Visually stunning.

Rating: Null/10 (16 December 2007)

I have to agree with the great Roger Ebert; this film is visually stunning. It's a pleasure to look at the amount of art and detail that went into this film, but the inner story, the real heart and substance of this work of art, is a little thin.
Don't get me wrong, I like the film. I really do. I think it's one of the finer pieces of cinema, but, I don't hold it in as high a reverence as I used to ages ago as young impressionable sci-fi fan. Ridley Scott came out of the school of shooting commercials, and applies his style to a cross-genre of science fiction and film noir. We have a film that wants to be intriguing: One that wants to show us the struggle between man and his creations. But it's just not as powerful as it could have potentially been.
I happen to be a big Ridley Scott fan. I think his films are exceptional. "Blade Runner" is no exception, but this film needs more umph to make it a real memorable picture in the vein of "The Maltese Falcon". What makes classic film noire memorable isn't the gun play or other violence, nor some of the incredible black and white photography and shadow play created by John Huston, but the characters and their dynamic.
We actually have a bit of that in "Blade Runner" (in fact the whole film revolves around this), yet it's never fully realized. Instead what we have is a visually attractive picture telling what amounts to little more than a "monster movie". The monsters can talk and act like humans, but they're monsters all the same. In this sense there's little between this and Scott's other previous effort; "Alien".
If you'r a die-hard sci-fi fan who loves this movie, and you've gotten this far in my comment, then you're probably shaking your head. It's okay. I understand. I was enthralled wit the visuals when I was younger (and am still impressed with them), but you have to understand what this film tells us about ourselves to really come to a clear minded conclusion about the quality of the story.
Like I said, it's a very good looking film. Yet even here some of the art direction, particularly for the technology, is a bit over stated. Note Deckard's voice manipulation of a device that scans and manipulates a photo, or the controls and general human interface for the flying cars. Even so, those are things are needed to get the "futuristic" feel of the film across to the audience.
It's a fine film, quite good in many areas, but not exceptional in all departments. Still, I like the film, and think it a piece of noteworthy sci-fi.