• 100
    Jonathan Rosenbaum Chicago Reader
    The grafting of 40s hard-boiled detective story with SF thriller creates some dysfunctional overlaps, and the movie loses some force whenever violence takes over, yet this remains a truly extraordinary, densely imagined version of both the future and the present, with a look and taste all its own.
  • 100
    Chicago Tribune
    Most important, several elements -- the film's tough, new ending; a sly, fleeting dissolve of a unicorn, not in the original; and a brilliant, trompe d'oeil flicker of life in a shot of a still photograph -- bring Deckard's existential dilemma into focus. [11 Sept 1992]
  • 100
    Los Angeles Times
    May be the best "new" American movie released this year. [11 Sept 1992]
  • 100
    Desson Thomson Washington Post
    This movie is great in any version...I don't miss what has been cut from the new version. The overall effect is so beautifully wrought, a few details aren't going to bring things crashing down.
  • 100
    Rita Kempley Washington Post
    Grand enough in scale to carry its many Biblical and mythological references, Blade Runner never feels heavy or pretentious -- only more and more engrossing with each viewing. It helps, too, that it works as pure entertainment.
  • 91
    Owen Gleiberman Entertainment Weekly
    This is perhaps the only science-fiction film that can be called transcendental.
  • 88
    Susan Wloszczyna USA Today
    What remains is a great Vangelis score, astonishing production design, Hauer's career role -- and a movie that deserves its cult reputation despite an unloving heart. [11 Sept 1992]
  • 75
    Edward Guthmann San Francisco Chronicle
    Today, Blade Runner works better than ever: Scott's version not only has more dramatic integrity, but its visual aesthetic and futuristic vision are more in sync with today's movie-goers. [11 Sept 1992]
  • 75
    Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times
    It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story.
  • 38
    David Sterritt Christian Science Monitor
    As before, the movie is more impressive for its finely detailed vision of Los Angeles as a futuristic slum than for its story, acting, or message. It's all downhill after the first few eye-dazzling minutes. [2 Oct 1992]