Blade Runner is too convinced that its central premise, "What does it mean to be human", is the first time it's been asked in the manner that it has. I suppose that's fair enough, and it's fascinating if you want to go along for the ride, but I find the narrative shifts between Deckard (Descartes?) and the drones problematic; it has no consistent subjective gaze, for a film so strongly about 'seeing' (recurring shots of eyes, etc.). It's too convinced that its ending is beautiful, that its elliptical development is intriguing, that its action set-pieces are weird enough so as to be unforgettable, that it has something profound to say...

...which it might (I'd like to read the book), but existentialism alone doesn't make a film unforgettable. I do like the mise-en-scene, but it hasn't dated too well in its aesthetics; baroque grandeur and risible slow-motion. Perhaps the final cut addresses these problems; I found its silences and gestures of inertia dull, and found it most interesting as a conglomeration of cultures and races to the point of humanity losing its identity - and perfection reached only in the machines it makes.

I don't hate it at all, and it's certainly not rubbish as a whole; I just find it underwhelming, a big mighty "meh". I've seen the director's cut twice now, once on the big screen. Will watch the final cut if it ever comes my way.