Critics’ reviews

Blade Runner (1982)

7 reviews from 7 publications. Critics’ score 80: 6 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Blade Runner

80
Positive
6
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to Blade Runner, with praise concentrated on its densely detailed future city, production design and special effects. The reviews repeatedly return to the mix of sleek surfaces, grime and neon, crediting Ridley Scott with making the setting compelling even when the detective story is less persuasive. Rutger Hauer’s performance also draws particular praise, while several critics find lasting substance in the film’s questions about humanity and its bleak atmosphere.

The main disagreement concerns how well the storytelling holds up beside the images, with responses ranging from qualified admiration to strong enthusiasm. RogerEbert.com and The New York Times both argue that the effects overwhelm the story, with the latter offering the most mixed assessment. Time Out’s enthusiastic response specifically concerns the restored Director’s Cut, which it finds clearer and emotionally richer; the different versions therefore matter to how these reviews judge the film.

Time Out
10 September 2012 · NF
90*

This restored Director's Cut removes the studio-imposed voice-over and happy ending that marred the original theatrical version. The result is a flawless masterpiece that clarifies the story and deepens its emotional and thematic layers.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
21 June 2016 · Robert Osborne
85*

The critic finds the film a cold, bold, bizarre and mesmerizing futuristic detective thriller that is a triumph for Scott. He singles out the strong sense of style and relentlessness, along with breathtaking production design and special effects.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 1982 · Andrew Collins
80*

The critic notes the film's initial commercial failure leading to cult status and later critical reappraisal upon re-release. He highlights its compelling vision of a future blending sleek and ugly elements alongside its rich allegory.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
2 June 1982 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

The film is a stunning visual achievement in its futuristic world-building and special effects but fails as a story, with the technology overwhelming the characters and narrative.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
25 June 1982 · Janet Maslin
60*

Ridley Scott's film offers a meticulously detailed and mesmerizing view of a bleak future Los Angeles but is muddled, with special effects running away with the story.

Read the full review →
Collider
3 August 2022 · A · Rae Torres
95

The critic calls the film a visual and atmospheric masterpiece whose slow pace and philosophical questions about humanity still resonate decades later. Particular praise goes to the iconic 'Tears in Rain' monologue and Rutger Hauer's performance, though the sex scene is noted as dated.

Read the full review →
The Ringer
5 October 2017 · Rob Harvilla
80*

The essay positions the film as the truest capture of Philip K. Dick's spirit despite liberties taken with the source novel. It highlights the grimy neon atmosphere, Rutger Hauer's performance, and the way the movie turns a dour story into something more cinematic and memorable.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate