More like Blade Jogger, but still obviously influential

Rating: 7/10 (12 June 2018)

I gotta make sure I throw this disclaimer in near the beginning: Blade Runner is not an action sci-fi flick. Yes, it's from Alien director Ridley Scott who would later give us movies such as Gladiator and The Martian. But Blade Runner is much different. It certainly has sci-fi appeal and influence-- video games such as Final Fantasy VII and Mass Effect clearly took notes from the film, and directors such as Christopher Nolan have cited this film as inspiration, but it also doesn't fall into the trippier territory of films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Based on the cleverly titled book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick (he died before the release of the film, but praised what he saw which was about the first 20 minutes), this movie is much more philosophical. Perhaps Blade Jogger would be a more fitting title-the pacing is very deliberate and not at all what I was expecting.
The movie stars Harrison Ford who was determined to not wear a hat because he was just coming from Raiders of the Lost Ark. The year is 2019 and genetic engineering has advanced so far as to create androids, or replicants, that are superior in intelligence and physicality. Their telltale sign is their responses to questions that are supposed to evoke human emotions. Created to work as slaves, replicants have rebelled in off-world colonies (remember this is 3 years from now) and are declared illegal on Earth and are to be terminated (they use the word retired) if found. This is where Ford comes in when it's discovered that 6 replicants have returned to Earth. Obviously, this has all the ingredients to be a thrilling action flick. But it takes a much different direction. Replicants are designed with a failsafe that automatically retires them after 4 years. It produces cool, thinking quotes like, "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"
Ridley Scott liked the idea of Ford being a replicant, but Ford has stated that he despised that idea and said that before filming Scott agreed with him that his character is definitely human. Now I won't spoil anything, but I will say that it's a question toiled with during the film. Also, if you watch the movie, watch the director's cut version (which technically isn't fully Scott's cut) because the ending is much much better than the theatrical cut of the film.
Really, above sci-fi or philosophical or whatever, I'd describe this film as weird. I'm not sure what you're expecting from the film going in, but it's not what you're going to get. There isn't ever a clear tone established, and this just adds to the difficulty of describing just what the film is. Even the highly-regarded score switches from slow, dark melodies to jazzier moments. I will say, however, probably the most consistent element of the film is the lighting. It's certainly always on the darker side, but all the ways the light comes through in every scene is skillfully crafted.
In all honesty I can't even say I'm much of a fan of this film. I didn't care for how it was edited, and some of the sub-plots really were weird. The movie succeeds in getting you to think, but it also makes you wonder what you just watched. I'm not sure how many times or how precisely I can say it, but it's a strange film. Not strange like drug-fueled Trainspotting, and not confusing like Stanley Kubrick, but more cerebral like the very ends of the films 28 Days Later and Sunshine. I can't say you will enjoy this film (possibly because I can't say I enjoyed it), but I'm extremely curious about the sequel, and for that alone it might be worth checking this film out. And in case of rain, make sure to grab yourself a light-up umbrella. Those things are so cool.
You can find this review and dozens of others at gillipediamoviereviews.blogspot.com