Blade Runner (1982) - Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Hohum Score



A blade runner must pursue and terminate four replicants who stole a ship in space, and have returned to Earth to find their creator.

IMDB: 8.1
Director: Ridley Scott
Stars: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer
Length: 117 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 180 out of 1024 found boring (17.57%)

One-line Reviews (812)

The city landscape is just awe inspiring along with the cinematography of it.

It was a bad film, but I will say that the ending where Roy Batty makes his speech on top of the building was a great scene, surprisingly moving, especially considering that the rest of the film is so tedious.

The music, the pictures and the deeply symbolic story create an unmatched, intense atmosphere, that has inspired countless other movies and generations of directors.

Therefore, in reality, the audience has voted this movie (by simply ignoring it) as one of the most overrated bores in SF-history.

A stunning visual and emotional masterpiece .

It's gritty, its intense, totally convincing as a future vision, and the aspects of the plot that deal with emotion in robots (or in this case human replications) are so well done that this movie was actually mentioned in a philosophy lecture I attended on the nature of the mind.

A thrilling-grungy-emotional somewhat misunderstood sci-Fi movie.

Add to this an incredibly stylish electronic score by Vangelis which complements the dark, industrial visuals perfectly and you have one of the most imaginative, entertaining and memorable science-fiction films ever made.

Stylistically it is very dark, no heros, murder plot, etc. However, the great film noirs like "Double Indemnity," and "Chinatowne" are great because they have engaging plots, with many twists and turns.

Anyway, save your money and your time.

A stunning piece that will remain timeless.

Now, as an adult, having seen the director's cut, I can confirm that this is truly a great movie with plenty of subtexts, strong themes and surprising plot twists to keep you watching through the slow spots.

If you want to see an engaging well made movie of a Phillip K Dick story, I recommend Minority Report instead.

This entertaining masterpiece is a soaring achievement and Ridley Scott should be praised8.9/10

Quite simply, it's an engrossing film experience.

I've had the opportunity to see it on screen in re-release twice and highly recommend it should the opportunity present itself.

Add those odd vibes to the overlong romantic scene in the middle of the movie, which just felt tortuously slow, and truly cheesy too, thanks to the only piece of soundtrack music which has dated horribly...

The film moves at a slow pace, without boring you out.

The main character is pretty dull and unsympathetic, making his adventure a lot less interesting than it should have been.

The dialogue is generic and uninteresting, and the characters are the same.

I watched this film in one of my film classes a few weeks ago and fell asleep twice.

The most boring movie of my life, IMDB score tricked me.

Blade Runner is a slow movie, especially the director's cut that removes the narration added to the theatrical release and returns some of the gorier shots.

The characters were so emotionally bland that I had absolutely no vested interest in what happened to them.

That kind of tension is enjoyable when so many films are impatient and predictable.

Blade Runner is a profoundly engaging cyberpunk piece that broke many grounds for establishing powerful elements that have inspired many entries of the genre today.

Even now when very enjoyable brilliant films like 'Matrix' and 'X-men' are made, there are always sequels that completely destroy the essence of the first movie.

But after about a half an hour I LITERALLY fell asleep, and it was no where near bedtime.

Nah, it was boring.

The only bad thing I have to say about the writing is that the movie did seem to drag at points and became a bit boring in parts.

Visually this film is stunning.

Sure they're robots, but maybe they shouldn't have been so bland.

The approach to the year 2019 is poorly explained, we are immersed in a future that is foreign to us and have little description to understand it.

The film is a slow drama/noir with incredible beauty in bleakness.

Believe me you must have to watch it more than once because I've seen it once and it is really dull.

This is easily the most boring movie I've ever forced myself to sit through.

All the characters are well drawn out and you find yourself relating to the villains, as well as rooting for the main character.

Blade Runner's story telling is confusing at best and at worst, borders on pure laziness.

Ridley Scott's film Blade Runner is, quite simply, the most awe-inspiring and breathtaking film made to this date.

Besides, Ford is SO bland he never gets in the way of my imagining what the acting would have been like if a good actor was playing Rick Deckerd.

This movie is definitely worth watching as long as the viewer is willing to be fully engaged in the movie throughout its duration.

Deckard's mindset and personality in the movie is very bland which may stem from the idea presented at the end of the movie.

To sum up I have to say that "Blade Runner" is a very good and interesting movie that will keep you intense with its action scenes and of course with the visual effects that it has.

The main character Deckard(Harrison Ford) is fairly uninteresting his motives are unclear most of the time, and Harrison Ford's acting is quite mediocre in this film.

Overall, I thought the movie was disappointing and was just too empty and boring for me to really like it.

The reimagined Los Angeles was fascinating.

Roy Batty's death speech is the highpoint of the film script-wise; his sudden jolt of heroics is shocking and performed well by Rutger Hauer, who makes the insane robot's bout of divine understanding believable and compelling.

Ridley Scott gets to have all his cakes to eat here, managing to blend intriguing science fiction with film noir.

Yes it is boring.

As Blade Runner Harrison Ford lurks in a paranoid daze through the perpetually rainy, dreary futuristic Los Angeles, we see a story unfolding which although set in a bleak futuristic vision, is as old as the hills.

The film's plot takes a story that seems to touch familiar ground in previous noir films but putting a sci-fi twist to it, and I think it's intriguing and had me constantly thinking about the social and political structure of the film's world.

I was feeling like sleeping and yawning during the last one and half hour, every second expecting something good is gonna arrive after all its rated 8.3 isn't it?

But altogether this movie was entertaining and enjoyable.

However, in the book it is an empty experience.

The story is coherent, the acting superb, the writing is intelligent and the characters are engrossing.

Its visual style constituted a model for many retro-future flics to come, the underlying themes proved fascinating and have held sci-fi fans in their grip until this day - plus there's that decisive extra where Scott begs to differ from Dick's novel.

The other reason it left me flat was the "boy meets girl ending" is so trite!

And while watching it I had my DVD player on 2x speed because its so boring and slow.

But about 25 minutes into the movie, it just gets really boring, and doesn't really pick up again until the last 25 minutes.

The audience is instantaneously absorbed by the vivid and compelling world depicted in the film, and that's where Ridley Scott succeeds the most, offering a glance into an original and somewhat disturbing reality that might very well be humanity's near future.

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is a visually stunning film, filled with great characters and a brilliant futuristic setting.

From the firing of the handguns each Blade Runner has to the soft falling of the rain, it is all breathtaking.

Fascinating Science Fiction Cyberpunk Movie.

Rick Deckard was a interesting character to follow and his character was intriguing and made me want to find out more about him as a character.

There are such a good views and ideas in it; stunning what pictures and atmospheres were created by Ridley Scott using water.

The visuals alone are stunning, and the fact it was made twenty years ago is not noticeable.

Also the "twist" at the end is highly predictable and not very well done.

No action, no twists, no side stories, only quite predictable love thread between Deckard and Rachael.

I am a big fan of Harrison Ford but 20 minutes into this movie I just wanted to turn it OFF!

I thought The chase was exciting and tense.

g; Rutger Hauer's compelling performance of an android who only wants for his kind and his own, that which mankind has always taken for granted, the possibility of living longer and free, must surely be the outstanding performance of the movie.

Beautifully shot but ultimately tedious .

It does everything right; it's visually stunning, even now after 20yrs ; acting is brilliant, especially Rutger Hauer; and it also has one of the best movie sound tracks.

The compelling story, the terrific direction and editing from frame to frame, and most of all, the cinematography will blow you away.

Atmospheric, Breathtaking .

There are certainly some fascinating things touched upon with Ridley Scott's direction, the replicants desires, the technical achievements, and the detective aspect to the feature.

What a waste of time.

Dark and boring movie with sadistic elements.

Also, the characters are so bland.

Watch it again people, especially if you have insomnia, the pedestrian plotting and flat characters will put you to sleep.

I really liked all the characters of this movie, all of them were interesting and fascinating.

The latter of these shots has excellent lighting and an intriguing intensity that drew me in and making me want more.

I really wanted to like this movie but I had to force myself to watch it till the's just unbelievable boring

Even the action scenes were drawn out way too long, killing any kind of flow.

In fact, the chief failing, on all scores, for this film, is that Ridley Scott really had no vision for the project, grafting elements from Alien and many of the other films mentioned in this essay, trying to take what worked from each, and ending up with a film that, in many ways, is a mess, and a dull one, at that.


Awful - this is the only correct word that comes into mind while trying to express an impression after watching this horrible, endless, long, slow, trite, banal, bland, vapid, tasteless, languid, sorrowful and pitiful movie.

Featuring some of the most violent imagery, completely in context with the subject material, along with one of the longest drawn-out climax sequences ever, with perhaps one of the most powerfully-motivated villains, who we actually end up rooting for (I dare anyone not to be 'affected' by the goings-on at that time, and the events leading to it); this is one unforgettable work of art that needs to be enjoyed only on the big screen.

The story is intriguing that blows away all my expectations.

With stunning visuals, an ethereal and haunting musical score, and minimal dialogue Kubrick explored the idea that 'we are not alone'.

There is a hanging mood of decay, of uncaring, and it creates an empty feeling.

That said, the confusing and legendary production hassles associated with this film did little to reduce its impact since the real star of the film is the visual interpretation of a future world full of pollution, advertising and proletarian masses.

While confusing, you start to get the film towards the end.

The slightly inferior, "Final Cut" version turned it into more of a modern action movie: Whilst still an enjoyable version to watch, it is a little on the nose, pushing its message forward and lacking the subtlety and precision of the DC.

The plot, with its protagonists ascending into the equivalent of Sam Goldwyn's heaven at the end of "Wuthering Heights," is as coherent as that of most action movies, the sets hearken back to "Metropolis," Harrison Ford overacts less than he is wont, and the women, or maybe they are androids, are stunning, even -- or maybe especially -- when they are doing back flips into the camera.

It's just as deep as "2001 : Space odyssey", but far more entertaining and involving emotionally thank Kubrick's movie.

Like its source novel, it has a few good ideas, more bad ones, a thin plot, trite and leaden dialogue, and poor characterizations, made all the worse by mediocre to bad acting, from the always overrated Ford, to the abysmal Young, to the over the top Hauer (aptly demonstrated by his silly soliloquy) to the lifeless Hannah (both of whose portrayals do nothing to engender sympathy for the Replicants), to the quirk-infested Olmos.

And the action scenes are great and intense even emotional at times.

We have a film that wants to be intriguing: One that wants to show us the struggle between man and his creations.

In times of AI emulating humans better than ever before, this movie is as relevant as it is still entertaining.

It's overall plot is confusing and the characters aren't too interesting.

This is the most cohesive, well-paced, and entertaining cut of the film, by FAR.

Suffice to say, this is one of the most stunning films I've seen - ever.

Ford's performance is intense and driven.

He was just so stiff and generic, one of the dullest performances I've ever seen, and not only that, he basically rapes the replicant Rachael, that was actually very uncomfortable to watch, and made me hate him when I saw how he treated her, basically telling her what to feel, absolutely sick.

The original music is just breathtaking.

Blade Runner makes great use of its claustrophobic atmosphere, thriving both in moments of tension and contemplation all with a slow, deliberate pacing that gradually builds momentum until it finally delivers a powerful and chilling climax, leaving the audience to ponder the questions it has posed.

This movie arguably has all of those things but is achingly slow in presenting them.

The acting is great, the scenes stunning and it is simply an exciting and fascinating story.

I found the movie bizarre and hard to follow.

It was fascinating picking out details in the background, and scrutinising the visual effects (coolest looking scenery ever).

This is a rare film in that even if the story failed to work at all, one could sit in wonder for the running time just admiring the elaborate denseness of the background and the limitless imagination of the director and the set designers, costume designers, visual effects artists, and various technicians that brought it all to breathtaking life.

After watching it I can honesty say it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Nothing happems, no development, just non stop boring.

Thus, many well-meaning viewers get bored by what appears an absence of storyline.

This include reasons such as the audience becoming more understanding, however still many consider the film as a completely waste of time.

Because reading this means that you've probably seen this crap of the movie, and you're wondering what happened, how this tedious, ugly, pointless crap could possibly be so highly rated?

Another replicant who is equally uninteresting runs around with all the nuance of a WWE performer until he's prompty shot, while the other two replicants who take up much of the remaining screen time are god-awful.

The most exciting thing about this movie is the title.

It is thematically deep and stunning to look at and the acting is overall very fine.

The visuals in this film are stunning and obviously hold up very well.

It keeps that slow pace for a very long time...

I've gotta say, I loved the movie Brazil, The Thing, Matrix, Dark City, 1984, and I felt like this was a bit of a mixture of movies like that, but one with a really lack of story, a lack of a moral message, no social commentary, I just couldn't find anything in it, I'm baffled as to how it's so praised.

Convoluted and Unnecessarily Confusing .

the worst movie i have seen .

I call it very, very cliché and done about a thousand times before, during and after.

The score by Vangelis is strangely gripping when combined with the striking cinematography of the film.

First i am appalled by the reviews i read saying that this movie looked visually stunning even in today's CGI era.

It's fascinating to see the filmmaker's imagination at work in the commercial aspects portrayed in this futurscape as well.

It's kind of slow, boring, and repetitive .

Blade Runner is slightly better than The Third Man, which I watched last night and nearly fell asleep.

Over the years this film has acquired the status of a religious cult, something almost akin to Scientology or Objectivism, and so its difficult to simply dismiss it as long, slow, tedious and overrated.

Long, slow, caring away without little dialog.

He hasn't found what to do with himself, and it's so absorbing to see Ford in a weakened state.

Nobody else stands out as especially good or bad, an illustration of banality that pervades what could have been a classic movie.

To be fair the characters were so dull that they had little to work with, although some are replicants so that could make sense.

Here's why:SPOILERS AHEAD1) Incredibly slow pacing...

Add in the chemistry lacking love story between Ford and Young, and the far too long sequences designed to simply show off the visuals and inner workings of Tyrell's corporation, the muddled plot (especially in the later non-voice-over versions), and the film is a classic triumph of 'style over substance.

When we cut back to Deckard's story it is more interesting but lacks material to generate a good engaging story that we desire.

I thought it was bland and boring.

Ridley Scott's breathtaking look into the future .

She just saw it as long, boring and confusing.

And of course, Sean Young is stunning as Ford's love interest.

Sure, it looked pretty, but the first hour is literally nothing, the writing is uninteresting and the movie as a whole proves to be the same.

For a film so raved about by nearly every critic, the plot is cookie cutter and drab.

It's a gripping story of 'Blade Runner' detective Rick Deckard, hunting Replicants; robot slaves who have gone AWOL and returned to earth seeking one thing: a longer life after being designed with a four year life span.

Disgusting bogus character development, the love between Harrison Ford and the robot chick was f'ing contrived and out of the blue, the Spanish cop who placed origami pieces everywhere ahahaaha what was up with that...

To put it very simply, it is boring.

Boring and pretentious, the original "Blade Runner" is an overlong slog that was just isn't worth the trip.

His character is incredibly weak and bland, which was sad considering how many interesting dynamics there are with the Rick Deckard of the book.

The story also lacks in terms of complexity, generating a truly unpleasant sensation of complete boredom.

Hauer is intense as usual as the lead replicant and Cassidy shows her stuff as a butt-kicking replicant.

Well, that was my right, but I'm glad I acknowledged the fact it is, as it is, a slow burner, and that I could move forward to an extraordinary looking and good story.

Scott's directing, the previously mentioned speeches, & the quality acting provide a stunning film with a scary look into the future.

I think apart from the stunning visuals of this film (like I suggested, the ultimate art house movie?

The visuals, cinematography, lighting, and 80's special effects make this movie worth watching on their own.

Still stunning after all these years.

My real suggestion to sci fiction movie lovers - don't waste your money to see this crop movie.

The two weaknesses of this movie are the slow pacing and Ford's performance.

I think this movie could well be a sure shot way to cure insomnia!!

but this film has far too many holes in it and slow pacing to qualify as a good film, let alone one of the best ever made.

Overall this is a sci-fi noir cyberpunk masterpiece that is most definitely worth the watch.

In fact, the movie becomes incredibly boring, and every second couldn't be longer.

I love it not only for the initial feeling it gives, but because of its perseverance – none of the visuals, themes or technology feel dated but as deep, gripping and current as ever.

How Boring!

In reality, they are loath to admit that it's a boring, overrated piece of cinematographic crap that nobody outside the community actually likes.

Sean Young is wonderful as the experiment replicant Rachel, giving us a conventional yet compelling performance and it's a treat to watch.

The part of the movie you really wanted it to pick up speed but they dragged it out to the old cat and mouse routine.

It's deep message, fascinating cinematography, and strong storyline will astound everyone.

How the movie looks is great; BUT ITS PACE IS TOO SLOW which made it VERY BORING, I had to struggle to not fall asleep.

Even when the date that the story takes place in is only 14 years in the future and automatically cancels much of the technology and events shown in Ridley Scotts sci-fi noir film BLADE RUNNER, it's still a stunning movie that has more than enough elements to make it compulsively watchable.

The general pacing of the film is also a tad too slow, at times we have to suffer Ford's interminable monologues with nothing of substance happening for minutes.

I feel like they just excavated the substance from the book, and just made an empty robot-hunting movie.

"Blade Runner" is an enjoyable and 'solid' sci-fi film.

He understands when to give a slow pan of the city and when to blast through the city with action.

 As for the story, it's intelligent, engrossing, and perfectly paced.

In the director's cut version the story is explained very well but it does drag out the story a bit too much.

Sabastian's accelerated ageing; Bryant's illnesses (he pours Deckard two drinks simultaneously because he's too sick to drink himself, a brief nod to The Big Sleep) and Chew's slow freezing after having his protective coat ripped off.

It's ambient and evocative score by Italian composer Vangelis, its amazing set design and nostalgia inducing atmosphere.

There are some who would say that Blade Runner is an example of style over substance and I am almost inclined to agree because the film really is stunning to look at.

Boring, boring...

), darkly enigmatic and contemplative it is, among its bursts of thrilling, unforgettably violent action.

Overall, a boring movie that nobody should bother with.

Films which crudely grope into a possible time ahead,when perhaps a post apocalyptic era is scattered with cliché upon cliché and often miss the whole point.

But ultra boring.

The movie has a futuristic setting that is grim and gritty, yet breathtaking to look at.

The love scene between Deckard and Rachael seems very contrived to me.

Scott builds a world that is stunning and immersive.

The Villain (Roy Batty) isn't even shown in action or given diolog until halfway into the film, and by then you have already gotten bored of Deckard.

I have to note though that it looks stunning!

Harrison Ford is an ordinary actor and his performance here is dull.

The plot has your mind working overtime, (not like todays brainless studio movies), and the senses are dazzled by the spectacular photography, the stunning sets, the dreamlike effects and spellbinding music.

Without the narrative and the bizarre scenes added by Mr. Scott adds confusion and really makes the film more of a "Disney" type, entertaining, production rather than a medium to provoke thought and enlightenment as the Non Director's cut.

*Yawns* .

It sounded techno with a middle eastern influence and greatly helped move the story along when it hits a weak or slow spot.

Many scenes take places in dark, gloomy, and empty streets.

It does have brilliant things about it but the entire outcome of the film is completely dull.

Loads of money and special effects, a little pretentious, and judging by the full house attending, the reaction was very beige and unmoved.

yet very boring to my eyes .

For a thriller, it's way too slow and I didn't find the plot particularly interesting or engaging either.

Sadly, I avoided watching this movie my whole live – its 30th Anniversary is in less than a month – because after two attempts, I "felt it was too slow and dark" and turned it off 15-20 minutes in.

There is one problem that leaves the movie a bit empty though.

The movie is visually stunning and captivating just as much as the new 2049 movie.

The striking visual beauty of this film is simply awe-inspiring, but Vangelis' masterwork of a score and the pristine sound editing too create a brilliant soundscape that meshes together with the breathtaking cinematography, effects and direction to form a truly stirring experience.

Fascinating story - one of the critics on the Dangeous Days documentary speaks of the message - don't be a slave/replicant who simply follows orders.

So very, very boring.

Running through the film are motifs of eyes and Christian symbolism, the former including the intense Voight-Kampff test scene and the above eye shot with the industrialised, dystopian L.

), but that vision is stunning and powerful.

The visuals are a big thing in this film and they are absolutely stunning and they remain some of the best I have ever seen in a film (along with 2001: A Space Odyssey).

And while whether you get bored or not is a matter of perception, it's a cold hard fact that the movie has no substance.

Being a real movie enthusiast, watching at least 8 movies / per week of all nationalities, I can honestly tell all readers that this was the most boring two hours of my life.

Concluding, a regular movie, a 6 grade, nor as spectacular as some people say, but also isn't bad, only boring in some parts.

My favorite movie, Pulp Fiction, has a stunning and nearly mind-blowing ending.

The villain is very dark, very intense, which really adds to the film.

The lines are further blurred with the introduction of the assistant to the head of the company that manufactures replicants, a stunning beauty named Rachel (played by Sean Young), who unbeknownst to herself is a replicant with the memories of another programmed into her.

The physical aspect of their interaction is heightened by the ability to put just the right amount of dialog in the scenes to keep you on the edge of your seat when the time is right.

Visually stunning, thought provoking and incredibly moving.

This is supposed to be tension but it is excruciatingly boring.

It has thrills, style and some intriguing questions - and such is enough to keep one watching, no matter what problems one may have with it.

The stunning visuals (Ridley Scott signature) and the music (Vangelis) really make this movie watchable.

I also thought that this is kind of boring.

I cant get over how stunning this movie looks.

And it's entertaining.

Overall I thought the movie was enjoyable and everyone should give it a watch.

The last twenty minutes reveal the true adrenaline of the story, after the movie-long build up.

Without the voice-over, the film becomes confusing (to the uninitiated) and the pace slows.

This film is a fascinating and involving experience if the viewer has the patience to experience the film properly.

All the numerous scenes that try to emphasize the characters of the dystopia, bring mostly disillusionment because they are either pretentious, banal or out of place.

Rating: 2 Meaning: Waste of time

The second was how needlessly drawn out Tyrell's death scene was.

The plot is a Xerox copy of any noir detective novel, the characters are impossible to emotionally invest in the acting, for the most part, is bland to outright silly (seriously, Harrison Ford was NOT good in this movie), and the pacing was S-L-O-W.

I'm sure it was good for the 80's, but thought it was boring .

The dialog is stilted, the pacing stodgy, the story overstuffed, and the editing insufficient.

Personally, I thought the build up to conflict between characters was slow because of the large focus on setting the mood for the film and society.

The last generation of androids are almost undistinguishable from humans in body and mind, so there's a risk that they develop emotions and become unpredictable and dangerous.

Simply a thrilling and exceptional film .

The quick ending is a abrupt but more in sync with the film, the "made for each other ending" more intriguing and gives a nice cap to the romance between Deckard and Rachael.

Worst and most boring movie I have ever seen.

In my humble opinion is Philip K Dick´s works among the most intelligent and fascinating in modern science fiction.

After viewing this director's cut, how can any sci fi fan go back to the original with all the boring voice-overs ?

The characters are completely empty (human or nonhuman) and there's a complete lack of any pace or dynamic in this movie.

The first real action sequence is intense and suprising here, a perfect mix to open up a movie.

The engaging plot and characterization and the questions the film raises make the film suitable for repeat viewings.

I fell asleep in the opening scene.

Not the generic, cliché film noir the negative reviews wanted, thank God.

Another one of those Matrix-esque movies that gathers a mindless mass of fans who say the movie is "deep" or some other pretentious shite like that just because it had some surface level intellectualism and a few philosophical quotes blurted out here and there.

Even though a golden rule of writing is to "Show it-don't tell it," the producers wisely realized that without the Ford narration, few audiences members could tolerate the slow pace.

From the very first shot, the movie will grab you by the scruff of the neck and take you on a visually stunning journey where there is even room for philosophical ruminations about the very nature of what it means to be human.

"I truly can't believe how disappointing it actually is, maybe if it wasn't praised so much, therefore living up to an expectation, we could have enjoyed it more?

This was a very visually stunning film.

There is always something visually stunning on screen 24/7, in my opinion the best part of Blade Runner is not its smart script, great story, or Oscar performances, it's the film's gorgeous and breathtaking visuals.

It was a very engaging story that made me interested all the way to the end.

The first time, I nearly fell asleep.

It creates a way for attentive viewers to keep track of who is and isn't a replicant, and in general is a very intriguing effect to behold.

Soggy and dreary relic from the punk era .

I have to admit I think the concept of the film is intriguing.

The film's breathtaking imagery and its incredible sound bolster this raw journey as Deckard reluctantly hunts down a group of replicants.

A little bored .

With cult status firmly behind it, the movie manages to bring together so many strands that it is interesting, thought provoking, entertaining and endearing.

She's stunning and projects innocence well in showing Deckard's shortcomings.

With the decay of society on Earth and the environment in collapse, the seedy streets of Los Angeles 2019 are a character in their own right providing a stunning backdrop to what is a deep sci fi tale of the nature of humanity as well as a more superficial film noir detective story.

Anyway, this one can be watched 1000 times and something new and exciting pops out of the screen each time...

Even the highly-regarded score switches from slow, dark melodies to jazzier moments.

Dick and I am obsessed with Science Fiction, but watching Blade Runner for the third time, I was still just as bored and confused as I was the other two times I saw it.

So anyone who lives in the real world,my advice to you is : don't waste your time on this.

Dull, shallow SF film .

Harrison did should bored when he did it.

The story is plodding.

It is a very enjoyable sci-fi that goes beyond the spaceship and aliens we normally see.

It needs a compelling story.

The backdrops are stunning and what we get is a real feel for the place.

A plot twist would really have improved the standard, somewhat predictable formula.

***"Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott) Final Cut", a dystopian sci-fi, is enjoyable.

From lush visuals captured by cinematographic and special effects crews at the peak of their game, to a soundtrack that still leaves one breathless over 30 years since it was first heard, then closing with Ruter Hauer's improvised, "Tears in the Rain" monologue, which still produces a lump in the throat, this is the only film which comes close to engaging all the senses, and answering the question that Phillip K.

Finally the intriguing question that the film raises: is Decker himself a replicant?

Just trust me, there are deep themes that are explored here, but the movie is thoroughly entertaining even if you aim to enjoy it on only its most superficial levels.

'Blade Runner', one of the few movies I found both boring and interesting...

The former is pointless; the latter is intentional and purposeful.

I re-watched it recently (two of the multiple cuts) and the visuals are still stunning, eve more so if you consider the 35 plus years that have passed since this was made (and then released).

I understand the relationship, self-realisation, ethical and moral situations and dilemmas involved in the characters and dark noir- esque world created all those years ago, but the movie itself is still too slow and still too boring.

Probably the most boring science fiction film I've ever watched, and I've sat through it 3 times really trying to give it a chance.

I just thought it was painfully slow and dull.

Scott isn't here to perk anyone up, he's here to ask questions whilst filtering his main characters through a prism of techno decay, of humanity questioned to the max, for a film so stunning in visuals, it's surprisingly nightmarish at its core.

The breathtaking opening scene is a mood setter, is it not?

The cinematography is stunning for its time - especially with the HD DVD release.

So, one day, I finally decided to watch the thing and bore patiently through each boring scene after another.

A fascinating and visually stunning film.

) Harrison Ford, who can turn in a fine performance when he wants to, just phoned this one in, and seems as bored as the audience for most of the film, especially during his monotone narration; Sean Young (though quite decorative) was similarly wooden.

All that contrived stuff about the value of life (and the way it will be) still doesn't tell a story.

Visually stunning with a beautiful and atmospheric score by Vangelis, this film has a lot going for it (IMO).

Rather than classify this as science fiction I would classify this film as 'humanities reality', that is, a film that should be considered as one that addresses the most serious human concerns about the slow 'disappearance of the human' (Rick Roderick) in the postmodern world, a world in which 'real' is no longer meaningful and only the commercially manufactured images that sell the most are the only values left.

I enjoyed this film quite a lot and I found the story very intriguing.

Ridley Scott is a genius it is almost like he looked into the future and made this movie to stand the test of time because it really does it like no other movie of it's time it doesn't feel old and worn out , it's still so fresh and new and most importantly exciting to new viewers.

The film for me is a simplistic, superficial little story told in a pretentious and portentous manner, apparently convincingly enough to fool so many into thinking that here is a true cinematographic masterpiece that will stand the test of time.

The male is an absolute joke at the very end, smashing his head into walls basically acting like Jack from The Shining in the most pointlessly drawn out attempt to kill someone I've probably ever seen, even going so far as to strip off his clothes for zero reason to make it even more comical.

Visually this movie is absolutely stunning.

The truly wonderful and under-appreciated talent of Rutger Hauer make this movie worth watching even though you have to suffer through the mawkish wooden acting of Harrison Ford (how did that guy make a movie career!?

Slow, but entertaining.

The music was very electronic, slow paced, and just overall mysterious.

The somewhat dull plot is the only reason I didn't give this movie a perfect score.


Still visually stunning.

The shots of the City is breathtaking and amazing to look at, Ridley Scott does a great job directing Blade Runner.

All sympathy is missing from PKD's original characters, leaving only empty bland one-dimensional shells.

Waste of time and Money .

But it chose to keep the action in a boring inexplicably rainy, oriental populated LA.

Granted the film is a little slow-paced and Harrison Ford's narration seems a little bit cheesy, but the fundamental aspects of the story are quite intriguing - fair enough there have been some copycat films that have followed Blade Runner (the recent Alex Garland film Ex Machina clearly owes some debt of gratitude to Blade Runner).

The film's use of dark sets, smoke, faded light, night-time rain, broken buildings, exotic people has effectively set the right mood for what PKD had dreamt of - a society on the verge of breakdown, living on the edge with crime, corruption and misused technology.

When I first saw Blade Runner I was unsure if I actually enjoyed it.

The only positive thing I have to say about this movie is that visually it is entertaining.

The cinematography is stunning and it overshadows everything in this film.

I saw it for the first time around 1988 on VHS and thought it was a boring story.

All the characters are wonderful, and i found the film to be very exciting, plus Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer are simply amazing in this!.

The way Hauer delivered some of his dialogue is truly mesmerizing, while Ford's performance is more physical, but equally engaging.

The atmosphere of this movie alone makes for an enjoyable watching experience.

In spite of these failings, the performances and most particularly the incredibly compelling make BLADE RUNNER a fantastic triumph of style over substance.

I first saw Blade Runner in 1982, and at first thought it was slow, then I got sucked in...

I found him to be quite a boring character of Blade Runner.

I know that this movie is very important because it makes us to think about the environment, the corporations, the evolutions in genetic science and in many other things, but to me the most important thing about a movie is that it has to be entertaining first and after that whatever you want, and I found this one very boring.

I personally think that the music effects were stunning it created the suspense the movie needs and express the actions very well.

Saw it again tonight, director's cut, better, but still so boring.

the score is perfectly suited to the film and so evocative of the time and place, it really enhances The scenes focusing on the wasted cityscape of 2019 LA.

This rather suspenseful movie requires a deeper level of thinking in order to understand the full context.

Scott has created a world that lives by its design; both repulsive and engrossing, at the same time.

This was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time.

Rutger Hauer and Sean Young give haunting, compelling performances as two replicants who want more, and William Sanderson turns in an endearing portrayal of a perpetual child of sorts.

The problem of the plot isn't so much that it doesn't work, but it's execution is just so miss-mashed with everything else in the film that it becomes tiresome to follow.

Visually stunning.

What Ridley Scott has created here is a believable, stunning and dark portrayal of the future.

The issues of humanity that it raises are intriguing and quite revolutionary, and the director's cut - which I saw - leaves the ending ambiguous as to Deckard's true identity.

Some of them are very slow paced and force you to think and read between the lines.

The film is entertaining and is quick paced.

The score is marvelous, and with the great sets, the very imaginative environment, and the multitude of details, you get immersed extremely quickly in the story.

Having a slow film allows Scott to build a world around Deckard's story.

The movie has loads of style but it also has a thin plot and some uninteresting characters.

All this sadly makes a decently build up universe, pretty boring.. The acting wasn't bad though.

In conclusion, the film is definitely worth watching.

From here a dense noir thriller quickly evolves, fizzling from one visually stunning element to another.

Unless this happens, the replicant remains a "simpersonator", able to simulate personalities, but always confusing personality-function with consciousness-as-essence.

Blade Runner is an excellent film, and if you are bored on a Saturday night, I say watch this film, it is very entertaining and a lot of fun.

The skyline is enchanting and the visuals in this film are still stunning twenty-five years later.

No plot, no fun, no relation to Philip K.

Rutger Hauer makes a very cool, fascinating villain.

I had heard a lot about this movie that it was one of the best SF movies ever, but after watching it I have to say that it is very boring in spite of its interesting plot and characters.

Harrison Ford was wasted because he would underact and sound bored while playing Deckard.

He is particularly good in these movies because he is both an accomplished actor and can do these action packed scenes as well.

His role as an intellectual and designer of the replicants is accurately portrayed through his bland emotion.

For a movie that's relatively slow paced, there is hardly any character development, logical decisions or motivation (aside for revenge, survival and being forced back on duty) for most of the runtime.

It looks absolutely fascinating, and I would say to watch it just to see how good it is.

An engrossing convo about how dark and rainy the future is?

nakedness in film), making the parts of Blade Runner that would have originally been controversial and eye-grabbing, uninteresting.

Easily the most boring film i've seen since avatar.

The women in the movie are all breathtaking in their own way.

These next minutes are the most suspenseful you might ever see in a movie.

F**king waste of time .

The setting is is stylized into a science fiction film, the setting suggests a cold empty world, the unicorn that is a fantasy has symbolic meanings to show you that deckard is really a nexus robot.

boring,slow paced,bad sound track(should learn from Ghost in the Shell Movie), worst acting,bad character design and lame screenplay.

This was a boring movie, with no real philosophical point, no trigger to continue watching it and no deep thoughts at the end...

They are captivating, exciting, and extraordinary.

Read the review titled "So very very boring"....

I did find that the movie was slow in places...

Nonetheless, a decent movie but:"Beautifully shot and ultimately tedious"

In any case, when the broth is reduced, it's a pretty slow movie.

The atmosphere of the movie is engrossing.

Actually I nearly fell asleep watching BR as well.

Nice romantic, futuristic score by Vangelis and the production design is stunning.

I love it not only for the initial feeling it gives, but because of its perseverance – none of the visuals, themes or technology feel dated but as deep, gripping and current as ever.

'Bladerunner' for me was and always shall be a riveting watch, from it's stunning visuals to the utter 'vastness' of it's Vangelis soundtrack, it remains the perfect example of 'sum greater than it's parts.

It's beyond enjoyable.

The movie was bad enough on its own, but the addition of these completely superfluous negative images of Asians really pushes it over the edge and from boring to offensive.

The pacing is so painfully slow that there's few details to divulge at all, aside from this summary.

so when you you add all this up,you're left with one big yawn fest.

Artsy fartsy movie - plots deeper on star trek .

The big issue there, I think, was that audiences were expecting a sci-fi/action movie (like they got with Aliens (2)) and were served up a slower-paced, more arty, piece instead.

But everything else, namely script and, as a consequence, actors play, is a drab.

In spite of this, the thing that truly makes it a cult classic is the characters and environment, which are richly detailed and compelling.

WAY too long!!!!!!

Sleep-inducing film smothered by its production design.

Who knew a film named "Blade Runner", a movie with such high praise, could be so boring.

Sadly, my second watching of the movie was about as enjoyable as the first.

Overall though it was a fine movie and entertaining.

This scene is uninteresting and too long.

A complete waste of time and effort.

Deckard is attacked by Kowalski who as he is about to kill Deckard is himself killed in an unexpected way.

But then again, the movie did not show any relationship development between the two, so that was completely unexpected and a bit insincere.

It is well casted starting with Ford,and a rousing hat's off is due to Rutger Hauer for his performance as one of the most intimidating villains I have ever seen in a film.

The filming of facial expression, the interaction between all the characters and the final scenes which actually promote full circle motivations is fascinating.

And this is one of the slippery slopes of sci-fi film adaptations: how the hell do you cram all of these aspects into 90-120 minutes, without either treating the audience as imbeciles and filling in all of the details via narration or a scrolling text prelude, or worse, omitting some of the very themes and ideas that make the original work enjoyable and important.

The story is slow so that can be a letdown to some people.

If your an atheist, this movie will remind you of the empty and ultimately meaningless life that you live, for "all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain".

When I first watched this film, I was bored to death.

When the original was released nobody went to see it, the original was cut and given a commentary for a reason, the film was too long, boring and doesn't make much sense.

In some scenes, nothing happens, the camera moves from one furniture to another.

Firstly, it is visually stunning.

With a haunting musical score by Vangelis that adds a hypnotic quality to those breathtaking landscapes of a mega-city in a dystopian future.

Blade Runner is so brilliant because it is so "boring".

- and the art direction/ production design is awe inspiring.

Wow, I am glad; this was a very entertaining and a tremendous visual and audio treat.

It is so boring that I was so close to falling asleep.

Visually, the film is still stunning, a totally convincing vision of a near-future LA of incessant pollution, commercial-drenched neon avenues and oppressive, towering skyscrapers.

I find most fascinating the relationship between Ford and Young and the bleak look at the future, the plot to me is sort of routine and immaterial except as a backdrop to the good stuff.

) future history stories, any number of which would produce an enjoyable and intellectually-stimulating celluloid.

Bad characters, slow story flow, terrible action scenes, and extremely hard to understand ending.

In fact, they build in a reverse crescendo which effectively highlights by way of isolation the movie's crescendo, and thus bringing film to a thrilling conclusion of both aesthetics and action.

Though visually striking and quite imaginative, what is sorely lacking is a compelling story with relatable characters, since this film is otherwise cold and uninvolving.

So, now with 5 versions available in this box set, you get to see Blade Runner in every single angle imaginable and it is engrossing every time.

The story was very boring- detective guy in the future hunts down and kills dangerous synthetic bad-guys.

And paradoxically, the slow sequences that emerge sometimes are actually only increasing the pace.

Plot - The pacing of this movie is extremely slow.

Bilious gas plumes, giant Gaudian advertising blimps, 800-story urban pyramids, skyscrapers with moving billboards on their sides--all at night, with a constant dreary rain--provide enough distraction to make even a movie without substance watchable.

The story is boring, the characters (with the exception of Roy) are boring and yes it may be very "pretty" but its all style and no substance.

In all honesty, I enjoyed it at first.

An interesting fact about Blade Runner that few people realize is that Deckard only uses a pistol to retire replicants, the chases and shootouts are fascinating without using a small arsenal of rockets and lazers so many other sci-fi's have used, this is truely impressive.

a bit harsh but sums it up fairly well (and is more entertaining than this entire film).

So to someone who isn't in the group intended to understand the symbolism from this movie, the entire film is a cascade of confusion.

However, Blade Runner is still worth watching, even though I do not feel it is the best sci-fi film.

Especially when the sci-fi leads you to expect action, it can get really slow.

Even as a 9 year old when I first saw this snore fest the only thing I remembered was the female android's nipples and the flying ships.

Super boring, predictable.

What gets at the heart of this criticism is that the movie is just downright boring.

I have to say that the plot is compelling and the thought processes placed in the story are deep, profound and thought-provoking.

Well directed by Ridley Scott, innovative and stunning imagery underlined by Vangelis' superb score, and plenty to think about (on your own- no spoon feeding).

Overall, I think this movie is overrated and extremely boring.

Add in plenty of supporting regulars, tons of atmosphere and suspense and the unpredictable, original narrative, plus the original storyline from sci-fi writer Philip K.

And the longer you stick with this film, through the pseudo-noir stuff (luckily this version lacked the much maligned narration--boo-hoo, I had to actually pay attention the whole time, rather than have everything spelled out for me, confusing as it was, at times), the more you will find it to be deeply affecting and poignant in its philosophizing.

Both Ford's and Hauer's performances are really unique and exciting.

First of all, the creators of this "masterpiece" have used the irritating cliché of setting the entire film at night.

It's a pretentious, navel-gazing art house film dressed up as a sci-fi/film noir thriller.

During his journey he meets a female who doesn't seem to know shes a replicant, this develops into a rather confusing romance story.

It has some of the most stunning sound and visuals.

It was confusing at certain points to understand more deeply on a futuristic level as it confused me with modern day beings.

Visually stunning .

Rutger Hauer has never been better (his Time-to-die speech is simply unforgettable),Harrison Ford and Sean Young are extremely enjoyable as troubled blade runner and his love interest,beautiful replicant Rachael.

Beyond boring.

- a boring movie.

Every single philosophical theme from the novel was excluded and instead replaced by long, dull scenes where nothing happens.

Harrison Ford's Deckard is dull and looks bored throughout the film and his chemistry with Sean Young is nonexistent.

The opening scene of Los Angeles, 2021, is one of the most memorable and breathtaking in modern film.

The set and design are also stunning and still sets the standard for which every sci-fi film aspires too.

After a spectacular introduction to a cyber-punk Los Angeles of the 2019, the viewer is quickly drawn into a fantastic sci-fi plot, made up of the smallest, most gripping details.

Pointless, boring and a very UGLY movie .

The film's biggest disappointment – other than the tiresome voice over by Ford and the dreadful jazzy soundtrack – are the characterizations of these android Replicants.

Visually stunning with a beautiful and atmospheric score by Vangelis, this film has a lot going for it (IMO).

They might say that it moves too slow, or that they expected more emotional satisfaction.

At times the pacing in the movie had me a tad bored, and while it was still nice to look at and it was nice to see the actors have some good dialog, I always kept wanting more adrenaline type action.

Fatally overrated, this film is remarkably dull.

Also, the slow pacing just made the film completely uninteresting.

Since other reviewers have pointed out the terribly slow pace of the movie (the only other movie that was this slow was first Star Trek movie "the slow motion picture" - don't watch that one, either), I will write about something else - the ugliness.

Blade Runner is certainly stunning in visuals, but looking deeper it is a cleverly woven narrative about humanity against machine and whichever version, is worth watching.

Of course these themes are nothing new, and the film does not present them in a fresh way, but rather within the confines of a dull film.

In addition Blade Runner is not a happy go lucky feel good movie, its dismal settings and suspenseful scenes leave the viewer on edge.

Be prepared for a oddly paced and somewhat slow film, though.

Blade Runner is one of the best movies of all time because of its dazzling visuals and soundtrack, a unique and intriguing storyline, and superb acting.

It is not flawless, and several things felt quite cliché and stupid.

Visually stunning, narratively engaging and rewarding, and worthy of repeated viewings to fully understand its depth.

Sean Young has the right fatale look, Hauer is intense and M.

Blade Runner is a great movie with a fantastic,sometimes confusing and very different story line,with a very good cast and great characters,with an outstanding performance from Harrison Ford and great work from legendary director Ridley Scott.

I viewed this particular version of the movie (when it was first released back in 1982) and found it to be much more tantalizing and intriguing than the Director's Cut (which seems to be the only version available on DVD at this present date).

Sci-fi movies are more fascinating for their vision of the future world that surrounds the plot than the plot itself.

What a waste of time.

The movie was very boring with not a lot of character development.

I admit, and will not argue that, the film is slow paced.

I can't say those high expectations were quite met, since I do think that the film is missing an emotional factor for me that would make me love it more, a more compelling or intriguing story.

This becomes one of the most intense battle scenes ever recorded on film.

I will not mention the questions that will be posed at the end of the film, for the sake of potential viewers (and due to my spoiler-free nature), but all I will say here is that the film is worth watching at least once, as it is a truly cerebral and rewarding experience; one which no single review can ever truly encompass.

I actually fell asleep during the movie.

Watching this movie after reading the book was like watching two hours of absolutely nothing happening.

People always told me it was a good film and worth watching.

It's mostly slow-paced but its engaging climax and great production choices are what makes it such a masterpiece.

Deckard is charmless, and bland.

overrated trite .

Ridley Scott does a wonderful job here, with fantastic production design amazing visuals, unbelievable camera work, fantastic angles, and lots of other wonderful shots, plus he kept the film at a very engrossing pace!.

It does lack, however, in some of its pacing and confusing plot design.

Performances of all actors are great, characters are very convincing, Sean Young and Harrison Ford have nice chemistry, and overall atmosphere achieved by Scott and Vangelis is stunning.

This is one of the most visually stunning films ever made.

This is one of the worst movies ever made.

Pacing is a major issue (too slow).

quite an intriguing experience.

I first saw "Blade Runner" on TV, with Harrison's dull narration (which did not help) and the so-called "Happy Ending".

The purpose of the music in the film is too cause suspense and to make things more tense or more relaxed depending on the situation, when the music gets intense it makes u focus more and get on edge because you know something is about to happen that is going to be important,it helps to shape our interpretation by giving suspenseful music during an important part of the movie and helps you get a feel of the meaning of the the moment in that movie and helps to reinforce the scene.

The wide shots of futuristic Los Angeles are both stunning in their visual presentation and terrifying in their historical implications.

The movie is visually stunning, both at a human level, and a backdrop level.

Soundtrack - The music also balances the line between bland and good.

They might say that it has no plot, or a dull execution of it.

Either you're fascinated by it's style, or you find it boring.

Breathtaking, is the only way to decribe almost every scene in Blade runner,The not to distant "cyberpunk" future is created in flawless detail.

Pretty boring.

i literally fell asleep during the movie.

Surprisingly, the concept was pretty good, but the movie could've been shortened to 1h30m, it felt so slow and underwhelming in many parts.

Too slow and boring .

Even the first hour of titanic is more entertaining than whatever blade runners best scene is.

A lot of comments suggest that this is a boring movie, or even just terrible.

Unique, engaging, moody, visually striking, thought-provoking .

Overrated style over substance snore fest .

I think that this movie is the best ever made, thanks to the spectacular photography, the breathtaking performances of the actors, and the exceptional soundtrack made by Vangelis.

The film is visually stunning as well.

In my opinion, the first movie was quite boring and just downright silly when it came to the climatic fight scene.

what a waste of time!!

On the other hand, if you don't like dark, dreary and a rain soaked scenario, I suggest that you move on.

)Then there were Deckard's square glasses (you can't drink well out of a square glass), all that tedious smoky light drifting through blinds, and that dove being released in slow motion to make us feel just so…whatever.

Bladerunner is a slow ride for the first hour.

If you are under 30, no matter how mature or intellectual you are, i'd steer completely clear of this movie, it will bore you and make you apathetic to its complexities.

Attainable, logical, entertaining, visual, aural, intelligent and repeatable.

Watching this lame movie is a waste of time but a good time to take a nap because you wouldn't have missed anything.

It's so boring and long-winded, I can't imagine anyone watching this today (without the distraction of the special effects, which no longer distract at all) and thinking it's actually good.

I think that these people go to a ballet and find it really boring as well.

If you like the lurid, music video-like editing of most modern sci-fi/action movies, then you'll probably find Blade Runner dull and anemic and will disregard its artistic achievements.

' Even that cliché grates, despite its aptness.

What they didn't tell you is that all of these clones were on about 3 years and 364 days, and they were just about to die anyway, making the entire premise pointless.

The writing is abysmal, and the characters are so bland.

The Film is Great one of the best sci Fi films to date also great performances from Ford and Hauer as Deckard and Roy in this exciting Crime Thriller of the Future also love its sci-Fi Noir setting as well one the first films to humanize a villain in Roy Batty also ends on an exciting Finish .

While there are heart-pumping moments in this movie, some of the scenes are just flat-out boring and feel like they're missing something that would make for an intriguing scene.

How did i waste 2 hours of my life on this piece of drab film noir.

Also the ending is just uninteresting.

And of course the city itself looks stunning.

The scene where Batty meets his maker, Tyrell, is compelling and is one of the best scenes in film history.

The set and design are also stunning and still sets the standard for which every sci-fi film aspires too.

Let it just be said that Blade Runner is a powerful, evocative and truly astonishing picture that rewards the viewer every time you watch it.

Instead what I got was a dark, gritty and downbeat film noir with little action to recommend it and a rather slow storyline.

This theme is realised by the main protagonists and antagonists throughout the movie, resulting in a fascinating climax and, in the director's cut at least, a powerful and beautifully ambiguous ending.

Great respect because of the fan base, but very boring and overrated.

Just Hauer himself is more a compelling character on an aesthetic level really.

Called back from retirement or waiting to die, Ford's 'Bladerunner' is on the edge and keeps us on the edge.

Another plausible explanation for my then lukewarm response is that I simply found it painfully slow-paced and boring, and the dismal explanatory voice-overs made it virtually impossible to become immersed in the film.

Thoroughly impressive and deeply engaging, this is a movie that oozes supremacy .

But then, Harrison Ford stepped in, too wooden to move and too stoic to act, utterly bored to the core.

The cinematography is stunning.

There is no chemistry between the actors, the characters are boring.

I found Blade Runner to be a compelling and moving Si-fi movie, it has some really outstanding effects that still look great today.

The soundtrack by Vangelis is absorbing and completely matches the film from beginning to end which has been such a large influence on Sci-fi films since.

I've only just watched it (Dec 2009) in full for the first time, and was yawning most of the way through.

Thoroughly enjoyable seeing Harrison Ford play an excellent protagonist.

A deep, and intriguing Sci-Fi film.

The movie's visuals and photography are stunning still, even after 35 years.

Instead, it concentrates on absorbing themes, such as the question of identity or the value of being human.

What a waste of time...

The pacing is slow and while I thought that it was fitting for this kind of movie some other viewers might find it too much.

Terrifying yet fascinating, Roy Batty has steadily climbed my list of favorite villains since my multiple viewings of Blade Runner.

In keeping with this underground subcultural feel, the film's dreary sogginess, and the aura of decay and "perfect storm" damages that seems to infect everything on screen, from the epic backgrounds to the lighting, hardware, framing, tinting, right down to the characters' clothing and even their very complexions.

It's a complete waste of time.

Another fascinating thing about the visuals was the cinematography and set design.

Another of my major complaints is that the pacing of the film is so unnecessarily slow.

Especially Rutger Hauer who otherwise has very few good movies to his name (maybe 'Day of the Falcon') delivers a stunning performance.

And Blade Runner's entire cast is uninteresting.

" I think the reason for my confusion is that Blade Runner is a very sophisticated film.

It is very slow at setting up the story and keeping the mystery alive.

Interesting ideas and love the dystopic world created, but there's little else here that I could say was enjoyable.

But when I read Blade Runner I read it as a boring movie with a great ending which gives the film great meaning.

and it returns to the slow pace.

Listen to the musical genius of Vangelis while watching the picture = breathtaking.

The production design is grand, yet dreary.

This film was enjoyable to watch despite the time it was made in because it felt very ahead of its time, or perhaps the film defied time itself.

But the plot was just slow and a bit dull.

From the lighting, use of weather, dialogue, casting, visual effects and simply stunning performances from Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Sean Young, this film ranks at the top of a rather short list of the most important science fiction films ever made.

If you want to fall asleep, then watch this awful movie.

The film starts out promising - the world that serves as the backdrop for this story is beautifully crafted and visually stunning, and the soundtrack only adds to its shadowy intrigue.

If you're looking for an intense action flick?

Dark and unsettling, Blade Runner is a beautiful, nightmarish and fascinating journey in a twisted society.

Contribution by each of them made this a compelling film.

Plastic coats (seems like a bad idea in a humid environment like that) etc. etc. The pace of the story is mostly so dragging slow.

While Harrison Ford plays against his comfort zone as a battered "human" blade runner, its's Rutger Hauer's replicant Roy Batty overshadows everyone else, buoyed up the somber aura using his near hysterical interpretation of a perplexed highly-intellectual creature whose resentment and despair are so palatable and evocative.

The ending is confusing and stupid.

Harrison Ford had many intriguing parts between instalments of his mega global hit franchises.

There were a lot of scenes that seemed pointless,and a lot of things that seemed unnecessary.

This movie balances the line between interesting and boring.

The look , the acting and everything used in this film is done amazingly it's outstanding and more so its enjoyable to no end.

Everything is dark, the streets should be crowded but are all empty.

The interesting part was the theme, the boring part was that the movie felt like drag at some points.

But what we get instead is so much more violent, intriguing, and spellbinding.

Over all, I don't think its a bad movie, it just has a boring story.

Definitely worth watching, especially on a big screen in full-HD or 4K.

A confusing narrative a frankly weak plot and a lame attempt to imitate the micro elements of the far superior classic noir films, i.

The score by Vangelis is strangely gripping when combined with the striking cinematography of the film.

The plot, the storyline is also boring: some androids (creation) escape slavery to meet their maker, in order to live longer (to make their lives better)...

Ridley doesn't doesn't just produce an amazing film, he produces a stunning, realistic world that, in some parts of this world, doesn't actually seem hat far off.

This plot could have really been crafted into an exciting thriller.

Putting things in your movie at random is too banal and mediocre.

An issue I have with "Blade Runner" is Ridley Scott's dull direction.

Blade Runner is a film is so visually stunning that everything about it becomes etched on your mind.

Pretentiously cold and, at times, frankly boring, it's a fairly rudimentary and somewhat confused study of "where's the line between robot and human?

To those who rely on effects simply to enhance the story, you're in for a boring ride: go and rent T2 or something.

I think that the overall storyline of blade runner is a little confusing since it is hard to keep up with who is a replicate, although that's what makes this movie great because it creates the suspense and gives great actions scenes.

What's presented here is a thorough and intriguing mystery which may confuse some viewers who might be expecting a more violent Star Wars.

The art direction--whether costume, scenic design, or special effects--is simply stunning, creating an extremely dark, sometimes beautiful, but always fascinating vision of a future Los Angeles that has begun to collapse into grotesque decay.

The problem with the film, as I saw it, was the dreary and derivative commentary/voice over by the central character.

The film is also VERY BORING.

Mindless bog, slow dark laughable waste of time and money, terribly poorly sync'd, with all plot holes, silly dialogs and unbearably poor acting of Hannah, Hauer, Harrison and all the rest.

The scenes in which Deckard hunts down the replicants are generally entertaining, and like all great films, the best part comes at the end, in which Deckard finally comes face to face with Batty.

Now my problem with "Blade Runner" is that each version is SLOW!

So much of the film, which is generally fast paced, is saturated with unnecessary objects and images that are almost constantly in motion.

"I am reminded of the universally evocative ancient Hellenistic statue, THE DYING GAUL (230-220 B.

I was bored the entire time.

However, the slow pace and inconsistent tone are still things that plague this sci-fi "classic".

Or was my attention drifting from boredom, I don't know.

Well the main character is given no back story whatsoever and spends the all but the last 10 minutes either apathetic, bored or startled (sidenote: the best bladerunner ever was nearly killed easily twice?

), ask these questions in such a stunning or potent way.

The Extraterrestrial, which came out that same year and had a more light and entertaining mood.

Nor as an action film this piece succeeds, the action scenes, mainly the last one, are slow, without rhythm or movement.

should Definitely give it a rewatch, even if it's a classic am going to be objective, I love the visual concept and its Neo-black aesthetics plus the references to the cyberpunk movement, the director's cut sheds more light on Rick Deckard nature and reinforces the movie's theme and its questioning of human nature although it was slow and full of talking with almost zero action, but its bigger flow is that it lacked a danger factor making some parts boring and hard to follow.

I'd always known this was part of some upper tier of sci-fi filmmaking, along with Brazil, the unfortunate yet still intriguing Dune, and later on, City of Lost Children (and plenty of other things I've since forgotten.

I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott and of movies that take some time to build plot and 'force' the story along at a relative snail's pace providing the characterisation is first rate.


overall boring,waste of time movie1/10

So comfortable that I fell asleep the first two times I tried to watch it.

I would say the pacing of the first act feels weird, but as the movie goes on the tempo gets intense and plot works a lot better.

This showdown is one of the most intriguing showdowns in cinema.

It's not action packed or anything and it's more like a Sci-Fi/Dramma really, however it's extremely engrossing, and quite exciting and thrilling at times, plus i thought Harrison Ford's acting was fantastic!.

This is quite possibly the most visually stunning film of all time.

- THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL, and on the heels of STAR WARS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, the film represented a jarring difference in style and tone for audiences eager for upbeat sci-fi fantasy or thrilling matinée adventures.

This film is just plain boring, nothing much happens.

I just wanted to alert, so people dont waste their time.

This highly stylized film sports a pervasively dark and moody atmosphere that's second only to old German Expressionist films and its art direction is absolutely stunning (particularly Tyrell's Egyptian-esque office set above the bleak LA streets).

I found it insanely slow moving and utterly boring.

An impressive and enjoyable sci-fi film .

It is relative but also highly enjoyable and exceptionally exciting also.

It's pretty sci-fi, a little suspenseful at some points, and definitely NOT a movie to watch with your children.

I expected there to be more spaceships in a film of this type and one of the reasons the film is so boring is that there are none.

The story is very compelling, and also very deep thematically.

As it often happens when you watch ancient classics in a modern age, the strongest feeling evoked by Blade Runner is, unfortunately, boredom.

While "Blade Runner" offers some stunning visual effects (for 1982) and some terrific art direction, it's only meant to create the sci-fi aura needed to make the ideas hit harder.

A visually stunning film that actually improves on subsequent viewings .

The tone of the entire film is somber (it is always raining), and this is what allow us to be so thoroughly absorbed by the fascinating characters (my favorite is Tyrell) and subtle plot development.

Its disturbing, exciting, thought provoking, visually stunning, violent and the acting is extremely good all round.

Worst ever and the most boring ever and forever!

Deckard questions the morality of his job, especially when he meets Tyrell's latest creation, the stunning Rachael (Sean Young), a Replicant who isn't aware of what she is.

Dick's book more intriguing then movie which is really good .

Yet, slow motion dove notwithstanding, I find this new cut tremendously entertaining.

i'm afraid i have to disagree with the high rating this film has(8.3/10)i found it tortuously slow and i couldn't finish watching,though i tried hard.

This part made me laugh more than it did make me feel on the edge of my seat and into the fight.

nice movie but empty ending .

Some people think that this might be "boring" and really need their hands held a little more often, which is why the overlay dialogue was originally put in.

The long drawn out establishing shot of the city is amazingly beautiful and a nice way to start film when accompanied by the interrogation scene which follows it.

I can see a lot of people saying that it is a bore.

The first thing that jumps out is, that despite being over 20 years old, Blade Runner still has stunning visual effects, that show no sign of aging.

The troubled cop character with deep moral questions, love, secrets, deceit, stunning graphics and visuals, and some answers to the big questions we have about life: Why are we here and how long have we got?

It's bland and very poorly directed from an otherwise great director.

and oh yes, boring.

At times nightmarish in its sheer banality, it can be seen to have inspired future generations of directors and writers in film and print.

A brief summary is to say this film is WAY TOO BORING.

Boring .

Harrison Ford is fine in his usual quiet demeanor, but the film is stolen from him by Rutger Hauer with his intense, off beat performance as Roy Batty, the near Christ like Replicant leader.

I love the classic Star Wars movies, and this plot and settings seems like Star Wars/Terminator/The Fugitive/Robocop mixed together; very exciting.

It is a slow, boring, melodramatic movie that has very little humanity (which is part of the premise), and nothing for the viewer to care about.

Surprising, exciting, inconsistent: Blade Runner.

Enjoyable Movie .

Overall, the Blade Runner is a masterpiece and deserves credit and remembrance for its breathtaking effects, the deep philosophical story, amazing cast and its dark, atmospheric tone throughout.

So yeah, these characters are so boring, undeveloped, and such that it is just unappealing.

The world built in Ridley Scott's film and the novel along with the complex philosophical questions proposed by this work of fiction make this piece of entertainment more engaging than just simple sci-fi or action movie.

A compelling, dreamlike exploration of what it really means to be human...

Thus, to search for true personal value in a life thats turns into nothingness is as pointless as trying to find a tear on a persons face when they are crying in the rain.

Sometimes a slow and dated plot, is just a slow and dated plot.....

The visuals are stunning.

But, over and above that, what is indisputable is that the aesthetics of the film are breathtaking.

The beauty of this film lies in the fact that it's mainly the intelligent idea that builds up this thrilling story, not spectacular battles, special effects, or unreal creatures.

Moving on, I thought the effects were truly stunning, given that there was no CGI back then and the design, the look and the feel of the whole thing is superb.

The story that is there is extremely drawn out, and depressing.

Story line slow?

That's fair enough, but on initial viewing I was left bored stiff – when it comes to sinister cybernetic organisms, it doesn't get better than 'The Terminator' (1984)This clinical, emotionally detached approach is common in many of Ridley Scott's earlier work; the whole crew of 'Alien' were forgettable, much like the cast of 'Blade Runner'.

or at least more compelling dialogue.

Boring, slow, dark,depressing.

As a movie, 'Blade Runner' is a stunning achievement, and to me it is still one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made.

The emotional spine is ever present, troubled when violence shows its hand, but it's there posing an intriguing question as the Replicants kill because they want to live.

Action packed, a meaningful story, and a soundtrack that complements the film in a unique and magnificent way.

This movie has a well-written script, a very good cast with amazing interpretations and some unexpected twists that make it even more interesting.

Voice-over, romance and additional side plots are either subdued in the current version or a thing of the past, while the central philosophical theme is now strongly emphasized, and the experience thus gets much more intense.

This film is good and worth watching and is a very good example of CYBORG representation in science fiction films.

Los Angeles is stunning thanks to visual effects designer Syd Mead and direction by Ridley Scott.

So overall story of the movie is so depressing, dark, cruel, very boring, and is completely illogical.

Sleep inducing.

With a haunting musical score by Vangelis that adds a hypnotic quality to those breathtaking megacity landscapes of future Los Angeles.

One is two rethink the entire movie and come up with a lot more plot and fill in the long empty gaps that the movie already has in between the action scenes.

I really enjoyed it.

I found it so dull, boring, and slow-paced -- really not what I have intended in mind.

Breathtaking music of Morricone completes this film creating a true magic on the screen.

OK this movie has a cult following etc. but it is boring and produces limited action.

Boring and pointless, absolutely no substance.

Unfortunately, behind all that science fiction action and distraction, is a thin predictable plot.

I first saw this movie when I was an innocent, unworldly teenager and thought it was boring, slow and though visually very good, disappointing overall.

I think Blade Runner is simply a thrilling and exceptional film.

Worse than anything though is the fact that its just boring.

It was perceived as extremely boring, with a thin narrative plot stretched to the limits, so that the entire movie seems to be in slow motion.

It takes place in 2019, 9 years from now, well it seems like a boring future.

Douglas Trumball's special visual effects are a step beyond stunning.

The main problem with this film it is how it was developed with an extremely slow pace which wastes its interesting plot and entertaining characters.

A flop at the box office in 1982 in light of the new desire of the time for dashing, swashbuckling adventure films, it has found its audience and appreciation in the years that followed,Visually stunning, best suited to night time viewing.

i must give credit to the music, cinematography and style of the film as just visuals of the blade runner world were more exiting and compelling than any other part of this film.

A simple waste of time.

One replicant responds to the threat posed by itchy-trigger-fingered Deckard by demonstrating a killer set of fast-moving handstands.

Honestly movie fans, take away the special visual effects and you have a yawner movie.

The director's cut removes his dull narration and is the better for it.

Dark, sensational and intriguing.

But if you go into it aware of the questions it poses (there aren't really any answers), or you come out of it with many questions, chances are you enjoyed it.

And with that in mind - When it came down to seriously contemplating the infuriatingly "muddle-headed" factor of Blade Runner's boring (yes, Boring!

It works, but its boring.

Maybe the development of the story is a bit slow, but it is still a masterpiece, that not only is beautiful to look at, but also has a unique and fascinating story.

Well-paces, Stylish, Iconic, Intense, Excellent all-around.

Directed by genius film maker, Ridley Scott (Alien, The Martian, Thelma and Louise), Blade Runner is such a unique and intriguing entry into the sci-fi movie genre.

Ridley Scott, its director, has achieved to bring together the settings, the characters and the screenplay to create a thrilling and interesting world, in one of his greatest works.

The acting is great, the plot is compelling, the cinematography and visuals are stellar and have stood the test of time, the script is marvelous, and it challenges you to think.

The sparingly but intense violence is no longer trimmed and the digital polishing makes the picture shine more beautifully and confident than ever before.

Submerged in futuristic noir ambiance and with Ford our stoic Bogart, Blade Runner is an entertaining vicarious midway shooting gallery where the hunted are mere robots.

Even though this movie is not too long, it is very boring.

The character is sidelined, the story goes awry, and the dreary shots of everyday urban Los Angeles, in not-too-distant future gets in your face and repeats itself with staggering consistently.

I have to agree with the great Roger Ebert; this film is visually stunning.

I cannot help but feel myself immersed into the dystopian los Angeles and why do I feel immersed well it is because of its slow and beautiful cinematography that shows almost every detail of this cyberpunk world.

I highly recommend it.

truly bringing to vital & vibrant artistic 'Life' those elusive but fascinating pictures-words/ sights & sounds!

The problem with this film is that it's too dark and boring.

a few years ago and enjoyed it as I do most of the author's work.

Dick is much darker, much more intriguing and is a rare masterpiece.

The film felt a little empty to me.

Sabastians apartment building, filled with constantly moving shafts of light that fill the empty, lonely spaces.

Has some fantastic action scenes, yet also stunning visuals that blow the audience away.

It has perfectly flat, uninteresting characters who are handed inept or trifling exchanges.

The cinematography is impeccable, the art direction is gorgeous and along with some of the best visual effects that have ever been used in film-making, creates one of the most realistic and visually stunning environments that have ever graced a motion picture to this day.

I found it very depressing, overlong and tedious with just endless talking.

A film that is soft of hanging 'in limbo' - and this is why you'll find "Blade-Runner" fascinating and timeless.

When blade runner arrived in the cinemas in 1982, people thought it was boring film and now it is considered to be a epic classic in the movie HISTORY!

Before and after he stopped having his head sticking through the wall had me on the edge of my seat though.

Here are some negatives: Very slow pace (yes, I have been too affected today's films), completely unbelievable scientific advancements (especially for 2019), and bad sound effects.

Aesthetically powerful, slow philosophical Sci-Fi .

Many intriguing twists are incorporated in the story, involving the essence of slavery and the attempts to escape that state, whether knowing or unknowing.

Pretty, but boring.

The characters are completely uninteresting and the film isn't deep or genuinely philosophical enough to warrant the attention it asks us to pay.

From the chase scene with Zora to the flybys over the city capturing a stunning skyline,chimneys and skyscrapers in one shot.

Even on my consistent viewings of Blade Runner I still gain the cold feeling I got the first time when I saw the stunning array of beauty of the film holds, even in the darkest of moments.

Moving on, I thought the effects were truly stunning, given that there was no CGI back then, although it has been used to enhance certain things in this cut, and the design, the look and the feel of the whole thing is superb.

And the ending was little bit confusing when villain dies...

Nearly everyone remarks on the visuals of BR, so let's get that out of the way: amazing, stunning, and remarkable.

Los Angeles has become a mixture of nationalities and customs in which it is seemingly dull and dank except for the glimpses of blazing sun that basks its heat over the Tyrell building.

And that's the beauty of it, love it or hate it, something so engrossing as such will not leave you alone.

Definitely a movie worth watching.

mostly slow, with a burst of action here and there.

His prey, the replicants are also intriguing in their own ways: Batty, Pris and Leon.

It was boring then and still is now.

The visuals are stunning, the music is awesome and it has a really great atmosphere, but the story is illogical and extremely confusing, the movie does very poor job of explaining things, almost all the characters act really weird and over-the-top and the fight scenes are ridiculous.

While the setting and atmosphere was nothing short of spectacular in Ridley's "Blade Runner" from 1982, then the movie was just incredibly slow in progressing anywhere.

Stunning futuristic film noir .

My conclusion is that Blade Runner is a gorgeous, creepy and groundbreaking masterpiece that asks fascinating questions such as what does it mean to be human?

The beginning was definitely a bit confusing.

How this film has been underrated when it came out (mediocre, dull etc)!

The plots are usually slow burning and contain social commentary or a self-reflexive narrative.

the music was Great,The directing and writing were pretty good and I found myself immersed in the movie and I was never bored, the movie constantly had me thinking and I Like Thinking movies that make you wonder about things.


This is the concept and story of the film with a LOT of pointless quiet time splitting things up to extend run time and probably just to keep the budget below a certain threshold.

the movie is visually stunning and the future world has shown very beautifully in the movie.

So much time is spent with nothing happening.

Great sets, creative with some good music, I just found Harrison Ford to be a bore, the story was boring, the script was mostly boring, and I found very little deepness inside the film, just a letdown really...

As Rhutger Hauer said in the BBC documentary 'On the edge of Blade Runner', 'Ridley Scott showed us the future, and it was old.

It is extremely enjoyable, and it is easy to understand how the film has drawn so many enthusiastic fans.

Both of these elements blend excellently with the characters, which are intriguing as they are dark.

The plot is quite simple yet intriguing, because of the philosophic and moral implication: i have to admit that i cried in the ending sequence, when the replicant Roy spares the life of Rick Deckard, the killer of his friends, an extreme act of humanity.

At first glance, it can be a bit slow.

), and we get the stunning introduction to what the City of Angels has become.

The even sadder part is that you were right all along, making it incredibly predictable, thus spoiling everything that could have generated even a bit of emotion or drama.

After 22 years Blade Runner is still an exciting entertaining movie.

In the end, it is the "film noir" side of "Blade Runner" that is exciting to watch along with its versatile cast of players.

Watching the Director's cut, I found it as engaging as I remember.

One of the most influential works of sci-fi & a prime example of neo-noir cinema, Blade Runner is an impeccable blend of jaw-dropping art direction, groundbreaking special effects, breathtaking photography, stellar sound & iconic score, and was way ahead of its time.

It's kind of slow, boring, and repetitive.

The rest of the time you get an interesting view of a 1982 director's concept of the era which we are now living in but the rest is JUST SO SLOW.

The love-story sequences between Ford and robotic beauty Sean Young feel like pure melodramatic padding whereas sublime actors in intriguing supportive roles (M.

It's a visually stunning film (You sort of get caught up in the scenery)and the music by Vangelis is even more stunning.

The first being the stunning aesthetic from beginning to end.

But for it's rare watch for me, it's stunning and psychotic when it comes to the characters and the dystopian setting.

Stunning piece of visionary sci-fi .

I tend to think even BttF trilogy had more philosophical moments :( Don't waste your time on this movie!

Visually impressive but too slow and not very engaging .

Blade Runner is a suspenseful film containing several plot twists and important minor details.

Visually stunning.

A film subtly compelling.

On one level, it is perfect for an artificial character whose life is an empty shell.

I'll just mention the biggest cliche in this film: the notion of the future as dark, bleak, polluted (greenies, rejoice!

but as a result, I found the movie mostly dull.

The acting, set design, wardrobe and cinematography is stunning.

Great atmosphere, visually groundbreaking, little plot, very slow .

We never really delve into his character; but at the same time, that ensures that the mystery surrounding him is kept up, which serves in making our protagonist all the more intriguing.

Harrison Ford was the most boring, uninteresting character I have ever laid my eyes on, there was nothing about him that grabbed me ever.

Ut seems they were all dead bored with this curio, and endless steamy dark scenes only build up a bigger misery that this film evokes.

The movie started off way too slow for me and could not get interested in it.

I wont argue that the film was very artfully shot, but the story was slow and just bizarre.

My three stars suggest that this is not my type of film, which is quite surprising to myself as I generally can bear with a lot of mediocre slow paced films as well.

Dick story is compelling.

The action scenes are intermittent which adds to the authenticity of the events and juxtaposes the formulaic explosive sci fi action films of recent times.

", the film stands so well on its own that I left the theater overwhelmed and feeling even a bit privileged to have had the chance to view this incredible film on the big screen and learn to appreciate it more.

Ok, if you look closely you can see the models here, but when sitting back and absorbing the movie as a whole one doesn't really notice.

With the tense scenes and the ones were they would let off some of the tension, while there was still an unexpected twist always around the Corner.

Overrated and Boring .

Obviously, this has all the ingredients to be a thrilling action flick.

Bland yawner .

I'd personally rather watch paint dry then this muck of trash ever again.

With a riveting story, depth to characters and amazing memorable acting from Harrison Ford, Sean Young, Joe Turkel and most of all the superb Rutger Hauer.

Beautifully shot on stunning stylized sets by director Ridley Scott, fresh off another totally original success with his earlier film, 'Alien' Scott manages to create a future as unpredictable as the actual passing of time.

Instead, by taking a simple narrative idea and framing it in the world with some of the characters from the novel, you end up with an incredibly strong story that never seeks to confuse or confound you, with a 'bad guy' so compelling and human it crosses into anti-hero and anti-villain.

If it's not the vast array of textural surfaces and thematic layering, it's the performances from Ford and Hauer that prove engaging (again and again).

Hauer steals the movie from the seemingly disinterested Ford, particularly in the film's stunning finale.

The movie most of the part have slow pace.

I was a little bored and nothing really happened.

Its climax is very moving and engaging and it's one of the more memorable scenes from the 80's.

SPOILERS includedFirst of all, I'd like to say that everytime I think about this film I think of it as being stunning, but when I genuinely think about it, a lot of it I find dull.

From the very first scene the director, Ridley Scott, sets the mood with stunning visuals and sound.

I also thought the slow nature was a bit too boring.

Unique and endlessly fascinating .

In fact I thought it was pretty flat and even quite boring at times.

Blade Runner has a very weak story line, a slow pace, and poor character development.

I mean to think that this sort of unwatchable,disturbing thing be inflicted upon the world is sad.

A stunning work of sci-fi beauty .

Looking back at movies from the mid to late 20th century that take place in the early to mid 21st century can be quite entertaining.

And o my god how predictable can a movie be???

What better testimony to the confusion of its message than that the director himself has so often re-written it?

The plot is a lot like "The Fugitive," with super-smart androids in place of humans, and the jaded cop (played by Harrison Ford's hunky monotone) designed to track four of the rogues down.

and rather dull.