One of those films that requires a second viewing

Rating: 7/10 (2 July 2002)

When I saw this movie the first time, I found it boring, meandering, pointless and utterly lifeless. This time around I paid closer attention to the film and it grew on me. I was intrigued by the original--though somewhat slow-moving--storyline. The sets are elaborate and beautifully constructed. Yet the lighting is low-key and the atmosphere is filled with smoke, giving it that neo-noir touch. So this is not your conventional science-fiction movie. There are no spaceship battles or goofy robots. Harrison Ford is not playing Han Solo from the "Star Wars" movies; this is totally different. The performances are good all-around. But I will still say that the film does drag. I would edit a portion out of almost every scene. It's obvious that Ridley Scott didn't have the pacing in mind. And what was with that friggin' soundtrack?? Did Kenny G do the score? I know Scott was attempting to give it a noirish feel, but the score needed to be a tad more upbeat--I mean we're not sitting in a dentist's chair for God's sake!
"Blade Runner" is not a great film, in my opinion, but a good one and pretty well-done. I liked the ending; it wasn't predictable. I'm surprised at how high it ranked on the IMDB: It's Number 74! I know the film bombed at the box office and received unanimously bad reviews, so it must've received a major cult following. I don't have enough enthusiasm to vote this as one of the best underrated films ever made, but it's worth a look. And you didn't like it the first time around, it's worth another look.

My score: 7 (out of 10)