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.

Dangerous Days was the working title for the film Blade Runner.Clocking in at 3 and-a-half hours in length this making of feature on Blade Runner is way longer than the movie itself. It is a comprehensive look at a film that failed upon its release but has become a cult hit and a film way ahead of its time.My interest in this documentary was only aroused when I heard Harrison Ford took part in this. For years Ford would not talk about Blade Runner leading to speculation that he wanted to distance himself from the film or he did not enjoy making it or its fraught difficulties on set was just too much for him.His participation in this making of film and express words that he did the voice-over very much under protest because he backed Scott's cut of the film but was under contract and therefore obliged to do it pretty much dismisses those accusations that he was embarrassed with the failure of Blade Runner.The film has it all from the script writing phase to getting a shooting script ready to the tensions on set, getting the special effects to be outstanding to the post production editing that led to the conflict with the director's vision of the film, the box office failure and then its re-discovery as a classic.This is aimed at fans of the film but it should be a must see for anyone who is interested in how films are made.

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

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.