Review: A Scanner Darkly
Yesterday Gerrie, Les and I saw Richard Linklater's film adaptation of Philip K Dick's novel "A Scanner Darkly". I saw it and wanted to write this before reading reviews.
In case you were wondering, it is not science fiction in any real sense of the word. The basic idea is (skip this para if you plan to see/read it!) the main character, played by Reeves, is so deep undercover as a narcotic agent in a post war-on-drugs world he is tasked to keep watch on his friends, his girlfriend and himself, all of whom are 'Substance D' addicts. He falls victim to the drug's addictive and mentally destructive properties which is what he is supposed to combat, ends up in rehab and finds out he is actually farming the selfsame drugs during his 'recovery'. This is signature Philip K Dick twist-upon-twist material.
The good
The cooky, acid-wavy, not-quite-comic-book visual style (I think it's highly posterized film footage or somesuch - not animation).
Woody Harrelson - reminded me of Brad Pitt in Twelve Monkeys
Robert Downey Jnr - a slick, sick fucker
The bad
There's a listlessness that prevented me from really empathizing with any of the characters. Several times I caught myself thinking this is not quite working, or "when will this flick come to life", "whats the point". Maybe I've seen too many slacker movies.
The whole theme of drug induced corporate paranoia is a bit passe
The indifferent
Keanu Reeves is ok but uninspired as usual. Still playing himself after all these years.
A somewhat clueless Winona Ryder.
A redeeming thing to say is I felt the same indifference towards the book (I much preferred his A Man in the High Castle and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (which Bladerunner was based on of course).
In all I think it deserves a so-so 6/10 but it's mandatory viewing if you're into Philip K Dick or novel cinematic style.
Reminder to self: explore why almost everyone I know is religiously prejudiced against all sci-fi...
Update:
The Guardian, Times, Independent and FT all give it 6/10.
In case you were wondering, it is not science fiction in any real sense of the word. The basic idea is (skip this para if you plan to see/read it!) the main character, played by Reeves, is so deep undercover as a narcotic agent in a post war-on-drugs world he is tasked to keep watch on his friends, his girlfriend and himself, all of whom are 'Substance D' addicts. He falls victim to the drug's addictive and mentally destructive properties which is what he is supposed to combat, ends up in rehab and finds out he is actually farming the selfsame drugs during his 'recovery'. This is signature Philip K Dick twist-upon-twist material.
The good
The cooky, acid-wavy, not-quite-comic-book visual style (I think it's highly posterized film footage or somesuch - not animation).
Woody Harrelson - reminded me of Brad Pitt in Twelve Monkeys
Robert Downey Jnr - a slick, sick fucker
The bad
There's a listlessness that prevented me from really empathizing with any of the characters. Several times I caught myself thinking this is not quite working, or "when will this flick come to life", "whats the point". Maybe I've seen too many slacker movies.
The whole theme of drug induced corporate paranoia is a bit passe
The indifferent
Keanu Reeves is ok but uninspired as usual. Still playing himself after all these years.
A somewhat clueless Winona Ryder.
A redeeming thing to say is I felt the same indifference towards the book (I much preferred his A Man in the High Castle and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (which Bladerunner was based on of course).
In all I think it deserves a so-so 6/10 but it's mandatory viewing if you're into Philip K Dick or novel cinematic style.
Reminder to self: explore why almost everyone I know is religiously prejudiced against all sci-fi...
Update:
The Guardian, Times, Independent and FT all give it 6/10.
posted by Louis at 2:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home