (Ford a brilliantly miserable Marlowe clone), starts to fall for Rachael (a sensually effective femme fatale portrayal), one of his retirement targets. Tears in the Rain. As Rutger Hauer (never better) saunters more prominently into the story as head Replicant Roy Batty, the pic evolves still more. Haunting lyricism starts pulsing away in conjunction with Vangelis' rib shaking techno score, while Jordan Cronenweth's cinematography brings Scott's masterful visions to life, key characters one and all. Visuals, aural splendour and dark thematics - so just what does it mean to be human? - Indeed, curl as one in a magnificent cinematic achievement. A number of cuts of the film are out there, and all of them have fans, but Scott's Final Cut is the one where he had total artistic control, and the scrub up job across the board is quite literally breath taking. 10/10

Some people will say this classic sci-fi "has nothing to offer other than overrated cult-status". To that, I would respond, "it has Rutger Hauer on a rooftop, and that's enough for me". _Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._ (3.5 for the Theatrical Cut, 4.0 for the Final Cut)

This time, it is Ridley Scott's turn to offer us his prognostication of a future wherein corporate America has, ostensibly benignly, introduced the ultimate in labour saving devices - androids called "replicants" - which have a look and feel of people about them. These "Nexus" creations can turn their hands to just about anything, but when the latest off-world models rebel, all of their cousins become outlawed and it falls to the "Blade Runners" to track them down and destroy them. "Deckard" (Harrison Ford) is one such operator who is called back out of his retirement to identify four of these highly adaptable and intelligent robots and this perilous task takes him to the heart of their manufacturer run by the fiendishly clever but unscrupulous "Tyrell" (Joe Turkel), and into a web of duplicity surrounding their controlling protocols and maybe even a fifth, almost impossible to recognise "replicant", whom - unlike it's contemporaries - has no idea that it isn't human. Ford is on cracking form here, as is Rutger Hauer - the android leader "Batty" and the dark, frequently rainy imagery contributes wonderfully to this seedily presented story of greed and manipulation set amongst a grittily dank and hostile environment that offers little, visually anyway, by way of hope or relief. It has a film-noir look and feel to it, and Scott keeps it moving well, keeps the dialogue sparse - though impactful, and the whole thing develops cinematographically some of the pretty profound questions brought up in the original Philip Dick novel about just what constitutes humanity. Just shy of two hours - it flies by, especially on a big screen where the visuals and audio still work wonders.

**A magnificent work, if we consider the time when it was released and the technical resources that existed.** Honestly, I didn't expect much from this movie. It was a film that was not successful in theaters and that only took off when it went to VHS, acquiring admirers since then and becoming one of the most respected films of all time. Set in a profoundly dystopian Los Angeles, it raises many philosophical and sociological questions around human nature, the course of humanity, our relationship with technology and our morality in general. Watching this film in 2022 was funny because the action of the film, released in 1982, takes place in the year 2019. That is, it was set in a future that, now, is past for me and never materialized (and I'm glad). The film's plot is not easy: humanity colonized other planets while destroying Earth, and created very realistic human androids while destroying itself. However, the androids, called replicants, got out of control, and are now hunted and killed, or used for the most vile purposes. The metaphors are clear, there is a lot of philosophical material, and it leaves us thinking for a long time. Ridley Scott gives us, with this film, one of his masterpieces. The film is magnificent in every way, and it is worth giving it the time it needs to surprise us. It creates a neo-noir plot where nobody is innocent or angelic, and where danger is everywhere. The lighting, the shutters on the windows, the indispensable “femme fatale”, all the classic components of noir are here, in a frankly colorful film with sets and landscapes that combine the most grandiose futurism with the decadence and dirt of the world we destroy. The dialogues are memorable and full of deeply symbolic moments. The characters are rich, dense and complex, and it's extraordinary to think that we still don't really understand, after several decades, whether the main character is human or not. In fact, it seems that time has not passed for this film: if we think that it is from the early 80s, it is incredible that it is so visually powerful and that it has such good cinematography. It looks like a movie made ten years ago. The sets and costumes couldn't be better, and the special effects are stunning. The soundtrack, composed by Vangelis, is smooth and hypnotic. Adding to all this, we have Harrison Ford, in one of the most underrated works of his career. He does a really good job, and he deserved more recognition for that. Sean Young also deserves a round of applause for the way he brought his character to life, a replicant who really thinks she's human. There are other very good actors, and we can highlight Rutger Hauer in particular, but they do not match this duo of artists.