Perfect cast and a good story

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

I love Blade Runner as much as the next film fan. It probably misses or only just latches onto my top 100. I owned the 5-Disc boxset in a tin which came with this 4 hour documentary Dangerous Days which only takes 8 years until you feel like watching it. Frankly, while interesting and somewhat worthwhile, the only thing notable about it is that mammoth length. While it has a wealth of outtakes and b-roll to enjoy, there's not much juicy insights to really enjoy besides the stress the film was to make. As a long form documentary, it runs more like a sequence of chapters in a row rather than a coherent piece. Some chopping and flair could make it less dry. Nevertheless, it's still a solid piece of work and there's nothing remotely bad or particularly bland about it. I have grown a newfound respect for its special effects and production design work as well as for Harrison Ford as a professional actor. That man has a work ethic to die for.7/10

For people who have never understood the backstage of Hollywood movies, this documentary is a treasure trove. It lasts forever, more than three hours, and discusses everything from Ridley's tyrannical direction and attention to detail to the way the art department designed vehicles and architecture. On the other hand all that stuff can get boring after a while.What is sure is that the film contains a lot of information that could be of interest to film fans, amateur filmmakers and probably even professionals. Even if you have enough of that crappy overpraising that you see when people in showbiz talk about each other, it is not too much and some of them are downright honest about things: what they liked, what they hated, etc. Harrison Ford, which everyone praised as a very technical, very professional actor, actually hated working for the movie and was only happy when close to completion.Also the financial underworkings of the film are very interestingly exposed. You cannot bring your own people because of unions, you spend obscene amounts of money for things that might seem trivial, like choosing the perfect mug to sit on the table in a scene from 100 different models or filming nature scenes, etc. It explains a little why movies like these need tens and hundreds of million of dollars to make and why, even with stupid stories and bad direction or production, films still feel professional because of the army of trained technicians that take care of every minute aspect.All in all a very instructive documentary, kind of long. Don't expect a lot of juicy, funny stories either. It feels more like a log of the production of Blade Runner, than an attempt at a particular perspective or viewpoint. Useful, interesting, not very engaging, though.

Personally speaking, the story of how "Blade Runner" was made is just as fascinating as the movie itself. And "Dangerous Days" tells a terrific story. For one thing, it's 3 and-a-half hours long, so "comprehensive" is pretty much a given. And at that length, it's surprising how engaging this thing actually is. Things move pretty well. The filmmakers interviewed nearly everyone involved, and they all had plenty to say. Just about every step and beat of the process is covered here: the struggle to come up with a shooting script, the tensions and grueling work on the set, the disappointing box office failure and subsequent home video rebirth. Just an obscene wealth of material, and Charles de Lauzirika did an impressive job putting it all together. I have no idea how the casual moviegoer would receive this documentary. I imagine it's runtime alone is pretty daunting. But for me, it's a thrill, and a well-produced doc. Maybe it's best left to the more ardent fan, and if that's the case, then this is your rare instance of a studio finally catering to those who have thirsted for new material for many years. And for that, you can color me grateful.9/10

I love this movie (not religiously) and the making of shows you how much went into this film. Bladerunner was the first film I saw that had real weight to it: a punch looked like a real punch, a landscape looked like a real cityscape and characters had real depth. as a kid in 1982 all I remembered was the opening scene issuing forth gasps from the audience of "Jesus Christ", I was hooked. today I still think it has many layers and still deserves its place as a masterpiece. In Dangerous Days, I love the way the cast were shell shocked by the screening of the film with some going on to ask how do they top this. The Bradbury Building is haunting to look at as it was, not now that it has been renovated. P.K.Dick at first hated it then couldn't believe how they had recreated his vision.If any of you liked this but felt it didn't touch upon enough, here are a few pointers to Bladerunner's rich development: Moebius (who now regrets his refusal to work upon the film) wrote and illustrated "The Long Tomorrow" a very good template for Ridleys Vision of the film and a must read for fans of the film. The artwork of Syd Mead is as haunting and beautiful as the film, again a must see. The novel is different to the film but strangely compliments it and is its equal counterpart. and lastly what is odd about the scriptwriters of blade-runner is they haven't just picked upon the novel to encapsulate the theme of the film, but have encompassed most of Dicks entire works in its dark futuristic feel. I bet you didn't know that PKD wrote many books with blade-runner like cities that included ruthless detectives, flying cars or white haired black cloaked replicants or psychotic female counterparts with high intelligence. Bladerunner isn't the book that portrays the film best, there are other books by him that portray the film better. In fact his vision is so much like blade-runner that you can't imagine anything else when reading some of his other novels. I would say that there is a blade-runner signature in nearly all of his books, that would explain his surprise upon seeing a draft of the film because you can see it in his work.hope this helps those out there who want to dig a little deeper.