Blade Runner (1982): 40 years later, the landmark cyberpunk noir is still a frightening vision of humanity’s post-A.I. future

Chad’s Grade: A-

The month of November 2019 was a sad time indeed for many fans of the Ridley Scott-directed classic Blade Runner. Because it now meant that the groundbreaking 1982 cyberpunk film noir can be categorized as a “future past” movie. If you recall, just before the film’s stunning opening shot, set to the moody Vangelis score, the title card reads “November 2019.” Blade Runner now joins the likes of Escape of New York (set in 1997), Back to the Future (1985 & 2015), Terminator 2 (August 29^th, 1997, is “Judgement Day), and 2001: A Space Odyssey. And the most recent addition is the 2022 set Charlton Heston classic Soylent Green.

Of course, the screenwriters of Blade Runner, Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples, were overly optimistic in their future predictions. The film is a loose adaption of Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep that envisions a dystopian nightmare of flying cars (still waiting patiently), “off-world” colonization (not even close), and human-like synthetic androids called Replicants. At the rate we’re going, the movie should have been set in 2119, as we’re about 100 years behind the technology on display.

I won’t go into detail about the behind-the-scenes drama of the film’s hellish production. Director Scott was under intense pressure from the success of his smash hit Alien, and the all-night shooting schedule on Warner’s backlot took its toll. Harrison Ford was uncharacteristically difficult on the set, making life hell for director Scott and co-star Sean Young, who played his love interest, Rachael. Much of this has been documented in the excellent novel Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner by author Paul M. Sammon which is still in print and highly recommended.

The film’s basic plot follows police detective Deckard, who, as a “blade runner,” hunts down and “retires” illegal, human-like androids called Replicants. Deckard is called into service when four Replicants escape their off-world labor colony and return to Earth, intent on breaking into the Tyrell Corporation, leaving a murderous rampage in their wake. As Deckard investigates, he discovers the Replicant’s intentions may be more benign involving their short, four-year lifespan. Things get more complicated when he meets Rachael, a specialized Replicant implanted with memories, making her extraordinarily human and difficult to detect. Deckard and Rachael embark on a forbidden romance, a relationship that makes Deckard question the nature of his own identity and humanity. Questions that point to the possibility of Deckard himself being a replicant.

Blade Runner was a visual stunner upon its 1982 release, and the images and special effects still impress some 40 years later. The dystopian vision of a nightmare 2019 Los Angeles, a city suffering from overpopulation and climate change, set the benchmark for all future set films moving forward. You can see the influence of the neo-futurism production design with its towering, pyramid-like skyscrapers and flying vehicles in films like The Fifth Element and the Coruscant City planet in the Star Wars franchise.

Director Scott cemented his position as a premier visual stylist, as the production design seamlessly blends cyberpunk and film noir sensibilities. Certain scenes drip in the classic film noir mold, like when Deckard, exuding a young Humphrey Bogart charm, first meets Rachael decked out in shoulder pads and a hair bob worthy of Joan Crawford. The Voight-Kampff test, given to a cigarette-smoking Rachael to detect if she’s a replicant, crackles with femme fatale energy worthy of The Maltese Falcon. This is the rare film that exceeds its genre trappings, as it could be classified as both a film-noir and science fiction.

This was Harrison Ford’s first starring role outside of the Gorge Lucas-Steven Spielberg bubble, and his brooding, world-weary Deckard was a big pivot for the actor. His cold bounty hunter has none of the brogue charms of Han Solo or Indiana Jones, and this was the actor’s first violent R-rate feature. But Ford fits the movie’s noir sensibilities well, especially in the original theatrical cut’s voice-over narration. All that’s missing is Ford wearing a raincoat and fedora.

The rest of the cast is an exciting blend of actors who would become big stars later in the decade. Rutger Hauer is the clear standout, playing replicant leader Roy Batty as an apex predator with the instincts of a four-year-old. He exudes a child-like innocence that can turn dangerous and ferocious on a dime. Sean Young had the film’s most fascinating character, Rachael, the specialized replicant that falls romantically for Deckard. She’s a bit stiff in certain scenes but nicely paired with Ford. I also enjoyed Daryl Hannah as the doll-like replicant Pris, Edward James Olmos as a mysterious police liaison, and William Sanderson’s sad, disease-ridden robotics designer Sebastian.

Blade Runner was rightly hailed as a landmark of the emerging cyberpunk genre alongside the 1988 anime epic Akira. One can imagine a young William Gibson taking notes, absorbing the movie’s atmosphere for his groundbreaking 1984 opus Neuromancer, a book that coined the term cyberspace. The four renegade replicants, with their feral punk-like attire, make for a stylish exploration of the consequences of artificial intelligence. Despite their violent tendencies, you feel sympathy for these androids who want to extend their short lifespan. They’ve been abandoned by their human creators, even as the upgraded “Rachael,” with her implanted human memories, shows they could be the next step in human evolution. And the melancholic finale, where Batty takes pity on an all but doomed Deckard and gives the tragic ” tears in rain” soliloquy, perfectly encapsulates the film’s central theme.

While the film is rich in atmosphere and mood, along with interesting characters and subtext, there are still a few storytelling flaws. The main narrative is weak, with no urgency or momentum, lacking the twists and turns of other cyberpunk classics like The Matrix or Strange Days. As Deckard begins his investigation, there’s no mystery to uncover as the replicant’s goals are telegraphed early on. And there’s a tone-deaf love scene between Rachael and Deckard that has not aged well. In the context of the picture, you see what they were going for, but director Scott didn’t direct the actors with enough nuance for the scene to play as intended.

Is Deckard a replicant? That’s the film’s tantalizing mystery, with the near-silent Gaff leaving his final origami of a unicorn at Deckard’s apartment. The 2007 Final Cut restores Deckard’s dream vision of a forest-dwelling unicorn that teased the possibility of Deckard being the very thing he’s trained to hunt down. It’s a fascinating puzzle box that opens the story to many possibilities but one that the narrative never touches upon. That was probably a smart move on the filmmaker’s part, but both director and the actor have different interpretations of that conceit. Ford has stated in many interviews that he played Deckard as a cold-blooded human, while Scott always intended for the character to have the ambiguous either/or mystery. I have my personal theory, which I’ll share at the end of the review.

It’s common knowledge that Blade Runner flopped badly upon release, as the summer of 1982 was dominated by the cute and cuddly E.T. Both the general audience and critics had a hard time watching the charismatic Ford playing a brooding police detective, and the cyberpunk themes were way ahead of their time. Thankfully, the film eventually got a second life thanks to cable and the booming 1980s home video market. It’s now regarded as a science fiction classic, even ranking on the AFI Top 100 movies list.

Yet the movie remains divisive, even today. I have several friends who never could get into the film, finding its languid pace too slow and tedious. Not to mention the neon style and outdated analog tone of the picture, with brands like Atari and Pan-Am now long forgotten. The poster and promotional materials give the impression of a rip-roaring, propulsive action extravaganza. The reality is that Blade Runner is a film noir mystery with science fiction trappings and an art-house vibe. And the same fate befell the excellent legacy sequel Blade Runner 2049, released in 2017 and one I’ll be reviewing shortly.

BLADE RUNNER: SO MANY CUTS:

Over the years, cinephiles have unearthed five versions of the Blade Runner film. There’s the original theatrical cut, an international version, a director’s cut, a rare workprint edition, and an unrated version released to home video. I could write an entire article discussing each cut’s various trims and differences. Still, if you want to do a deep dive into the Phillip K. Dick adaption, a DVD/Blu-Ray special edition is available for your viewing pleasure. The edition also includes an informative making of feature, Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner, which has interviews with all the leading players discussing the challenging shoot.

Thankfully, Ridley Scott returned to properly finishing his cyberpunk epic. In 2007, celebrating the movie’s 25^thanniversary, he released Blade Runner: The Final Cut. The director put together his approved version, pulling elements from all the various cuts, tweaked some visual effects (mostly to cover stunt performers’ faces), and made slight color corrections. The final cut removes the bloated, expositional voice-over and, thankfully, that terrible “happy ending” for Deckard & Rachael, instead leaving their fate on a bittersweet, ambiguous note.

For my money, The Final Cut is the only way to watch Blade Runner, and this is the version I used for my review.

CHAD’S “IS DECKARD A REPLICANT” THEORY:

I have my take on the Deckard-Replicant theory. Yes, Deckard is a replicant, but he’s a special version like Rachael. The Gaff character, played wonderfully by Edward James Olmos, is the actual “Blade Runner” of the title. He uses the Deckard replicant, implanted with Gaff’s memories, to hunt down the rogue androids, essentially fighting fire with fire. That’s why Gaff leaves the unicorn origami for Deckard, as it’s a representation of his own dream memories. Also, Gaff is always on the fringes, observing but never interacting. And he even says to Deckard at the film’s end, “You’ve done a man’s job, sir.”