Deckard is a replicant.

Okay, I have gotten that out of the way. Sorry if I spoiled it for you, but after almost thirty years, any film fan is bound to know this. And likely, if you know nothing else about Blade Runner, you do know the truth about Deckard.

But at one point in time, much like the dream vs. reality debate that concludes Inception, it was up to the audience to decide on Deckard. But ever since the film became a critically acclaimed masterpiece, years after it was panned and flopped out of theatres, director Ridley Scott has made it his personal mission to ensure there is no debate on the topic whatsoever. Just that one answer; one that was hidden at first, but has become all so blatant since.

But before I to that, we need to discuss Blade Runner. Taken from Philip K. Dick’s short story “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, the film takes place in the not so distant 2019, where Los Angeles has become a dreadful, rain-soaked metropolis, seemingly covered in permanent night. Advanced robots, called replicants, have been created to replicate and learn from human behavior, to the point that one may never even notice a difference between them. A group of replicants was mining in what is referred to as the “off-world colony”, and have secretly returned to Earth. Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), the titular blade runner -- a bounty hunter who “retires” replicants -- is called in to take out the group, before anyone finds out they have returned.

I hated Blade Runner the first time I saw it. I thought it was boring, I fell asleep more than once, and the ending left a lot to be desired. But it was never meant to be a film that could be watched just once. Blade Runner is an immersive experience, with multiple layers of meaning and understanding wrapped unto itself.

While it explores concepts revolving around humanity and existentialism, it more importantly is invested in ideas regarding what it means to truly be alive. If the replicants are not retired by a blade runner, they still have a predetermined expiration date. None of them know what it is, and that plays into their ultimate quest for life. As the leader of the rebellion of replicants Roy Batty (played by a never better Rutger Hauer) tells Deckard “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain...” He just wants what everyone wants -- the chance to live and appreciate the time we are given. Despite being a science fiction film, Blade Runner helps to define this universal concept brilliantly, leaving a grand legacy for all the films in the genre to follow.

If that conceptual legacy was not enough, the influential look and feel of the film is simply outstanding. It may have been made in 1982, but everything holds up to this very day. Whether it is flying cars, oddly moving billboard advertisements, towering buildings, or the dark haze that envelopes everything – it just looks magnificently dark and dystopic. Scott set out to create a nightmare, and he brilliantly succeeds at every turn. I have heard Blade Runner referred to as an art film, and I would not argue. There is a special touch placed on every scene, making each look more beautiful and horrific than the next. This was the predicted look of the world thirty years ago, and a lot of it has come true for some nations. Just looking at the designs and sheer elegance of the terrible predictions boldly made all those years ago makes an even timelier reason to watch the film now. The meticulously crafted look and feel is so great you can practically taste the grittiness. Movies like Dark City and The Matrix would be nothing without the revelations given to us by Blade Runner.

The acting is a bit of a mixed bag. Ford plays the detective like a gumshoe out of a 40’s noir, and it is a role he has never really returned to. He is underplayed, beaten up, and more of a conflicted anti-hero than anything else. The sorrow in his eyes, the inherent indecision, his lack of understanding the world and people around him -- all of it is great, and well done by a man who made his career off playing heroes. Sean Young is good as the replicant Rachael, spending the movie confused about her true nature. The horror and sadness in not knowing the truth is heartbreaking. You feel for her, and you understand her pain, even though you are not a robot (hopefully). M. Emmet Walsh, Daryl Hannah, William Sanderson and an almost completely unintelligible Edward James Olmos all put in effective and well done supporting turns.

But it is Hauer who really knocks the film out of the park with his startling performance as Batty. He is a scary and pathetic all at once. We know that he just wants to live, but he is a downright terrifying character trying to express his greatest desires. His lines just send chills down your spine every time. This is a role he has never managed to equal, and for good reason. He is just that good communicating the themes of the film, and is the real emotional core of the film.

But for all of my praise, here is my main problem with Blade Runner. There are no less than five versions of the film currently available on DVD and Blu-ray (three of which are only available in special collector’s sets), and none of them is truly definitive. You either get the unwatchably sappy happy ending and narration for dummies, or you get unicorns and an all too overstated idea that ruins the discovery about Deckard’s true nature (something that should have always stayed hinted at, and never revealed blatantly). And in between, you can get cleaned up visuals, more blood/violence, and alternate lines and scenes. Scott may claim “The Final Cut” is his definitive version, and that the production and post-production were marred with problems and studio interference, but the fact that each version is so radically different from the next says a lot for the film.

I have only ever seen the U.S. Theatrical Cut and the original Director’s Cut versions of the film, but I can only imagine what someone who saw and loved the film in 1982 will feel now that there are so many different versions that exist. Can they really continue to appreciate one over the other? It just feels so conflicted and so silly to praise Scott for his vision, when even he does not seem all too certain of what his vision should be or even what it should look like.

Blade Runner is an admirable masterpiece, but one whose legacy is forever tarnished because there is just no one perfect version to watch. Each fan has their preferred cut, and even Scott seems to change how he feels about the film more times than George Lucas does with the Star Wars franchise. Despite this, Blade Runner remains one of the best science fiction tales ever created, and one hell of a dystopic nightmare. It hits harder now because of how much it predicted would eventually happen with our cities, and will likely continue to stay just as relevant as ever.

It is just too bad that everyone already knows the ending.

   -- David Baldwin