Heck, by that standard Total Recall qualifies as film noir.
If Deckard knew about Tyrell’s niece’s spider memory, why couldn’t have someone have recorded Deckard’s memory also and Gaffe know about the Unicorn dream from the recordings. I could easily believe that Bryant decided to do some spelunking around Deckard’s memory and Gaffe had access to the records.
BTW, M. Emmet Walsh did a pretty good job in the movie also, but not as good as Blood Simple.
Can’t recall now where I read this, but somebody said that the book is “anti-robot” (humans have something that no robot ever could) while the movie is “pro-robot” (there’s no fundamental difference).
When is this recording supposed to have taken place?
Yes great film
Ok you fans might know
I know the title was taken from the Burroughs story but apart from that, is there any connection made in the film to the title ?
Well, the term “blade runner” is mentioned a couple times in the movie, but I don’t think there are any thematic or plot elements from the Burroughs story.
(For those who don’t know, the “book” we’ve been referring to is by Philip K. Dick.)
I don’t get this.
It makes sense either way, doesn’t it? Thematically, I think it’s much better if Deckard is human, but you could still see the story through with him as a replicant. But how does it *not make sense *for him to be human?
Before the movie starts, maybe before he quits.
Dick seems to be pretty fond of robots-as-menace in his stories in general. And the many movies made from Dick’s work are often very loose adaptations, but that’s OK, since they’re often better than the original.
O.K., let’s get straight how the title of the movie came about:
The producer of the film bought the rights to a film treatment (i.e., not a script, but a prose description of a script) that had been written by William Burroughs based on the novel The Bladerunner by Alan Nourse. Although the producer and the director liked the title, they apparently had no intention of making a film from it. They instead just decided to use a variation of the title for the film that they were already preparing to make from the Philip K. Dick novel. The film treatment was later turned into a novella by Burroughs. I read it a few years ago, since it was published as a pamphlet at one point.
And is this a recurring dream of Deckard’s, or is the replicant software sophisticated enough to predict dreams months or years in advance, to the day?
It was Youngs best
Ford is the same in all his movies pretty good but not great
Hannah was just as good in Kill Bill as Blade Runner.
Hauer was at his best in this movie ,oddly giving his most nuanced and sensitive role as a replicant.
The point is that you cannot tell the difference whether Deckard is human or replicant without making a judgment that flies in the face of evidence going the other way. Such is life. Are we human, or are we other? Is another human, or other?
And Ford’s best movie was Raiders of the Lost Ark, which as a movie perfectly achieved what it set out to do. The Empire Strikes Back was a masterpiece too, but it wasn’t really a Harrison Ford vehicle.
. But what I still wonder exactly were the references to the title in the film that are mentioned previously in this thread?
The folks like Deckard who hunt down rogue replicants are called blade runners. It’s never explained why they’re called that, though, beyond it sounding cool.
In the Nourse story Bladrunners were people who smuggled contraband medical supplies, including scalpels, hence the term Bladerunners as a riff on the term Rumrunners.
You know better than to ask me about Alien. 
It’s vaguely hinted at when Rachel asks Deckard if he’d ever retired a human by mistake and points out that this is a risk. But I agree that coolness is by far the largest factor.
Sure, but what Raiders… set out to do was less ambitious and interesting than what Blade Runner set out to do.
Well, consider this:
If the unicorn can serve a purpose even without the dream, then it can keep serving that purpose or some other purpose with the dream.