The problem is, he's a man who's usually right.

     Twenty-five years ago, when he was on the set directing Blade Runner, he knew what an important film he was making. Hell, his pro-ducers knew, the cast was on board with similar groupthink...and of course, Philip K. Dick, the author upon whose novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" that Blade Runner was based, knew it.

     The problem is, all of us idiots didn't know it.

     When Blade Runner was released back in 1982, it was the first of its kind in so many ways--something so uniquely original, mind-blowing and which went against the grain--that audiences simply weren't ready for it.

     1982 was a singular year for heroics. It was the year in which we wanted to see the bad guys pay and the good guys win. It was the year in which Spielberg chilled us(Poltergeist) and thrilled us(E.T.). It was the year of inception for the buddy picture(48 Hours). It was the year that gave us the future Governator(Conan the Barbarian). Heck, even Gandhi kicked butt that year(in a peaceful way, of course). Who in their right mind wanted to "get into" a depressing film about an alcoholic loser of a cop whose job it was to hunt down human-looking robots in a dirty, grimy future city where it rained all the time? The answer: nobody, which is why Blade Runner, in spite of the best inten-tions of all involved, failed miserably at the box office.

     However, the universe works in mysterious ways. Thanks to the ad-vent of the VCR and late-night showings on tv, the movie got a second lease on life(ironically, one of the very themes of the film itself) as audiences with nothing else to do, gave it a second chance...and finally, finally discovered the majestic awe and scope of the film. With demand for the film on the rise through various cult groups and new-found mainstream fans(and with subsequent knowledge of missing footage that Scott eventually cobbled together to produce "alternate" versions of the movie), Blade Runner eventually came to be recogniz-ed as one of the most brilliant tales ever committed to celluloid.

     Which brings us to today, and the release of the film(and all its myriad versions) to DVD. For those of you who already know the film and love it, this might seem like old hat...for the few new initiates(which means you're probably a Replicant...don't try running, I've already contacted Blade Runner units, and they're on their way), here's the story, in brief:

     The date is November, 2019. The place is Los Angeles, which has become a dank, dirty city booming with overpopulation and life is both hard and cheap. Human gene design has progressed to the state where The Tyrell Corporation has achieved the ability to produce Replicants--beings created for slave labor who look, talk, act and think like real humans. The thing about Replicants is that they have no emotions, no real memories of their own(hence memory implants to keep them more controllable), and come with a brand-new genetic design: the four-year lifespan. After a mutiny on an Off-World colony, Replicants have been declared illegal on Earth, and can be executed upon detection. Blade Runner units--an elite division of the police force--are trained specifically to hunt down and kill Replicants. Rick Deckard(Harrison Ford) is a retired BR, the very best in fact...and he's pulled back in for one last case.

     It sounds like a simple--almost standard--science fiction plot. How did this not catch on? The reasons are many: Blade Runner is any-thing but "simple" or "standard". It's a very esoteric, existential film, dealing not as much with Deckard's hunting of the Replicants as much as it deals with the very nature of self. After all, what is it that makes us human? Is it because we live among a group of similar-looking bipedal beings who call themselves human, and therefore we must be human as well? Is it our memories? If so, then what happens when tragic ailments like Alzheimers sets in and our memory fails? Just because people tell us certain things have happened in our past, is that so? Blade Runner unflinchingly looks deep into the heart of these matters, yet still leaves it up to the viewer to find the answer within them. Not exactly popcorn munching material.

     There is also the tone and pacing of Blade Runner, both of which are often bleak and deliberately slow, allowing the viewer time to ponder these questions as they watch. One of my favorite scenes to watch when I'm depressed is of Deckard at his piano, tapping one key with a finger as he looks at his own family photos, while contemplating the pictures inexplicably taken by Replicant Leon(the late Brion James), as Vangelis' brilliant, beautiful yet irrevocably sad "Love Theme" plays. Even if you're a die-hard lover of the film, you still have to be in the mood to watch it...otherwise, you're likely to pull out the razor blades and contemplate some bad nastiness. Still, in spite of these two seemingly insurmountable obstacles, the film triumphs because if you study it closely and invest the time in it, it delivers a solid, tearjerking punch to not only the heart, but the very soul...and that indeed, makes you a human.

     The movie has finally been released in several different options for the casual collector, the die-hard and ultimate completist: a two-disc set, a four-disc and a case patterned after the one in which Deckard carries his testing kit to determine who's human and who isn't. This review touches on the four-disc set, which--foregoing the exceptions of certain bells, whistles and literal toys thrown into the mix--is exactly the same content as what you get in the case.

     First of all, Blade Runner has not only been restored in all its glory...it's the most absolutely beautiful restoration I have ever seen of any film! Honestly, no matter what kind of system you have for viewing, as soon as you begin to watch, you'll feel as if you've just walked into a movie theater today and started watching a brand new film. It's presented in anamorphic widescreen which, if you've ever read my article on why George Lucas disses his fans, you'll understand why that's so important. There are four versions of Scott's masterpiece included in the four-disc set: the original U.S. theatrical cut, the international theatrical cut, the director's cut and Scott's "ultimate" version, The Final Cut, which had limited release in theaters this year, before the DVD sets came out. All vary to some degree in scenes either restored or deleted, yet each gives a unique new spin on not only the concept of the film, but the very nature of whether Deckard himself is a Replicant or not--a debate which has raged among fans for the last twenty-five years, but which we'll get back to in a minute.

     The set contains more exhaustive behind-the-scenes material and extras than on almost any disc you're likely to find anywhere: details on literally every aspect of production design, from the music to the casting to the costumes. And why not? Each of these various aspects of Blade Runner, whether you realize it or not, has influenced truly hundreds of films that have come out in the past quarter century, many of which are probably your favorites. Films such as The Matrix, The Crow, Se7en, Batman Begins and others wouldn't have the dark, noir-ish look they have if Blade Runner didn't exist. In fact, as inter-views with various filmmakers point out, Blade Runner was the first true "cyberpunk" film, its influence being felt to this day. Just as the creation of Superman led to the advent of the superhero as a viable narrative, so did Blade Runner open the door for such as the Matrix trilogy, which wouldn't exist without Scott's film paving the way(feel free to send Ridley Scott love or hate mail for this, depending on your point of view). The production design has influenced designers in real life as well, as evidenced in the talking "Walk/Don't Walk" stop signs in L.A. and various cities around the globe.

     There are also deleted scenes of course, and every final one has at last been restored and included for your perusal. The most interes-ting of these might be the ones with the character of Gaff(Edward James Olmos), a recent inductee to the Blade Runner unit. Olmos' scenes show Gaff to be a mysterious figure, and it's obvious that if he had been included further in any versions of the film, his character would have easily overshadowed Deckard. As far as the behind-the-scenes stuff goes, it's nice to finally have the revelation forever burned to disc that Harrison Ford did not fully enjoy making the film, since he recently backtracked on that statement during the American Film Institute's recent inclusion of Blade Runner as one of the top 100 films of all time(yes, some of us do remember the truth, Harrison). There are also outtakes from voiceover sessions where Ford is deliv-ering a narrative to help make the story clearer for us poor ol' dumb American audiences. This was done at the insistence of the studio, Ford was contractually obligated to do it, and his boredom with having to say the lines is painfully obvious.

     One of the best parts of the newer installments however is undoubtedly the segment titled "Nexus Generation"; interviews with many Hollywood directors and others whose lives have literally been changed by watching Blade Runner, and whose works have subse-quently been influenced by that seminal masterpiece. It's an amazing thing to watch Frank Darabont(The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption) geek out and show off his toy model of the spinner car, which comes complete with figures of Deckard and Gaff, along with dashboard displays that light up. Or Mark Romanek(One Hour Photo), who admits to attempting to decorate his apartment in a Blade Runner fashion after seeing the film. Or Jovanka Vuckovic, the editor of Rue Morgue magazine, who had her entire left arm tattooed with images from the movie. Or Guillermo Del Toro(Blade II, Hellboy), who says he's never seen the world in the same way after viewing the movie. It's a stunning thing to watch the obvious and generous love on display from so many varied people(including the publisher of Heavy Metal magazine and the editor of Bladezone, the #1 Blade Runner fansite), for a movie that failed in its intial outing, yet so clearly and indelibly touched all their lives.

     And as for that curious argument as to the nature of Deckard... director Scott has finally gone on the record as saying that yes, Deck-ard is indeed a Replicant, in an attempt to finally put a nail in the coffin of the pro-humanist-Deckard argument. Yet it's interesting that star Harrison Ford--the man who portrayed the character--still insists that Deckard isn't a Replicant. In fact, Ford goes on record as saying that anytime Scott tried to push his performance toward a more detached, Replicant-like concept, the actor would deliberately work in the other direction. Even Frank Darabont gives significant validity to the argu-ment that if you approach the movie from the point of view that Deck-ard isn't human, the entire concept falls apart. Oddly enough, as with the various versions of the film, all are valid arguments.

     Is Scott right, simply because he's the director? Is Ford right because he played the part? I for one love the original theatrical cut best, just because to me it is the purest version of the film...and I'm with Darabont, that if you go with Scott's take on it, the center cannot hold. So I choose to believe Deckard is human. Because choice is also an essential part of being human, and the film Blade Runner certainly argues for that.

     No matter if you're a fan or not of the film, you should pick up Blade Runner...it's a slice of cinematic history, it's proof positive of the belief of a director's singular vision, and it truly is one of the most brilliant films ever constructed.

     Don't let this opportunity, this moment, be lost...like tears in rain.