View Full Version : "A Scanner Darkly" movie
thomasc1982
01-04-2004, 16:29
From imdb
"The Matrix star Keanu Reeves is going back to the future in his latest movie, in which he'll play an undercover agent who can change his identity - and face. A Scanner Darkly, which will be shot in live action and then animated, is based on a Philip K. Dick novel, and will be produced by George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh's Section 8 company. The story takes place in the future, where undercover agents change their faces along with their identities. Reeves plays one such officer, whose overuse of the drug Substance D causes him to develop a split personality. "
oh dear oh dear! sounds like paycheck all over again:gag:
Such a shame as the book is great
Hernster
01-04-2004, 16:32
Please Please Please let this be an April Fool. :nuts:
Arch Stanton
01-04-2004, 16:37
It's being Directed by Richard Linklater who did the whole animation over live action thing on 'waking life' a few years ago. That film was a load of pretensious arse and the animation made me sick after 5 minutes but i'll keep an open mind... :)
jonathan.e
01-04-2004, 16:46
Sounds like Johnny Mnemonic 2 :eek:
Oi! Reeves - Stay away from the future from now on.
Quinnsey
01-04-2004, 20:02
I remember Terry Gilliam being very interested in making this film, it’s a shame he didn’t get it. But then again the live-action/animation thing sounds interesting and might suit the atmosphere created in the book.
The story takes place in the future, where undercover agents change their faces along with their identities:oh-hum: If there's one film that should be an independent effort (Oh! for Cronenberg :luv: ) rather than a Hollywood star-vehicle, this is it.
irturner
02-04-2004, 18:07
generally philip k dicks stories involve people who are not in control of the situation . Often old and unfit guys flung into confusing situations.
Harrison Ford is about as close as they got to someone vaguely resembling a Dick character and until an independent director gets their paws on one of the stories they will continue to miscast and rewrite to death
nuskool4ever
20-02-2005, 10:17
Theres a trailer over at iFilm....
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2665143?htv=12
Will check it out when it comes out.
Philmster
20-02-2005, 10:26
I really like the look of the trailer, not a huge fan of Philip K Dick Adaptations, but will definately give this a go.
Ben Martin
20-02-2005, 11:50
i'm hoping this is going to be good. the screens that have been showing up at AICN and other places over the last few months look great and imho linklater is a superb director. which ought to far outweigh the fact that the imdb blurb might remind people of paycheck. i just recently watched before sunrise and before sunset and thought they were both outstanding movies.
JOEY PINEAPPLES
20-02-2005, 11:58
There has been quite a few scripts floating. I remember one by Charlie Kaufman back in 1997. Which was horribly conservative, and got lost about half way through.
I can't see hollywood doing a movie about how you can extract cocaine from a obscure south american sun-tan lotion. The main Drug Substance D or Death has some qualities of Acid and Smack. Which in over use has the nastyiness of both.
Its mind sci-fi, true science-fiction. No Rocket Cars.. no tin foil suits.. just old chevys and 60s Radio, with a few technological advancements. it feels like an alternative Los Angeles of 1972.
Soderbergh already walked into a trap remaking Solaris, another great Mind Sci-Fi. Philip K Dick's Book has whole chapters of Bob Arctor just sitting there thinking why his brain is cookin. you can't bluff that with CGI.
It reads like Trainspotting (supposidly Scanner was an influance). There for in one sense should look like it. It has no car chases. Robots.
It they had the balls they'd make 'Man in the high Castle'. Now that would be interesting. ;)
jaminblack
20-02-2005, 12:02
oh dear, they've let Winona Ryder out. and put her in a movie with Keanu Reeves. Wood on Wood. It looks interesting, real shame about the casting.
Well I think Richard Linklater is a top director with Before Sunrise/Sunset being among the best films I've seen in the last decade and Waking Life was excellent so I'm looking forward to this one - the trailer looks great.
robbiez666
20-02-2005, 13:12
Linklaker is one of the best driectors around. I'm confident that this will be a good film.
thomasc1982
20-02-2005, 18:36
I really hope this is good...but i dont see how any film could do justice to the book...the book is quite brilliant and one of Dick's very best efforts imo.
the trailer looks excellent! :eek:
Reeves always doing films where he gets to go 'Whoa'
Steve1977
15-03-2005, 21:29
Trailer looks superb!
thomasc1982
16-03-2005, 01:25
Must admit..i really like the trailer
robbiez666
23-04-2005, 20:30
this film must hold the record for the most duplicate threads about it...
is anything more know about this? ie release dates!!
jacquesbrel
05-01-2006, 08:23
the official PKD site here: http://www.philipkdick.com/films_scanner.html cites March 2006 as release date.
the fan site http://www.philipkdickfans.com/scanner-sneakpeek.htm seems cautiously optimistic
The best I can hope for is that more people check out PKD's books. Ubik is my fave.
Wendelius
26-05-2006, 09:35
I'm coming late to the party but just saw the "cell shaded" trailer and I'm very intrigued by this movie. I think it has potential.
I've seen cell shading used in games. But has it ever been used in movies before?
In any case, it's gone on my to watch list.
Wendelius
BBFC has just passed this uncut with a 15 cert. "Contains drug references, language & sex." ... Running time = 100 minutes. Is there an official UK release date yet?
Tony Soprano
15-06-2006, 19:11
Variety review from Cannes wasn't very positive :(
PlexShaw
16-06-2006, 12:08
Is there an official UK release date yet?
18 August, last time I checked.
Mr Majestik
16-06-2006, 12:12
Variety review from Cannes wasn't very positive :(
Read a few reviews from Cannes that were pretty damning of the film as well.
playaslaya
16-06-2006, 12:23
IMDB says 18th August - I hope this is a good film I'll be watching it anyway regardless of ther reviews simply because it looks so interesting - genuinely innovative.
See the first 24 mins of the film here. (http://uk.media.filmforce.ign.com/media/670/670907/vid_1577113.html) !!
Brave or stupid move on the part of the distributor...????!!!
The Bear
15-07-2006, 09:29
It looks odd in an almost real sort of way.
direct link to avoid gay flash video player: http://ffmovies.ign.com/filmforce/video/article/717/717774/scanner_24mins_070706_flvhigh.flv
:oh-hum: If there's one film that should be an independent effort (Oh! for Cronenberg :luv: ) rather than a Hollywood star-vehicle, this is it.Oh, I forgot I had posted in this thread!
I saw this a week ago, and have to say I thought it was remarkably good. Pretty much true to the book as far as I can recall. It certainly isn't full of "futuristic" gadgets or gratuitous CGI (errr... other than the computer-assisted rotoscoping), like most PKD adaptations. And yes, it does have the bit about how to make cocaine in your kitchen. On the other hand, it's not as surreal, incoherent or confusing as I remember the book to be. Although Arctor is confused about his double life, the audience never is.
Robert Downey Jr. steals the entire film with a very funny part as Bob's buddy-slash-prime-suspect. Seeing him, Keanu and Woody Harrelson (now, there's a trio of actors who can relate to the topic of the movie!) in their addled drug logic is often hilarious. I suppose that might upset some purists, but it's certainly entertaining.
If you're worried about the casting, ask yourself this: Is Keanu Reeves believable as a stoned, mildly brain-damaged policeman? ... Of course he is! That's how he plays all his parts!
Overall, if you are on the fence about seeing this movie, I say go for it! It's not a classic like Blade Runner, but it's a nice science fiction movie of the mind.
Xenomorph
16-07-2006, 08:22
Really enjoyed this. Good story and I think the rotoscoping suited it perfectly.
neur0mancer
04-08-2006, 13:27
I can't wait to see this, mixed reviews aside I know I'm going to love it
shand754
04-08-2006, 13:53
Did this actually get released in the US yet?
I looked on Box Office Mojo and it has it down as a 7th July release with a total box office take of $4 million to date. Is that right?
ian turner
04-08-2006, 14:31
look on imdb there are posters on their newsboards complaining that it got a 2 cinema release in their entire state. Seems they went for a limited release first.
A scanner darkly coming to an arts cinema near you, if you happen to have an arts cinema near you :cry:
Oh, I forgot I had posted in this thread!
I saw this a week ago, and have to say I thought it was remarkably good. Pretty much true to the book as far as I can recall. It certainly isn't full of "futuristic" gadgets or gratuitous CGI (errr... other than the computer-assisted rotoscoping), like most PKD adaptations. And yes, it does have the bit about how to make cocaine in your kitchen. On the other hand, it's not as surreal, incoherent or confusing as I remember the book to be. Although Arctor is confused about his double life, the audience never is.
Robert Downey Jr. steals the entire film with a very funny part as Bob's buddy-slash-prime-suspect. Seeing him, Keanu and Woody Harrelson (now, there's a trio of actors who can relate to the topic of the movie!) in their addled drug logic is often hilarious. I suppose that might upset some purists, but it's certainly entertaining.
If you're worried about the casting, ask yourself this: Is Keanu Reeves believable as a stoned, mildly brain-damaged policeman? ... Of course he is! That's how he plays all his parts!
Overall, if you are on the fence about seeing this movie, I say go for it! It's not a classic like Blade Runner, but it's a nice science fiction movie of the mind.
Great little review. Is there a site anywhere listing the cinema's its being released in the UK?
cjanderson
09-08-2006, 11:58
http://film.guardian.co.uk/ascannerdarkly
see it free here (well maybe, its first come, first served and may be HUGE numbers of people going)
JimDriver2
17-08-2006, 08:29
Saw this last night at an advanced screening at Cardiff cineworld.
I was thoroughly impressed by it, after weeks summer blockbusters being at best better than average this made a welcome change. It's a great example of how cinema can both be entertaining and actually say something of interest.
The acting was top quality, Downey Jr. being the stand out performance. But that said, he had quite a lot to work with, unlike Reeves who I thought did a great job in a difficult role. Good to (sorta) see Ryder back on the big screen again.
The rotoscoping style fit the film perfectly. In fact the general style of the picture was superbly done, giving you the feeling of disorientation etc that the characters were living in but without making it difficult to watch the film and follow the story.
Definitely one to see in a double feature with Snakes on a Plane this saturday. :thumbs:
snow-munki
17-08-2006, 09:08
watched it last night too. Thought it was great.
took a bit getting used to but just kept getting better and better.
Fairly limited release around here. Nearest cinema to me is about 10 miles away and thats through London traffic and they want to charge £8.50 a ticket!
Is this going to get a wider release after a couple weeks?
DeadWalk
18-08-2006, 19:12
Definitely one to see in a double feature with Snakes on a Plane this saturday. :thumbs:
I did this double bill today but have to say I much preferred Snakes to this.
Thinking back on the movie, I can't put my finger on what it was that I didn't like about it - I loved the interplay between the 4 main characters (Reeves, Downey Jr, Harrelson and Cochrane), the acting by all was top notch (I wouldn't be surprised if Downey Jr gets an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor) and the animated look of the film was superb. It may have been the pace, which I found to be very slow with quite a few boring stretches. Whatever the reason, ultimately, I just didn't 'like' it.
Out of the 30 or so people to start with in the screening I went to several people left after about 30 minutes and there was a steady trickle of leavers from then on, with probably about 15 or so left at the end.
Definitely an acquired taste.
anephric
18-08-2006, 19:29
I really can't get past the Photoshop-style posterisation cel-shaded look of this. It's so passé. I know Linklater's done this rotoscope dance before (and it was naff then) and I still can't imagine sitting through 90 mins of faux machinima. I'm aware of the effort that's gone into this, but why-oh-why are critics saying this is groundbreaking when Ralph Bakshi got consistently hauled over the coals for using hand-rendered rotoscoping for his animated flicks 30 years ago? The only thing that's different here is that Linklater has renderfarms and code-monkeys and the cool cachet of the PS2 generation.
Did anyone notice an odd aspect ratio for this film? I saw this today and the film didn't fit the screen, however the trailers did. There was a good amount each side of the screen that was not used - mind you it did not distract from the film. Could be the cinema mind you .......
-How.
I did this double bill today but have to say I much preferred Snakes to this.
Thinking back on the movie, I can't put my finger on what it was that I didn't like about it - I loved the interplay between the 4 main characters (Reeves, Downey Jr, Harrelson and Cochrane), the acting by all was top notch (I wouldn't be surprised if Downey Jr gets an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor) and the animated look of the film was superb. It may have been the pace, which I found to be very slow with quite a few boring stretches. Whatever the reason, ultimately, I just didn't 'like' it.
Out of the 30 or so people to start with in the screening I went to several people left after about 30 minutes and there was a steady trickle of leavers from then on, with probably about 15 or so left at the end.
Definitely an acquired taste.
I have the same feelings as you about the film except I think I ended up liking it, the good moments outway the bad moments and some of the dialogue and performances are excellent. The big difference for my showing was that the crowd seemed to lap it up, no walkouts and quite a few laughs.
I think I really need to see this again, I'm pretty certain I would enjoy it a lot more the second time.
I really can't get past the Photoshop-style posterisation cel-shaded look of this. It's so passé. I know Linklater's done this rotoscope dance before (and it was naff then) and I still can't imagine sitting through 90 mins of faux machinima. I'm aware of the effort that's gone into this, but why-oh-why are critics saying this is groundbreaking when Ralph Bakshi got consistently hauled over the coals for using hand-rendered rotoscoping for his animated flicks 30 years ago? The only thing that's different here is that Linklater has renderfarms and code-monkeys and the cool cachet of the PS2 generation.
It suits the film very well, I was very sceptical about it until I watched the film and the look was the one thing I really didnt have a big problem with. My problem is that it came across at times as a series of sketches with 3 stoners chatting and bickering, with bits tacked on to do with the police. I'm probably being a bit too simple about it but thats how it felt when I was watching it.
I must admit though because of the look of the film at times I kept thinking about tagging and hearing the title 'Jet Set RadiiOOOOOOOOOO!' in my head. :D
anephric
19-08-2006, 00:26
Understand, understand, understand, understand, understand, understand the concept of love!
mattwakeman
19-08-2006, 07:26
I'm scared to go and see it because I love the book so much. When I saw it (and read a few first hand impressions of it) it sounded as though it could well be the most faithful interpretation of a Dick book that there has been. Blade Runner whilst looking good simply throws out all of the crucial elements of the book but Linklater sounds as though he has kept them. I really want to like it because of the book but am torn as to whether to risk it or not.
rbullivant
19-08-2006, 08:13
Wanted to see this as I enjoyed the book but sadly neither Preston cinema has chosen to show it
Richard
DeadWalk
19-08-2006, 11:03
My problem is that it came across at times as a series of sketches with 3 stoners chatting and bickering, with bits tacked on to do with the police. I'm probably being a bit too simple about it but thats how it felt when I was watching it.
That actually may have been the reason I left feeling disappointed in this. I was expecting more along the lines of Minority Report or Total Recall, not Clerks; more sci-fi action than character driven dialogue piece.
I must add that, apart from 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' when I was 13 and in which I was very disappointed "cos it's nothing like the film", I haven't read anything of Philip K Dick's... my 'knowledge' of his work comes from the film adaptations of his novels and short stories, which makes me about as far from an expert on his works as you can get.
ian turner
19-08-2006, 11:15
yup as the films have practicallly nothing to do with the originals as they suffer from the usual well thats a neat twist but wouldn't it be better if the plot was less confusing , there were more guns and the lead was played a hollywood star action type.
Whereas Dick did copious amounts of speed, suffered from paranoia and wrote mind bending plot lines on various levels of reality where the main character was usually your average overweight late 30s+ bank manager liable to snuff it from a heart attack from all the chaotic things happening to them.
They should stick to adapting E.E.Doc Smith books instead, no problem with depth in those books.
I saw this last night and thought it was stunnig. Not read the book but my mrs has (she's a huge fan of Dick) and she also loved the film. I'll deffo get the DVD as this is something I'm really going to want to revisit.
Why is this not being shown very much?
Was it only released in London last Friday or something?
I saw this last night and thought it was stunnig. Not read the book but my mrs has (she's a huge fan of Dick) and she also loved the film. I'll deffo get the DVD as this is something I'm really going to want to revisit.
slightly off the topic, but....
heh heh.. did you mean to type that...!!!!!!
Spectre07
22-08-2006, 22:25
Is Cell shading turning a live action film into a cartoon?
Shingster
22-08-2006, 22:32
Nah, that's rotoscoping.
Spectre07
22-08-2006, 22:49
From that 20 minute clip, there's no way that's animation, they've done something to the live action film.
slightly off the topic, but....
heh heh.. did you mean to type that...!!!!!!
:D
what do you think :D
From that 20 minute clip, there's no way that's animation, they've done something to the live action film.
Yeah, it is called rotoscoping. Like vector tracing, like Life in Vector (http://www.lifeinvector.com/index2.html). :thumbs:
jobbymaster
23-08-2006, 08:44
seen this last night, was pretty dull with long boring sections. There was also a lot of leavers in the cinema as well.
I had another look at the book, and the film is even more true to the novel than I remembered. Apart from being slightly condensed, it follows the book almost verbatim.
If your expectation of PKD is something like Minority Report, you might not like this, but if you're a fan of the man's writings, I strongly recommend this movie. You might still not enjoy the interpretation, of course, but at least you'll have seen that it is possible to do a faithful adaptation of his stories.
I was seriously underwhelmed by this, and found the ending very unsatisfying.
I just wondered all the way through if the storyline was taking a distinct second-place to the (in some places annoying) graphical treatment. Once you get over the look of it, surely the story is the main thing? I also thought that some of the faces in the "suits" were like a child had drawn them.
I'm holding out more hope for Snakes... not as cerebral an experience I'm sure, but I've a feeling more entertaining (although maybe that's because I'm not due to fly anywhere soon!)
Planescape
24-08-2006, 08:40
Saw this at the weekend and I'm a fan of most of the screen adaptions of Philip K Dicks books, this was for the most part boring though. Looks great, really interesting visual style and the beginning + end was ok but the middle section didn't really do anything and had my friend not bought the cinema ticket theres a high chance I would have walked out. Shame... Oh and it had Keanu Reeves in it playing Keanu Reeves, if there isn't a bigger reason to avoid the film I don't know what is. Downey Jr was pretty good however, about the only good thing in the film really.
Took me about 20 minutes to assure myself I wasn't playing Killer 7 :)
I liked it. This puts me very much in the minority amongst the four I went to see it with!!! "Thank god that's over", was the quote from my left as the credits rolled.
Felt it could've been deeper, if you're going to make a confusing slow paced unusual flick with sci-fi influences then make it really confusing so we've all got something to think about instead of going "ooh" at the rotoscoping.
Speaking of which, it is a shame it was slightly inconsistant. Did anyone notice the weird perspective errors that tended to occur when the camera pans in a curve? Also a few of the objects, cars and pets in particular, seemed to occasionally float near the surface. Didn't ruin it, just broke the suspension of disbelief occasionally.
oh, not as much as when I thought "how is he popping a pill through a full on body suit..?"
Did anyone notice the weird perspective errors that tended to occur when the camera pans in a curve? Also a few of the objects, cars and pets in particular, seemed to occasionally float near the surface. Didn't ruin it, just broke the suspension of disbelief occasionally.
I don't think any of those were 'errors'. I think were all all intended to add to the hallucinogenic feel and thought they worked really well.
loved the drugged conversations, and the style worked really well. didn't really think the ending was that great...no finish to it. Does the book end in a similar way?
Barney_Tabasco
24-08-2006, 17:15
Sounds to me that your opinion on this film depends on if you are a huge lover of Dick.
bazkeane82
24-08-2006, 19:13
Funny to see the first page of this thread slating this film and actors before it was even made then a total change of opinion on the following pages
I saw this last week , enjoyed it very much, needs a second viewing though as i didn't fully understand every thing. Is it worth reading the book if you've already seen the film?
Space Duck
25-08-2006, 07:25
Found it difficult to get to grips with the animation.... I thought it was good but my cinema buddy is one of those that if they don't like something they let it be known... Sighing, fidgeting all sorts... well annoying so I missed bits...
To be honest I found it boring to begin with but then some parts interested me and others just switched me off completely. Also artifacts like cars sliding all over the place... so so so annoying!!
ian turner
25-08-2006, 09:35
Saw this at the weekend and I'm a fan of most of the screen adaptions of Philip K Dicks books, this was for the most part boring though.
Which means science fiction action films that bear little or no relation to the original stories beyond the basic storyline if that and 5 out of the 7 adaptations have been of short stories so even less material to have to ignore.
Whereas this is stays relatively close to a story which contains only a few science fiction references in the form of the distortion suit he wears when dealing with his superiors and the monitoring equipment at HQ. Faithful interpretations of his books would tend to get bad reactions as fans of the other films don't want kafkaesque paranoia trips flavouring their sci fi adventures
h0l1yw0od
26-08-2006, 23:02
Saw this tonight in Chichester. Never read any Philip K Dick as i've heard they're all a little... strange, and i figured i'd never enjoy them. However, i really enjoyed this. Loved the look and enjoyed the story, while i fully appreciate there were messages and things that didn't hit my radar but this was just different and i'll definately pick this up on DVD. Hopefully it'll have a ton of decent bonus material and/or preferrably a 1 hour (at least!) documentary rather then a bunch of rubbish 5 minute featurettes.
Anyhoo, my point, for me i 'got' what i needed to. The only thing i'd like a little clarification on was the scene where... cue spoilers...
Keanu sleeps with the blond girl and when he wakes up he freaks because he sees Winona(:n0rty::luv: ) instead. She then turns back into blondie. I figured this was just the effects of the drugs playing with his mind. Then when he plays back the footage Winona turns up in the video. Now i was wondering the significance of this but i think i've just figured it out, is it that, like he questions in part of the narration, the scanner has actually recorded his thoughts and feelings and as he loves Winona and not blondie thats what it's recorded?
Just curious. Great film.
Ok, i gotta ask, is that really Winona's boobage? :nuts:
cliff homewood
28-08-2006, 18:49
I thought it was a great film with a great ending. a bit slow in places but never dull. I found the stoner conversation hilarious, I just lapped it up and never wanted to leave their world. Now I have a question are these from the original novel or Linklater, wondering whether to chase up Dazed and Confused, is that similar?
re Hollywoods spoiler I also thought that was one of the msot confusing parts of the film, I also think it was just the drugs playing with his perception after what the doctors have jsut told/asked him.
Didn't really understand this film at all.
Was very confusing like I was on drugs just like the characters. :lol: :suspect:
padayachy3000
24-10-2006, 19:05
I thought it was a great film with a great ending. a bit slow in places but never dull. I found the stoner conversation hilarious, I just lapped it up and never wanted to leave their world. Now I have a question are these from the original novel or Linklater, wondering whether to chase up Dazed and Confused, is that similar?
Sorry for the late reply, but if you want technically similar material to ASD you must check out Waking Life also directed by Linklater, which uses the same animation technique as ASD. If you like Kevin Smith movies but don't like the crudeness then you should check out Dazed and Confused, Tape, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset (basically his whole filmography).
Will be going to the Linklater double bill at Riverside Studios, London tomorrow where they'll be showing WL and ASD. Then on Sunday I'll be going to his screentalk at the London Film Festival along with the showing of his latest movie Fast Food Nation :clap:
ASD is the best film of the year for me (closely followed by U93). Anyone got news of a DVD release date?
eye__writ
25-10-2006, 13:35
Anyone got news of a DVD release date?
R1 = 19/12/2006
R2 = ??/??/????
Caught this on a second chance at the cinema last night and I was really looking forward to it, but sadly was left dissapointed. It jut didnt do it for me, and was really crawling up its own backside near the end. And Keanu Reeves acting was awful as usual.
On the flip side though Robert Downey Jr. was BRILLIANT!
new forms
18-11-2006, 19:33
Did not get into this fully. I think it would have worked best as a straight out stoner film without the sci fi and animation elements. The stuff i did enjoy was the back and forth between the drug adled characters but apart from that not much else about this film caught my attention.
Nice emsemble work from all the actors and you could see that they were comfortable and having a good time working together
JimDriver2
18-11-2006, 20:23
In case people are interested, the R3 is coming out same day as the R1, is exactly the same content but a whole lot cheaper...
Squirrel God
16-12-2006, 03:18
I was bored about 80% of the time watching this. It does look great but that's about it. You know how some films can be a bit slow for the first 15-20 mins, but then really pick up? Well, those first 15-20 mins stretched out to a feature length duration is what my experience of A Scanner Darkly was. It started to pick up just a few minutes before the end, at which point I think the intention was to have the audience go, "Aaahhhh!" as they became enlightened; but I just sat there muttering, "Is that it?"
http://www.btinternet.com/~squirrel.god/files/4stars.png
Wowbagger
16-12-2006, 12:22
You're made of stronger stuff than me, I hated it so much I couldn't bear more than half of it. I didn't like the visuals at all, I found them ugly. Downey was insufferably smug, Reeves (again) tried hard to act and missed, Ryder was a waste of space and Harrelson was Harrelson. Bore of the year, by a mile.
Got this on dvd, love the look and generally enjoyed the film i just have a few questions.
Whats the point?
If they know Reeves is druggy etc why send Winona in there to spy on him who is spying on the others? Winona then does same as Reeves and the others, yet only at the end does Reeves seem to go and get sorted.
I may be abit thick and have missed some hidden meaning, if so anyone mind explaining it to me, if not....whats the point.
ian turner
02-01-2007, 14:24
its a faithful translation of a Philip K Dick novel. All other adaptations have taken a few of the plot lines then done a major rewrite to make them suitable for the masses. Even Blade Runner that wasn't as successful on first release had the plot rewritten as in the book there is the usual level of confusion as to who is really in charge.
As to what's the point. Well PKD did tend to consume huge amounts of speed so his books are generally confusing though UBIK is the best for total incomprehension (hence the game of the book seemed a dumb idea)
Reeves character is being setup to infiltrate the rehab farms where they are using stoners to grow the stuff they are hooked on. He has to be convincing but the problem obviously is that how are they going to get anything useful out of him after he's that far gone
Thanks Ian
So the whole point of the film is for the section at the end with Keanu in the fields?
Why not just send Winona's character who played a druggy and actually worked for the government or whoever it may be...?
They had tried to use other agents before, but security was too tight. The only people who actually gained access to the fields where they grew the flowers were drug casualties: people with serious brain damage from abusing D. In order to successfully infiltrate, they had to send a real drug user with real damage.
They had tried to use other agents before, but security was too tight. The only people who actually gained access to the fields where they grew the flowers were drug casualties: people with serious brain damage from abusing D. In order to successfully infiltrate, they had to send a real drug user with real damage.
Is this explained anywhere, i cannot really remember i did watch fairly late at night :shrug:
Yeah, it comes out when Winona's character is talking to that guy from the institution at the end. He's arguing with her about the necessity of the whole operation, and mentions that he has never been able to get access to the growing fields, security is too tight. Only the real head cases are brought there to work.
GProject
28-01-2007, 00:00
Having just got finished watching this I can only say that I really wanted to like it, but somehow the movie is making that difficult for me. I loved the style, but the slight meanderings in the story got to me over the length of the flick - although I'm happy to say that I did keep up with what was going on for the most part.
Rotoscoping is certainly an interesting technique, although undoubtedly time-consuming to do. I think that it's a style that best suits these off-beat movies, and I'm glad that this was one of the first because it sets the president that you need to match style to content. I’ll be interested to see what movie utilises the effect following this.
SqueakyG
28-01-2007, 16:00
I was underwhelmed. The animation style was disorienting, as I'm sure it was supoposed to be, to give a druggy feel. But it just made me nauseous and gave me a headache.
I guess I expected a mind-bending film where the audience would be freaked out and disoriented about Keanu's identity - cop or druggy. But I was surprised at how simple it was. We are always very aware of who he is. It seems like a pretty simple story of an undercover cop getting too involved with drugs to stay undercover, and questioning his allegiance/identity. I thought it would be trippy. Not knowing the book, I kind of expected a twist about his identity. None came. Unless I'm missing something, it was all very straightforward.
I liked the eventual plotline though, How the police used him to infiltrate the company making the drug, because only someone truly fried on the drug can enter the rehabilitation program, which is also ironically the company that makes the drug. Good conspiracy there, good twist. Shame it only comes at the end, after a whole long booooring film about druggies having dull paranoid conversations all day long.
Having read UBIK I wouldn't say it was incomprehensible, merely it has a fairly obvious premise. It actually made me wonder if Murakami had read much Dick, but I have no idea about his English reading skills vs. the amount of Dick's work that has been translated into Japanese.
As to this film, I thought the rotoscoping style was really something but it seemed to act like a barrier between me and the actors, making it hard for me to really just accept the story. I still enjoyed it but I felt that bits where I should have been laughing felt too stilted.
robzinski
11-02-2007, 11:37
Finally got round to watching this on DVD last night, and loved it.
I thought all the performances were good, especially enjoyed the Harrelson initiated 'There's some gears missing' bit.
Can see how many wouldn't get the ending though.
This could be a great film one day if they re-release it without all the cartoonery. I could find no benefit in this, compared to doing it with any other film. Less in fact, given the level of comedy, particularly from Harrelson and Downey Jnr, which would have worked much better as live action. I didn't mind it in Waking Life, but enough already.
JimDriver2
11-02-2007, 12:49
Er, how would all the unreal stuff work then? Like the bugs, and when the various people morph into different things. That would have to be CGI in the least, and would stand out a mile. Oh and especially the suit Reeves wears, CGI could do it, but it would cost and no way a big studio gives them money to make a film like this.
I thought the whole rotoscoping worked perfectly. It conveys the feeling of disconnect that the characters were going through.
Er, how would all the unreal stuff work then? Like the bugs, and when the various people morph into different things. That would have to be CGI in the least, and would stand out a mile. Oh and especially the suit Reeves wears, CGI could do it, but it would cost and no way a big studio gives them money to make a film like this.
I thought the whole rotoscoping worked perfectly. It conveys the feeling of disconnect that the characters were going through.
Yeah, but I agree with McD that the comedy moments were often hampered by the rotoscoping, seeming fake and lacking...something that would make them slick enough to really hit home. I don't know, I just remember watching the 'gears' scene and thinking it should have been a lot funnier but it just felt weird.
On the other hand, the whole film has a sort of a tense, nervous feeling that may have affected my ability to relax enough to laugh, so this might be part of the point.
I watched this on HD-DVD last night and the picture is superb!
The movie, not so.
It seemed to me that the whole point of the movie was for the last 2 minutes of plot development, getting Keanu hooked on Substance D, so that he could infiltrate the rehab scheme that is growing it.
I really wanted to like it but it's definatley a case of style over substance.
unrealnils
30-05-2007, 23:55
just watched after not bothering for ages thinking it was gonna be naff but really enjoyed it.
A cool little film this !!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.