I completely agree with the last comment; the 'Is Deckard a replicant?' question is a complete red herring. For me one of the key themes of the movie is the role reversal that occurs between Deckard and Batty. Batty becomes more human during the course as the film, as Deckard is progressively dehumanised by his job as a blade runner. The key scene of Batty's death is robbed of all meaning if Deck's a rep. My understanding is that the inserted unicorn scene and other hints that Deckard is perhaps a replicant are there to set up a potential sequel. The film as it was originally released had closure, but with Deckard as a replicant there are plot lines that can be pursued in a follow up. The unicorn is so utterly incongruous I wince every time I see it, as the rest of the movie is so gob-smackingly beautiful, even after numerous viewings.

Phil, Aylesbury, UK

Blade Runner has been my favorite movie since it first came out. I have seen this movie hundreds, if not thousands, of times. Ok, call it an obsession. Anyway, I recommend seeing the Directors Cut before the final cut. The Final Cut is too beautiful and pristine. Also, one of my favorite lines in the movie has been censored. I actually yelled out "NO!" Yes, folks call it an obsession... I will add that I am thankful to Ridley Scott for it appears it is an obsession for him too... I like to see the transformation- but I am not a fan of perfection.
Erin B.- Buffalo, New York

Erin, Buffalo, New York

This review is odd as it doesn't seem to take into account the directors cut early 90's version which had already gone through all the unicorn speculation and the voice over had also been removed. The reason the final cut has been released is because Scott was not happy with the directors cut and also because the DVD version realeased in the late 90's was of very poor quality in sound and picture (I have it myself)

I have just bought the HD 5 disc version (available in the US) which has all known versions including a work cut and some brilliant documentaries including input from Harriscon Ford. This film was a very troubled shoot and Harrison Ford hated working on it. It went over budget and there were all sorts of legal wranglings which delayed this release. This film is worthy of this release as it shows off a film in pristine condition done the way a director had originaly wanted. This is a masterpiece and Batty's death scene is one of the greatest movie scenes ever filmed.

justin, Ireland,

I have always loved the voice over. It carries the tradition of Phillip Marlowe and various noir movies of the late forties and early fifties into the future. "Sushi. That's what my ex-wife called me - cold fish." It is one of the elements of the movie that make it truly noir. I also like the "happy ending". How happy is it really? Remember the last line. "I didn't know how long we had together. Who does?" Brilliant.

Terry, Jerome, Arizona

Looking forward to seeing the new version, but I have always been a fan of Ford's voice-over as it really adds to the movie. It gives an insight to his character that is sorely missing in the "director's cut". I would love to see the movie with the voice-over, no silly unicore sceen, and without the happy ending. And now I want a sequel that is worthy of the original (no Star Wars or Matrix crapola).

bob, new york,

as you mentiom blade runner is really a masterpiece in which mr scott demonstrates that replicants are truely more human than those who call themselves human.
the real hero of the movie is roy batty or raechel or zhora or pris but certainly not deckard.
however one thing remains unjustiable and it's yhe killing of sebastian by roy. roy cannot be so cruel to sebastian who helped him to find tyrel
and how come roy in the end saves his arch-enemy (deckard) from a certain death and about an hour before he kills an innocent harmless person (sebastian) who helped roy.
i just think this cannot be justified at all. roy could have threatend sebastian to kill him if he denounces roy to police.
roy should have let sebastian to go away and vanish or just stay with but killing him cannot be justified at all.

michel, tehran, iran

The unicorn insert is not silly as if you recall there is a unicorn in the background in Sebastian's apartment. Indeed Sebastian can't resist boasting that there's a little bit of me in you to Pris and Batty. Then the unicorn origami at the end - I think these indicate Deckard's true origins. Just watched the Final Cut last night - enjoyed it all over again - yes Holden does resemble a younger Deckard. Blade Runner is a film that always stuns by its daring and its ability to look contemporary despite being 25 yrs old. It introducd me to Philip K Dick and his work and Blade Runner in all its incarnation is a fitting tribute to him.

carole`, London, Uk

I've just had the pleasure of watching the final cut, and was transfixed. I must say, many of the people who are critical of Scott having had a final production turn with his masterpiece have missed the point. The tremendous effort of bringing the diamond-like lustre of the new print to the DVD has been both brave and a great service to those who care to contemplate its release. Brave because he must have realised that two director's cuts of the same film (no matter how good it is) would produce precisely the 'critique' some of the commentators have made: 'Scott and his backers are only in it for the money.' And the service: the first director's cut wasn't greatly different to the 2007 version. But what is added is the (obviously) loving transformation of the print into its full digital splendour. Remember, 1991 brought its re-release in VHS format, and technology has come a long way since then. So, the revised version in 1991, and the realisation of its full visual potential in 2007.

Felix, Adelaide, Australia

Blade Runner makes it into my all time top ten favorite films, and as a result I already own 3 versions of the film; the original version on video, directors cut on video and a directors cut on DVD. Now we have the 'final cut' on DVD, and I assume at some point this will be offered in a HD format (or two), but not until the DVD 'final cut' franchise has be thoroughly milked. For the movie buying public, this is too much. How many times have we seen standard versions, box set versions, the extended version, the deluxe extended version, the HD deluxe extended version and so on ad infinitem. Fans buy thier favorite film as it is released, and are then annoyed at the plethora of updated versions. Who wants multiple slightly different versions of each film...surely this need can now be satisfied with the Gigabytes of space on HD formats - chose long or short version, HD or SD and one to load onto your portable media player...Job done!

Mick, Aldershot, UK

The original version is the one everyone should see first. The reason why critics jabber on about the director's cut is that they saw the producers' version first, and so they know what's going on. The director's cut is self-indulgent and confusing. The unicorn insert is silly. I also saw the earlier director's version (the "first cut"?) at the Nuart in West L.A., and it was nothing special -- closer to the third version, but only about 2 minutes different from the original. This is one of my top 10 favorite movies. I do not mind that Ridley Scott wants to mess with it. But let's not pretend that a director necessarily has the best judgment about a movie.

Sierra Slim, Nevada City, California

None of the scenes mentioned in the review are any different from the director's cut that was released years ago. Does anyone know if there's anything new?

A, A,

All one needs to know on the subject of Deckard's Replicant status is delivered visually in the early moments of the film where Holden is interviewing Leon. In a brilliant move of casting, Morgan Paull (Holden) looks like a clean, new model of Harisson Ford's Deckard. This is no accident.

That... and reading Dick's book. Its much clearer that Deckard is indeed a replicant himself. A more emotionally finely tuned model than even Roy Batty. "More human than human" and yet still, detached. Because, in the future (now) AREN'T WE?

Films about the future, after all, aren't about the future at all but about the present. The timing of Scott's reduex is no accident to the current socio/political state we find ourselves in.

Its time we all reattached and paid attention to what's on the ground. In the deep shadows of the street. Not the infotainment floating by above our heads on the larger yet video screens of the world wide corporate mega entities.

Lest we all become Electric Sheep.

TJ Civis, Portland, OR

Blade Runner has endured over time, and it has taken til now for it to receive a director approved cut. A dark and unsettling movie, it's atmospheric beauty has rarely been recaptured. At time of this review, this movie is being shown at the Curzon's Renoir Cinema, and having viewed this movie at home and theatrically, it must be said that the cinema experience makes a world of difference to the way this movie is interpreted.
Whilst it is great to own the DVD, I urge everyone to go out and view this film theatrically, it is not that often this movie is shown in UK cinemas, and you may be waiting a long time. Although it sounds unlikely right now, cinemas may soon not even exist soon, so use them whilst you have them. Blade Runner has never looked or sounded better! The theatrical release is limited to a week, so by the time you read this it may already have ended so go go go!

I A, London, UK

Roy's character is Christ-like. He ends up saving deckard and ostensibly gives up his own life in the process. The dove (symbolizing peace) in one of roy's hands and the spike in the other (nail in the cross) are important symbols near the end of the film. Gaff's remark that "no one lives forever" also has a strong tinge of irony here, recalling the everlasting life promised by Christianity.

Deckard (almost certainly a replicant as evidenced by the unicorn origami n the final scene) and rachel escape to form a new life...to love each other. to have children? to perpetuate new replicant life on earth? life everlasting?

John B., new york, new york

Someone mentioned that Batty killing JF Sebastian was inconsistent with his character as he then saves the life of Deckard. I think the point is that Batty is frustrated at knowing his life will indeed be lost after only a few years alive. Like all children he acts without thinking. He kills Tyrell who has just made this clear to him and then he goes on a rampage which does not stop until he saves Deckard. It is THAT moment when the realisation comes to him about how precious life is.
What a great film.

Anthony, Loughton, UK, Essex

it is not justifiable at all that roy batty kills an innocent harmless person that is sebastian an then in the end the same roy batty saves his arch enemy deckard. so here i disagree with the vision of mr scott but nontheless this movie remains a masterpiece of all times in showing and demonstrating how cruel and inhumane the humans become
and replicants ARE truely more human than human

michel manoucheri, paris, france

The six replicants issue has already been dealt with in Paul Sammon's excellent book "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner." Bryant's "six" replicants was an editing error, as in an earlier version of the film there was a scene of a sixth replicant, named "Mary," dying, with the other five watching her. I believe she was even cast and the scene filmed, but it was cut - they just never looped back to change what Bryant said. Hopefully this continuity error will be fixed in the Final Cut, but Deckard is NOT the sixth replicant.

As for the "cheesiness" of the dove - the dove is actually a very common symbol for the soul in medieval and renaissance religious painting. The brilliance of the scene is that it can be interpreted either way: is it a replacement for the soul that Roy does not have, or does it indicate that Roy's soul ascends through the redemptive act of saving Deckard's life?

Mike Johnson, Grand Haven, Michigan, US

Antenna's suggestion that the Tyrell that Roy Batty kills is actually a replicant of a 'cryogenically frozen' Tyrell is a real Philip K. Dick styled treat of an idea that I totally like the sound of! Lets hope its in the new version.

Tyrell as a deceased Disney-like clone who can 'live forever' as a replicant is ace! This film is so multi-layered. That idea adds yet further depth which keeps the fascination of it all so fresh when revisiting the film / book.

Having said that, I'm still bemused as to what exactly is in the latest release that is that much different from the versions we are all familiar with. Maybe they've digitally cleaned the film up and enhanced the sound with the intension of adding more intense atmosphere of LA 2019.

I hope the hospital scene is in there too where Deckard visits his predecessor, Holden, who interviewed Leon.

By the way, my family had 5 owls living in a tree nearby recently, I wonder what they'd be worth to Tyrell Corp?

Jonathan Orme, Wirral, UK

yes it does mention 6 replicants. but if you check, there is a missing scene in the film, featuring another replicant. unfortunately the scece was deleted, but the original scene that mentions the 6 replicants was kept in the movie. they actually re-recorded the scene, but left the 6 replicants in. therefore, Deckard is not the 6th replicant in this case.

steven price, penarth, vale of glam

Adam, eastcote,pinner, UK: "So, one - dead, two - Priss, three - Leon, four - Roy, five - Zhora. And that's it.
One missing - and that's Deckard."

Wrong. There was an additional scene planned in the screenplay with the "missing" replicant. It never made it onto celluloid. Nice theory though....

Dan, Hampton, UK

Forget the unicorn, photos, memories and origami.
It's just a matter of counting !
Right at the beginning, Deckard is taken to the police chief who says "we've got 6 skin jobs on the streets...one was fried trying to break into the Tyrell building last night".
So, one - dead, two - Priss, three - Leon, four - Roy, five - Zhora. And that's it.
One missing - and that's Deckard.

Adam, eastcote,pinner, UK

It's obvious that this film means alot of different things to alot of different people.Sure it had its faults & "Gaffs",but many of the very things which bring heated debate as to their meaning can mean something to one person and yet something else to another..all dependant on the individuals perception of either the movie as a whole,or any individual scene which sticks in their mind.I watched the original cinematic release in 82 when i was 15.It left me shell shocked. I needed answers...and lots of them.The DC in the 90's juust served to p**s me off even more.I felt cheated...But cheated of what,i couldn't fathom. I expected more from the DC yet left the cinema feeling short changed... Onto 2007.Venice. Midnight. 150 euros for the ticket. Finally."The Final Cut". Annoying Italian subtitles or not..would my questions be answered? Well,to be honest i'm not sure;-/ It's been tidied up,the sound is stunning,the visuals breathtaking...my advice.See it in NY on the big screen October.

andy stevenson, cheltenham, UK

Of course the various versions of Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner' films are not, strictly speaking, faithful versions of the short story, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' as written by the late Philip K. Dick in 1968. So I imagine Mr. Scott should be able to take his 'version' of that core story anywhere he wishes – with some limits.

His tease that the central character Deckard is perhaps merely a replicant misses all of what P.K. Dick would have ever intended. Such directorial behaviour seems to me as unthinking as one purchasing Melville and suggesting Ahab was secretly a whale in a reworked final 'director's cut' version of a screenplay. And if such is the case, in future I would recommend not bothering purchasing the rights to existing stories, but simply making up your own and leave it at that.

No Mr. Scott. If the character Deckard were a replicant, then your 'director's cut' becomes merely a flashy but pointless exercise in literature vandalism.

Elisha Moor

Elisha Moor, London, England

"THE DOVE SCENE"
Listen to what Simon said (forgive me). The point is that Roy does NOT have a soul. He's holding the dove in lieu of possessing one. That's what makes the scene so tragic, and yet, he's the one who lets Deckard live. It's possible that Replicants cannot rise to humanity's heights, but if I read this film correctly, it is certain that they will never fathom humanity's depths.

Name Withheld, Henderson, NV

"Is this review about the new director's cut of the director's cut or does it make reference to the director's cut released in the early ninenties? Everything mentioned in this article was already present in the version released in the nineties (the unicorn, no happy end, no voice-over,...). Is there any difference with the previous version or is it that reviewer didn't see that previous version in the nineties and has only been able to notice the most striking differences, which were already present in the first director's cut?"

-----------------------------------------------------------

Exactly what I want to know. Why was the reviewer comparing this new DVD to the ancient VHS? There has been a DVD (one of the first DVD's released) that didn't have the voice-over etc etc.

What's the difference between "The Final Cut" and "The Director's Cut"??

Kurt Munro, Edinburgh,

Clive from Kent accuses James Christopher of not seeing either version of the film, but calls Deckard Dekker and Rachael Rebecca. I think it's obvious in this instance who hasn't seen the film. As for Oli_f's comment about Deckard obviously being a replicant in both versions is wide of the mark as well; in the original cut the unicorn dream sequence is missing, so Gaff's origami doesn't related to his humanity one way or the other. You could equally interpret it as Rachael uniqueness or rarity as a surviving Nexus-6. Scott has stated that in the original cut Deckard could be, but is not definitively, a replicant, but in the Directors cut there's no doubt about it. Scott intended that to be understood by the audience - read Paul M Sammon's excellent book on the film for more details. Or watch the 5-disc DVD coming out in October - I think it'll probably cover this debate it in great detail. I for one am overjoyed to finally be able to get this movie in a well deserved special edition.

Dominic, London, UK

Clive from Kent accuses James Christopher of not seeing either version of the film, but calls Deckard Dekker and Rachael Rebecca. I think it's obvious in this instance who hasn't seen the film. As for Oli-F's comment about Deckard obviously being a replicant in both versions is wide of the mark as well; in the original cut the unicorn dream sequence is missing, so Gaff's origamidoesn't related to his humanity one way or the other. You could equally interpret it as Rachael uniqueness or rarity as a surviving Nexus-6. Scott has stated that in the original cut Deckard could be but is not definitively a replicant, but in the Directors cut there's no doubt about it. Scott intended that to be understood by the audience - read Paul M Sammon's excellent book on the film for more details. Or watch the 5-disc DVD coming out in October - I think it'll probably cover this debate it in great detail. I for one am overjoyed to finally be able to get this movie in a well deserved special edition.

Dominic, London, UK

I don't agree that the film is about "Being human". For one thing, that's every robot and Frankenstein-a-like science fiction theme ever. For two things, the story includes a device (the Voigt-Kampf) machine that can identify replicants from their reduced emotional responses, so there's a definition of not-human. For three things, in the not-so-distant past society used to 'outlaw' people - put them outside the protection of the law, so they could be killed with impunity; for example, the Holocaust (that's 'being human' for you).

I always thought the film was about reality. The only thing about another version of the film that might interest me is if it turns out that - gasp! - the whole story is one of Deckards implanted memories, or somebody's 'Second Life'. And even that isn't very interesting, is it?

Patrick Simpson, Oxford, UK

My thoughts on the origami unicorn at the end is that it's Gaff's representation of Rachel. She is an exceedingly rare find in the dreary world that surrounds them.

Jason Wnetrzak, Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.

What I would most like to see is a CGI improvement of the scene at the end where Roy releases the dove. He's on the top of the Bradbury building in Los Angeles at dead of night but in the shot of the flying bird the background is corrugated-metal warehouse units (probably in West London!). I love this film like no other but that bit always makes me cringe. especially after Rutger Hauer's stirring poetry about tears in rain...

Steve, Southampton,

Does the Final Cut at last erase the ghastly scene of the dove Roy Batty is holding at his death flying away, presumably intended to indicate that, although an android, he has a "soul" which will fly to heaven? It is one of the cheesiest and most jarring scenes in any quality film, made even worse by the fact that, although Deckard and Batty have been duelling at night on top of a post-gothic deserted tower block, the dove then flies along in the sunlight next to what looks like a Sainsbury's distribution centre in Woking. If that's gone, I'll happily make Ridley a bit richer just to be able to watch the magnificent "time...to die" scene without having the mood ruined a second later. Please, please tell me it's gone? (James Christopher won't be able to, as his review was clearly assembled from press packs, or written by a gopher, without seeing the film - unbelievably shoddy).

andrew, Leeds, UK

Er, Simon ... it's very clear that Deckard is a replicant in either version. That's why the Chinese dectective makes a unicorn origami at the end - it shows that he knows what Deckard is dreaming (remember Deckard's unicorn dream sequence), ergo Deckard is a replicant with implanted memories.

Oli_f, London, UK

Simon, you make a great case but perhaps the future is even darker. Deckard, even IF a replicant, thinks of himself as utterly human (presumably), whereas Roy Batty and the other replicants were aware of their true character. Perhaps those condemned to live unaware of their artificial being are condemned also to behave as human beings of the time. I like your argument though.

DavidH, Perth, Australia

Really, another 'version'? Hardly. The 'Directors Cut' which has been out for years has all the alterations mentioned in this review. I read there will be improved special effects, as in the 'Star Wars' reissues. I also read the reissue of 'Blade Runner' will be a three DVD package. This is what this reissue is really all about. Selling us two more DVD commentaries. I am a big fan of the movie, but what is this really all about Ridley? If you wanted to offer us something new, why didn't you add another thirty minutes of storyline to the movie. CG Ford's younger face on a CG body and show us how he became a 'Replicant' and what he had to do to survive as one. I am sure Ridley Scott could handle this genuine offering of an extended version of the movie. But that would cost a lot of money. It seems his interest was in just milking what had already been reissued years ago. We shall see if the other two DVD's were really worth the effort.

Kali Deva, Pattaya, Thailand

Makes one wonder whether Mr. Christopher saw ANY of the BR versions or has just read press hand-outs.
It's pretty obvious Dekker is a biological human, who probably eventually questions his orders by "morally good" humans to destroy the "morally bad" replicants.
Perhaps that is why Batty saves Dekker's life - the irony is that Dekker may only find "happiness" when he flies away with Rebecca (replicant?)

CLIVE, Shortlands, Kent

Is this a very long belated review of the directors cut or has hardly anything been altered - apart from a slight cuts on time the camera lingering on the actors. This being an oversite on the directors cut which eliminated Decker's voice-over but not the lenght of the shoot. A fact that is strangly missing from the above, why is even refers to the 1982 release version is simply baffling.

paul smith, london,

lets hope that this is not "improved" like star wars or E.T.

jason , new glarus, wisconsin

Gaff, played by Edward James Olmos was the origami folder and he wasn't Asian. Gaff knew Deckard was protecting Rachel and he left them go. Deckard had dealt with Batty and the others - his "reward" was to go away with a replicant with no expiration date and experience a life that had never was never possible with a replicant. And if Deckard was a replicant, perhaps a new level of "human" existence was beginning.

Wes Wong, Vancouver, Canada

Has Mr Christpher actuall seen the orgiinal, or the first directors cut? The replicants do not return to Earth to wreak vengeance on their creators. They are trying to establish how long they have got to live, and to see if their life span can be extended. It is only when they find out they are doomed do they kill their creator. Also, was there any doubt that Deckard was a replicant? What about the origami unicorn left outside his apartment by the Asian police officer which was the proof that they knew what Deckard was dreaming about. Finally, there was no drive through a forest at the end of the film, they were flying.

R O Tate, Bath, UK

Is this review about the new director's cut of the director's cut or does it make reference to the director's cut released in the early ninenties? Everything mentioned in this article was already present in the version released in the nineties (the unicorn, no happy end, no voice-over,...). Is there any difference with the previous version or is it that reviewer didn't see that previous version in the nineties and has only been able to notice the most striking differences, which were already present in the first director's cut?

D Muller, Roehampton, UK

There was a rumor that Scot had filmed a scene just after Roy Batty kills Tyrell, where police are investigating the crime scene and they discover a back room with the corpse of the real Tyrell in a cryogenic coffin.

Just as the 'directors cut' added a dark new dimension by adding the dream scene that implied Decker was a replicant, the new 'final cut' would have added an even darker dimension by showing that the Tyrell that Batty kills was also a replicant and there were in fact LOTS of replicants out there, that they had in fact taken over the means of their own production.

There are drawings for this scene in Paul Sammon's book on page 177.

There may yet be a 'final' final cut to be made, perhaps when marketing tests determine that audiences are ready for the true vision, very dark, and very close to home.

antenna, san francisco, ca

The whole 'Is Deckard a replicant' 'controversy' infuriates me and destroys the entire thesis that I'd thought Scott was making. I just watched BR:TDC two days ago so it's fresh in my mind. The very point is that the replicants are MORE moral, MORE human than the dregs of humanity left back on Earth, and more so than the humanity that made them for a life of slavery. For this to work it's VITAL that Deckard be a biological human. The scene where Batty decides to save Deckard is one of the most heartrending in the whole of recent film and just hammers the point home with a vengeance

Simon Pride, New York, NY / United States