This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The first must-see film of the year.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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.

When seeing the original 1982 release at ten years old, I remember it being exciting (since it was the very first rated R movie I saw in the theatres) ominous, and weird. Weird because it wasn't the Indiana Jones/ Han Solo flick that I was secretly expecting; and weird because there was something that compelled me to the film with every viewing. It was something I never talked about to anyone else around me because it just wasn't "cool" to like since it wasn't a box office suck-sess or simply because it was a mature film. The dialogue, the humor and most of the film's themes are just not "Star Wars"-y and black and white. The bad guys are not necessarily that bad, and the good guys aren't all that likable, and the film itself is not riddled with hope like popcorn flicks are. After leaving the theatre, I remember looking at the landscape differently and asking myself just how much believability was in that film. Living in L.A. at the time (since that was the film's location) made me pay even more attention to that idea. Throughout the years, whenever I would see any kinds of urban decay in buildings, I would immediately associate it this film and the impending despair of the future.There were at least 45 minutes of deleted/alternate scenes that were compiled into a mini-film, and turned out to be interesting. Not to the point in where it surpassed the original film, but made you appreciate the finished original film by the end of it. There were also elements sprinkled throughout the outtakes that I remember were original ideas from the writers (namely Hampton Fancher's). Harrison Ford's voice-over narrated and was somewhat clichéd (to the point in where I began to enjoy the original voice-over in the film), and it reminded me of the director's cut of "Superman II" at times (yes, I am a cinegeek, ladies and gentlemen). I've watched this documentary at least four times now and I'm fascinated by it. The sets; the art direction; the actors and their stories: it brings back memories of the summer of '82 and the fall of '92 (when the director's cut was released). It's so inspiring to see thirtysomething filmmakers my age and see how moved by the movie like I was. But yes, I agree- this documentary can be quite boring to those non-fans out there and I don't think this is for everyone. However, the film itself never wowed me to the point in where I thought the film was religion. In the documentary, a fan states that "there are no casual 'Blade Runner' fans out there" before showing off her whole arm encompassed with tattoos of the movie's icons. Well, I have to pleasantly disagree. I think I AM a casual fan BECAUSE I don't riddle my arm in unsightly green and orange hues that's on the same level of those crazed "Star Wars" fans who get the Millennium Falcon or stormtroopers stenciled to their appendages.

The "Making Of" featurettes we see with DVDs sometimes grow into feature-length proportion. "Dangerous Days" takes its name from an early title for the "Blade Runner" movie, and it's beyond feature-length on its own.This is a decent production, and a must-see for fans of the film. However, compared to other Making Of... featurettes, Dangerous Days is over long and might be dull for those who don't fully appreciate the source material.To my mind, "Hearts of Darkness", the Making Of... documentary for "Apocalypse Now" is about the best Making Of... documentary there is. I would also include the full-length Making Of The Abyss as must-see viewing for science-fiction film buffs. Dangerous Days falls short of these.Both "Apocalypse Now" and "The Abyss" featured film-making that went past the edge of human physical endurance. People were risking their lives and sanity to get the films made, and it shows as superior documentary-style drama. "Dangerous Days" mostly shows film-making that goes past the edge of endurance of the film crew for director Ridley Scott, and past the patience of the producers. Yes, it's dramatic, but not nearly as much as Martin Sheen about to get eaten by a ravenous tiger (Hearts Of Darkness) or Mary Elizabeth Mastrantionio nearly drowning at the bottom of a man-made water pit (Making Of The Abyss).I would put Dangerous Days in roughly the same category as the Making Of... featurettes you get with the Star Wars DVDs, except that it is very long.The pieces I found the most interesting were the features with Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, who were rival writers for the Blade Runner script, and the special visual effects segment which shows some of the thought process behind the particular model-making and lighting events in Blade Runner, without being all George-Lucasey in terms of the granularity of explanatory detail. Alternate screen tests also make for interesting viewing.