Blade Runner was selected for preservation in the US National Film Registry

[Mr. Joshua]

“Blade Runner” was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” The film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in 1993 and is frequently taught in university courses. In 2007, it was named the 2nd most visually influential film of all time by the Visual Effects Society.

[Canada]

It may have been very influential but I still don't like it.

[joltman]

I actually just saw this for the first time a couple weeks ago, and totally don't understand the huge praise for this. I mean, it looked good, and I didn't hate it, it just didn't seem like anything special to me.

[bhampton]

I can't imagine that news would change anyone's opinion on the film.

I neither loved or hated it, I actually don't feel strongly about it. It's just another sci fi film to me. When I saw it in theaters as a kid it about bored me to death but I can enjoy it now. It's a bit daft and slow but Han Solo is in it so it gets points for that.

-Brian

[Batman1980]

Yeah I think it's one of those films people either love or just don't like, I'm in the latter category. Strong performances, pleasing visuals, the movie itself just fell flat for me.

[wilky61]

Yeah, why can't those of us who "get" Blade Runner just keep the secret to ourselves?

However, I still maintain the belief that a film viewer without a grounding in film-noir is less likely to enjoy/"get" the movie than a viewer with this context.

[miller_time22]

For those that didn't like or were lukewarm on Blade Runner, I'd recommend another viewing of the film more than I'd point them to its inclusion in the National Film Registry.

I think it's a film that benefits greatly from multiple viewings. Luckily, all the different versions on the blu-ray give ample opportunity for that.

Having said that, even it's fans probably recognize it's not a film for everyone, which is fine.

[Tachaeon]

Originally Posted by joltman

I actually just saw this for the first time a couple weeks ago, and totally don't understand the huge praise for this. I mean, it looked good, and I didn't hate it, it just didn't seem like anything special to me.

Sure people might not like Blade Runner for the story. You have to realize that back in 1982 it was the most visually stunning movie of its time. Even on Blu-ray I still say "wow". Just think if you saw this back in its day, you'd say holy crap this looks awesome!

[wilky61]

Originally Posted by Tachaeon

Sure people might not like Blade Runner for the story. You have to realize that back in 1982 it was the most visually stunning movie of its time. Even on Blu-ray I still say "wow". Just think if you saw this back in its day, you'd say holy crap this looks awesome!

I dunno about that, I always thought the film was too dark until they 2007-ified the special effects. I was never a fan of the special effects of the 1980s, and Blade Runner used to look a lot darker in older releases/formats than it does now. Upon my first viewing of the film (the 1992 Director's Cut), I thought the story/human drama was pretty good (how about Roy Batty's lines on the rooftop!!) but that the effects/visual prowess were completely overrated.

I still think 2001: A Space Odyssey is probably the most visually stunning movie of all-time, and that movie's approaching 45 years old. Apocalypse Now is a pretty good honorable mention, not sci-fi but closer in proximity to BR.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by wilky61

Upon my first viewing of the film (the 1992 Director's Cut), I thought the story/human drama was pretty good (how about Roy Batty's lines on the rooftop!!) but that the effects/visual prowess were completely overrated.

That was a pretty reasonable reaction because I think fans of the film sometimes unintentionally oversell the effects. There's no question it's a visually stunning film but relatively little of that has to do with effects.

The effects were very good but as you say, even by contemporary standards (Alien would be another good example) they didn't really break a lot of new ground.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Canada

It may have been very influential but I still don't like it.

Not everyone has properly calibrated tastes.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

“Blade Runner” was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” The film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in 1993 and is frequently taught in university courses. In 2007, it was named the 2nd most visually influential film of all time by the Visual Effects Society.

I like the movie a lot. BUT... this shouldn't change anyone's opinion about the film.

Everyone has different tastes. And not liking a movie doesn't make you a "hater". So your point is lost.

[wickerjay]

Originally Posted by hd goofnut

not everyone has properly calibrated tastes.

+1

[blufellas]

I like the movie, but I don't think its great. I give it a..... 7/10

[Monkey]

I enjoyed it more when I was younger. I fell asleep the last time I tried to watch my blu-ray. The soundtrack has some great tracks at least

[Belloche]

Blade Runner has always divided people. I think it belongs among the greatest science fiction movies ever made. I don't think the genre has been treated with as much respect since and I don't think it ever will be again. It represents some amazing artists at the top of their game.

[filmnut5]

"Blade Runner" flatout "SMOKES". I Love the storyline and visually it was WAY ahead of it's time. I truly feel it is more appealing, visually, than Lucas' original SW trilogy. Having said that, I've also never experienced such drastic division for a single film. My buddy (a Sci-Fi nut) HATES it. In fact he has never been able to watch the entire film without nodding off.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by filmnut5

"Blade Runner" flatout "SMOKES". I Love the storyline and visually it was WAY ahead of it's time. I truly feel it is more appealing, visually, than Lucas' original SW trilogy. Having said that, I've also never experienced such drastic division for a single film. My buddy (a Sci-Fi nut) HATES it. In fact he has never been able to watch the entire film without nodding off.

Yea, one of my best friends who shares similar tastes in movies as me absolutely hates this film, however I have meet people who have found the theatrical version of 'Apocalypse Now' boring.


But there is yet to be a film made that everybody likes, though I am hoping that might change in the next couple of years.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

I saw it in it's first theatrical run, and was bored beyond belief, even though I completely understood the film.

I bought the VHS edition, and was bored beyond belief, even though I completely understood the film.

Fast forward many years, and my tastes have changed somewhat; any 30-year span will do that to a person, that's just how it is.

I bought the 5-disc blu-ray set when it went on sale super-cheap at Deep Discount; I'd planned on giving this film another chance after reading years of fan-boy praise for it on the 'net. When it arrived, I watched each version....and was bored beyond belief.

I sold it for $10 more than I paid for it at my last garage sale.

[Snowmaker]

Originally Posted by Canada

It may have been very influential but I still don't like it.

I've watched every cut of this movie hoping it would be better than the last and each time I am just bored to death. I just don't get the appeal.