Been a while since I've seen it, so hard to remember specifics. I remember nothing happening until the final fight and "tears in rain" speech. I do remember really liking the score. I just remember it being really slow until the end.
Really? Hmm...
I guess this depends on what kinds of movies you like. To me, Blade Runner is a movie that is filled to the brim with content, it's just not action.. It's a contemplative film, it's a very deep film..
Honestly, it's.. one of the best films ever made. There's also quite a few action scenes, and several replicants get killed by Deckard so, as I recall, there's about 5-6 different scenes of Deckard in trouble, and about 3 action scenes without him.
It's not an action movie though..
Also, I've read that which version you watch. Some cuts are alot better. I've chalked it up to watching the "bad cut". I am sure I'll watch it again before the sequel comes out.
I wonder... I think, if you felt nothing happened, then you actually watched the "good" cut; which would be the Director's Cut.
The original theatrical version has Harrison Ford narrating the movie. It's shorter, IIRC, and there are FAR fewer moments of silence in the movie as Ford is talking to the audience throughout. The theatrical version also has a happy ending and is much more explicit in conveying the message of the film. This version though is not canon as there is a critical difference leading up to the sequel.
The director's cut is very different. It's longer, and I think half or more than half of the film is almost entirely just the score. There is no narration whatsoever, and the movie is edited differently. The ending is ambiguous and almost a downer but it's canon.
I personally like BOTH cuts, I look at them as alternate realities of the same movie. One is a detective movie (the theatrical version); the other is a philosophical movie set to music. They're completely different, but both are great.