They're like a married couple, They go back years.

There's always the Unicorn dream and the origami Unicorn right at the very end suggesting Deckard was a replicant with imprinted memories and dreams. Still it's ambiguous which makes it all the more intriguing

One point: Mark states that his documentary is where Ridley Scott first states that Deckard is a Replicant, but I believe I read about that opinion of Scott in Sammon's book "Future Noir" a few years before.

The first time I saw Blade Runner was the final cut. It's one of my favourite films ever.

It's perfect in a way, Ford playing the role as he thinks - human. But through the dazed, confused performance you see the replicant struggling to cope with what's going on.

@Mrster Scott's style of visual storytelling is a big part of what makes it effective, and of course the quality of the acting. On paper I don't imagine it would seem that big of a deal.

I've got the Collector's Edition DVD which I still need to watch

With stunning direction, amazing visuals, great acting & an original story this is A true masterpiece of science fiction cinema. (95%) (5/5 stars) (positive)

The big E = The Exorcist

I've seen the final cut, that's all I've known.

i loved the movie and loved the concept and the 2019 los angeles was interesting and i dont know why so many people complained about the pacing but i thought it was really matching the plot and it was just right for it to create that mystical aura to it

Just bought the directors cut today, very excited to watch my favourite Sci Fi film again. As I put the disc in and read on the blurb 'this new version omits Deckards voiceover narration'...FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKK!!!!!

First time I saw it was with the voice-over, but quickly prefered the Director's Cut. Haven;'t seen the Final Cut yet, mostly because I don't think I'll like the "goofs" removed; there is something charming about them and I am now used to seeing them.

Also like some of reviewers below i never saw the movie as being all that complex. Its obviously visualy stunning...but the story while poetic is pretty straightforward with the one "ambiguity" thrown in.

I LOVE Blade Runner!

YES

good comeback

the reason i had trouble with deckard being a replicant is the first time i saw the movie it had a voice over with him talking about his ex wife and how much he hated killing. this was just when the directors cut came out

@AzaleaZoeliz Yeah, I'm aware of that. Yes as stated, it's quite visual and immersive, they've really established a world and premise, but at the core of the story, it's just a detective story. One doesn't need to go far to reach that point either. Imo, the whole "is he a replicant or not?" debate seems pointless. It feels like something that's been pasted later on in the script. That's just my opinion. The reason I loved it so much was because it was neo-noir, in a wonderful sci-fi world.

i would rather watch the narration cuts, i've watched the final cut and i don't really get it

Doesn't the Ludovico conditioning wear away? It's hinted at being only experimental etc. And if he was faking he went abit far considering he was almost killed by his old droogs. and Jumping out a window?

Och. My feelings towards Blade Runner are mixed. There are remarkable things about it, and I certainly never find myself getting bored when I watch it. But the film is an orgy of gaping plot-holes, which is quite something, when you consider how thin the plot actually is. And the acting falls into one of two categories: too much, or too little. BUT! It is so wonderfully visually spectacular, even after 30 years. And the whole climax is nightmarish and thrilling; two things I like in movies.

(PT 2) ... We have a cop-out Twilight Zone ending where 'Hey, he was a robot all along.' It even undermines the purpose of the title: 'Blade Runner,' the man on the increasingly thin edge between humanity and the creations we make in our own image. So instead, I prefer to believe Gaff is a fully aware replicant with Deckard's implanted memories, which is how he knew about the unicorn.

I still like the original voice over version . It a Philip Marlow feel to it .

Phillip K Dick was inspired in part by reading Nazi diaries in the Stanford library. one of the concentration camp guards had an entry which roughly read, "the screams of children keep me awake at night." effectively, PKD felt that this guard was not truly aware, in a human feeling sense, of what he had written. PKD concluded that the Nazis weren't human, that they were synthetic organisms. they are indifferent to the suffering of those they consider subhuman. Deckard's character was referred to in negative terms by Rutger Hauer but i think he's missing the subtle evolution of Deckard's empathic development. it is more important that the question of whether he is or isn't a replicant remain unanswered or ambivalent. of course, more than one person involved in making the film, Ridley Scott included, has stated that Deckard is a replicant. a few scenes in the Final Cut strongly support this idea. i think a major clue is in the Tyrell Corporation's motto, "more human than human." if humanity is best exemplified by empathy, love, and kindness, rather than brute force, cold cruelty, and technology destroying nature, and replicants are more human than even that, then his shift from shooting Zhora in the back to hiding Rachel despite orders to retire all escaped replicants indicates that has become, in the most important way, more human than human. he is not prepared to just follow orders, as so many guards claimed they were doing in those concentration camps.

Anyone know what "the big 'e' word" Kermode refers to is?

I'm one of those lucky ones

Uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language. A lack of decisiveness or commitment resulting from a failure to make a choice between alternatives.

I think it is supposed to be ambiguos. The fact H F doesnt think so is perfect because decker himself is not supposed to know

Sort of. I think he's the 'Blade Runner,' the man on the thin edge between humanity and replicants, and the only man with any insight of them. If he's a robot at the end, it undermines that whole premise. I didn't mind it being left ambiguous, but if forced, rather than Deckard, I prefer Gaff as the replicant with Deckard's implanted memories, which is what he was trying to tell him at the end of the movie.

Its just banter

@AzaleaZoeliz I'm not putting down anything that they have contributed with in this movie, to the entire film genre or anything. There's just not that much to be found in the depth of this movie as people claim. That's my opinion anyway, people still claim this but nothing presented to be to back it up has seemed worthwhile. I'm not trying to be stubborn here, in fact quite a few fans have seen what it truly is. Nothing wrong seeing it the way you do, I think it's grasping at straws is all.

Deckard is not a replicant. That's final.

um you just called me a hypocrite for using bad grammar and questioning whether you know what ambiguity means. turnabout is fare play no?

Haha, "YES" in response to what?

you also refuse to respond to my point...if ford is thinking the whole time he is a human and the imagery is suggesting he "may" be a replicant...is the ? as to what he is,to the viewer of the film, ambiguous?

The time jump is at most one day. Holden had to start with the Voigt-Kompffs immediately, blowing his cover, rather than wait a day or two for the facial profiles that would lead him directly to his prey? I'm sorry but I'm not convinced. It screams plot-hole to me. It didn't occur to Tyrell that the reps who he knows have escaped, murdered and are still at large might try to track him down? It didn't occur to the Blade Runners to put Tyrell under surveillance as a simple method of capture?

@AzaleaZoeliz Some movies convey messages and deeper layers than others. Some have them and some don't. Blade Runner seems to want to convey something that it doesn't really have. The premise of the replicants wanting to live and be considered equal is clear and perfectly fine, and it's poignant enough for us to care for Roy. The ending speech and saving Deckard too. But the whole idea of what makes a human portrayed through Deckard being human or not is just weak and seemed pasted on top.

Deckard isn't a replicant. Mark Kermode is the replicant.

Oh O.K. im heckler huh and you are...Bill Fuckin Hicks.

Why does Holden Voigt-Kompff Leon at the start of the movie? He doesn't know he's a replicant? In THE NEXT SCENE Deckard is shown video production footage of all the replicants being hunted! Very clear facial images! Why was Tyrell never given any kind of blade runner protection, or at least surveillance? Were they too thick to guess that Roy might try to get to him? Why the big deal about finding the reps in the first place? They're all going to die in a couple of days anyway! Jeez man... TBC

your not understanding my comment. and are coming of a little pedantic. Just because decker doesn't know what he is, or in fact believes himself to be human, does not preclude there being a definitive meaning somewhere in or behind the film. The audience as well is not given an clear answer. Therefore it is intended to give the affect to of ambiguity. "films as complex as blade runner"....the script was written by to people with diffrent takes even if they chose ONE direction this still makes

"you need everything overtly explained to you in explicit detail as if you're a child." I was wondering when the ad homenim attacks would begin again. Pretty fast this time. Never mind.

its all part of an act for the show

it could mean dekcer is a replicant but does not say it explicitly. it is ambiguous on that point, certainly decker himself does not know he is a replicant. It suggests he is through visuals, deckers dream, which makes it ambiguous(again non explicit). but again you refuse to understand the word. non the less think about this. Ford always thought him human that means throughout the entire performance he is suggesting "subliminally" as you say that he is human. These to factors alone make it..?

actually ambiguity the opposite of explicitness. so...

@Rennikus {Then I read the book, and the book was shit.} Did you know PK Dick is considered the most prescient SF writers of all time? Did you know when he wrote this stuff? In the '50s Here is a list of the movies based on his work: Blade Runner (1982) Screamers (1995) Total Recall (1990) Confessions d'un Barjo (1992) Impostor (2001) Minority Report (2002) Paycheck (2003) A Scanner Darkly (2006) Next (2007) The Adjustment Bureau (2010) King of the Elves (2012)

@mindprism Yeah, I know that. No doubt lots of people love the Blade Runner book, I just couldn't follow all that shit about the guy at the top of the hill, and how they're all walking up to him or something - which really didn't make sense to me.

Im also sick and testy...and yes im 12 going on 31 going on 73 you got a fuckin problem with that.

CONT There's been such a big deal made about whether or not Deckard's character is a replicant. Let's say he is. SO WHAT?! If he is or isn't, it doesn't seem to alter anything about the film and how we should emotionally engage with it. This is why I once called the film "empty". All the brilliance and cleverness of the set design and the cinematography cannot disguise the glaring fact that this is a film with a very poorly-thought-out script. A bad script makes a bad film. I'm an idiot, I know.

It explains everything, which dumbs down the discovery/journey for the viewer, it was forced by the exec/producers at the last minute, because they were afraid mainstream audience would be lost. I.e. it sucks.

they're not, that's how english people talk to each other

What the hell happened to Mark's rule of 'trust the tale not the teller'? He only believes Deckard is a replicant because Sir Rid told him so!!!

Any version that cuts out the best line cannot be the best version. The Final Cut is near perfect....until Scott changes the line from 'i want more life...fucker' to 'father' Completely ruined the whole thing....I long for the next 'finally final, definitely not another...or fuck's sake we're bored to tears' cut...

"The futuristic society depicted in the film lives under a culturally globalized and hierarchical social order where the corporations sit comfortably atop the apex of the pyramid." This is all very fascinating and, yes, clever (I also used the word "brilliance", but even that isn't enough for you), but it doesn't excuse what I see are fundamental flaws in the narrative. A film can be as visually dense as it likes, but if the script is weak then, for me at least, the film won't work.

hauer is the best part of this movie.

of course they have meaning but they are not written in stone. they suggest or illicit meaning. Ask bob dylan what his songs mean. he'd say he couldnt tell you. this does not mean that they are meaningless (per say). again whether decker is a replicant or not if you look at the orginal release..ive not seen the others...is ambigous...it allows for multiple meanings or reading if you prefer...whether are has substance or meaning without a reader is another ?

@squamish4244 That's what it has going for it mainly. There is nothing deep, profound or extremely sci-fi about it.

ambiguity can also mean several possible meanings. you dont know what ambiguity means. if it is not Am...there is no need for interpretation at all.

finally blade runner is a stunning work of cinema..that does not make it fucking shakespeare...shakespeare by the way...fucking ambiguous..multiple possible meanings equals ambiguity.

look at this statement man...seriously no complex films hold ambiguity are you mad?

Well it's supposed to be the director's vision of the future, not a realistic portrayal. I'm sure you wouln't dream of renaming 2001: A Space Odyssey or 1984 would you ;)

Art (real art) is exact in that it hits a specific nerve and has specific form..but it literal meaning is almost always(At least if its any good) ..drumroll.. amb...

@Frellyouall I love the movie, but the plot isn't deep and not nearly as profound as a lot of fans find it. It's film noir.

non concrete(or ambiguous for the audience.

subliminal imagery ... you mean like drink pepsi or propaganda

Oh. So I'm supposed to seriously take into consideration the possibility that my brain has not developed beyond that of a small child's because I am "incapable" of sniffing out obscure (possibly non-existant, all in the eye of the beholder) visual clues from a 80s sci-fi movie? Do you honestly expect me to be intrigued or humbled by this?

and no you don't seem to have a clue what ambiguity means.

Nowhere in the novel is it implied that Deckard is a replicant. Philip K Dick did not write like that. The core of the novel is Deckard's guilty fascination for Rachel, knowing she is artificial. It is also the undercurrent of the film. Without this taboo ( obviously a metaphor for inter race relationships in the US at that time as are replicants = african slaves ), the story has no bite. Dick was an intellectual writer, not a Kilgore Trout. Think about it.

this particular symbolism is not very strong and i would say ambiguous...symbolism..real symbolism...as in charles baudelaire..is always ambigous..as it has a host of related meanings wich evoke a meaning for the viewer...it not put there in the knowlege some one is not intelligent to know

Philip K Dick's novel is vastly superior to Blade Runner.

Blade Runner really annoys the hell out of me. It's the one movie I can think of where I know that it must be brilliant (so many people whose opinions I value say that it is) yet when I watch it it just seems like a generic 80s Sci-Fi movie.

I think the new ending is the worst idea ever and ruins the whole purpose of the movie. Dick's original srtory was about what it means to be human and what it means to be gods who create humans. Deckard is the lens through which we view the replicants and his emotional journey, his fear, his loathing, and ultimately his empathy with his prey, is part of ours. If Deckard is a replicant, all that becomes meaningless.... (CONT IN 2)

I watched Blade Runner a while ago. It was alright, pretty boring. Then I read the book, and the book was shit. I am not endearing myself to many film fans here.

Yah,Yah..sure subliminal propaganda never happened okay.. and im was literature major and im an english teacher...I know what a fucking metaphor is...it seems your not really up to spead on symbolism though..anyways i stills say that blade runner is ambiguous..what ridley scott may have intended it to mean is irrelevant.

I hated Blade Runner. Looked great BUT paper thin plot, paper thin characters, paper thin script. Pretentious nonsense.