Frankenstein & Blade Runner

both frankenstein and blade runner, to some degree; juxtapose, and subsequently challenge, what is human and what is inhuman. shelley's frankenstein begins solely from the point of view of victor (essentially. sure, theres robert walton and all, but you're only getting a one sided view of the tale regardless) and the monster is established as this inhuman thing (which, physically, he is) before he is given the chance to speak. now; the monster has the chance to speak he relates his tale and his struggles (such as his encounter with the de lacey family; who for some reason i find bloody pretentious) and his emotions on the events. in this light, the monster seems more human than his creator victor, who merely "infused the spark of life" upon the monster and then let the monster learn the ways of life through the 'school of hard knocks' so to speak. the monster's developed emotional framework shows that he has, indeed, become human - he shows the need to love, and to be loved, and to be some way accepted, hence his willing to have a female creation. such a request may even seem reasonable to the reader at this point; you could see it as a challenge to "true humanity" - whilst the monster is physically inhumane, his narration of experience warrants a human response.

this same thing is in blade runner. replicant is born. replicant learns of the ways of life. replicant develops emotions. replicant desires more of life because they have attained a sense of humanity.

If there is a common theme between the two, I think it is that humanity is, at its core, obsessed with the superficial.
In Frankenstein, you have a creator that attempts to bring perfection to life, and perhaps he is successful. It doesn't matter, though: his creation is so hideous and freightening that it could never truly be accepted by society, and must seek solace in the creation of another of its kind. Without that, and when denied that, the creation becomes a killer.
Blade Runner, or course,...