I find its central philosophy problematic as it's presented in the film (at least; I've not read Dick's short, but would like to).
I'm not convinced that intelligence can exist independent of emotion. Computers that lack human emotions in cinema seem gifted at sarcasm and teasingly light-hearted wit (are these not human emotions?). Result: "human emotions = the capacity to fall in love"; nothing more - everything else is fair game.
I found some of it (dialogue, slow-motion, that forced feeling of grandeur) quite risible; it looks beautiful, though, and I love the music too. Also like the surreal pace and lengthy bouts of non-action, but the narrative shifts to the droids were dull and problematic - we watched it as part of my film noir unit, and this film's shifts away from the protagonist's subjective gaze annoyed me.
I do find the existential premise fascinating in itself: what does it mean to be human? But the direct lifts from Descartes ("I think, therefore I am!"), combined with otherwise ellipsis, were far from profound. Does Dick's story lift from Descartes? I know his protagonist has a similar name.
I don't know; I'd be interested in reading a positive reply from you, JG.
As I said at FCM, BLADE RUNNER is like an Italian Wife: Either you love it or you beat it. There is no middle-ground for it. That's why you see either devoted fans or people who rather voluntarily rip their own nails out than watch it again.
You talk about the problematic emotional matrix of the movie, and I point to the silent scene after Ford shot the female replicant in the back as she was fleeing. He knows she aint a human, yet he obviously is bothered severely that he still shot a woman, real or not, in the back while running for its dear life.
I always liked the concept that all the humans are more like the replicants while the latter are being, for better or for worse, more human than the humans.
