Come Anticipate A SCANNER DARKLY with me!!!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This movie looks DAMN SILLY

Seriously if I was making a joke I don't think I could have set it up better, this shit is absurd. Woody Harrelson! Downey Jr.! Ryder! Reeves! ROTOSCOPING KINDA!!

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)

oh man i am bummed now.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

Harrelson looks exactly how I pictured that character in the book, the front lawn, too. Left brain/right brain shit could be interesting, if done scientifically.

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

There is another thread on this.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:31 (twenty years ago)

The trailer looks good to me though (except Winona, ACK!)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:31 (twenty years ago)

There is another thread on this.

suspected as much.
did find for "darkly" on all updated threads and no results.
couldn't be bothered.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:35 (twenty years ago)

okay actually visually it looks cool but goddammit keanu! somebody pls kill his agent or something.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

Keanu is really pretty good at playing drug addled people though.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:39 (twenty years ago)

he's cipher, which is just fine for internal action-heavy sci-fi.

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:41 (twenty years ago)

xpost - no he isn't.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:41 (twenty years ago)

Oh please, he's fine in River's Edge and the Bill & Ted flicks.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

and why has My Own Private Idaho been erased from the collective consciousness?

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

are bill & ted supposed to be drug addled?

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

(x-post)Because it sucked.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

xpost - he's great in those, not so good in anything else. argunaut we were talking about that movie last week!

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

yeah, but then it was in the context of River Phoenix being erased from the collective consciousness. Replaced by DiCaprio I wager.

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:52 (twenty years ago)

Eh more likely Johnny Depp.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

xpost - he was so much better than l'il leo too. RIP ONE VIPER ROOM.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

My visceral reaction to Keanu is the same as hstencil's - but I'm holding out hope for this one based on Linklater's love and respect for the source material, which seems very genuine to me. And I think visually it looks great - apart from Keanu, the casting is perfect. Downey Jr and Harrelson as drug-addled paranoid freaks = no acting required!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:08 (twenty years ago)

IS THE ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE LIKE THIS

BECAUSE THAT ANIMATION THING MAKES ME WANT TO RIP MY OWN EYEBALLS OUT

THANK YOU

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:13 (twenty years ago)

DOWNEY SHOULD"VE BEEN THE LEAD BEST ACTOR OF OUR TIME.

i like the animation.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

yeah me too. and appropriate for the material/themes as well (constantly shifting identities, mutability of reality, etc.)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

Uh oh

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:18 (twenty years ago)

...I'll stick with the book, thanks.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

i'd bet most of us on this thread have read the book, Ned.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)

oh come on, give Linklater some credit. Clearly he's put in some serious time from PKD, witness his closing monologue in "Waking Life".

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)

i absolutely despise it, it makes me nauseated for some reason, it was the main reason i couldn't even pretend to watch Waking Life

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)

from = with
duh

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:23 (twenty years ago)

also hstencil otm about Downey

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:23 (twenty years ago)

PHILIP K DICK BACK FAT!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:23 (twenty years ago)

b-b-b-but - Allyzay do you hate the style for some kind of aesthetic reason? Or does it just hurt your eyes to look at it, like thos Magic Eye things?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:24 (twenty years ago)

i wonder how much downey's drop in employability is related to insurance issues

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:24 (twenty years ago)

A TON. at least that's what he said when i listened to him on leonard lopate a couple months ago, blount.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:25 (twenty years ago)

shakey, I'm not really sure. they're both kind of the same thing though--if it bothers my eyes and mental state than I'm not going to appreciate it aesthetically and will find a reason why it is aesthetically invalid.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:32 (twenty years ago)

To be honest I never saw Waking Life so I don't know how I'd hold up to a feature-length sit-through with that kind of animation. I'm a total sucker for cartoons about the future though.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:35 (twenty years ago)

i liked waking life okay.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:35 (twenty years ago)

2005 - this, Steamboy, Howl's Moving Castle, Robots, already looking like a good year for cartoon movies!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:38 (twenty years ago)

Woody Harrelson & Robert Downey Jr.! That seriously is a bad-ass piece of good job casting right there.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:39 (twenty years ago)

i think maybe the issue here is that i hate Linklater cos I can't think of a movie of his that i enjoyed.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:39 (twenty years ago)

not even "Dazed and Confused"????!!? how could you not enjoy that?

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:41 (twenty years ago)

he's hit and miss but yeah, come on there's something in his catalog for everyone, I think... (me I rate Dazed and Confused very highly, Waking Life is pretty good but kinda thin, and Slacker def. has its moments)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

haha i'm actually more "concerned" about his bad news bears remake

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

i'm crazy about alot of linklater

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

If you had a cow, and you only ever let it eat Skittles, nothing else, I imagine that Robots movie is a pretty good approximation of what would come out of that cow's violently spasming asshole. Right before it died.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

I have an idea how the casting could have been improved:

BRING ME THE BACK FAT OF DAVID THEWLIS!

― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

Wait, you didn't like School of Rock, Ally?!?!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

see slacker thread

― cutty (mcutt), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

Who the fuck is it that is responsible for continually casting ROBIN WILLIAMS in films about ROBOTS?

Anyway sorry, back on topic.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:46 (twenty years ago)

YOU SHOULD QUIT.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:47 (twenty years ago)

haha i'm actually more "concerned" about his bad news bears remake

I'm more concerned about The Smoker starring NATALIE BORING PORTMAN.

haha TOBMOT that's exactly my one qualm with that film

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:47 (twenty years ago)

no wait School of Rock was ok.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:49 (twenty years ago)

oh pish.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:50 (twenty years ago)

dude wtf does Natalie Portman keep getting cast in things for? I mean you people say what you want about Keanu Reeves WHO IS TOTALLY AWESOME, bbut at least he's a terrible actor in a kind of funny, amusing, completely inappropriate way.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

I keep seeing Waking Life played at my fave local bar, they have it running on mute. Not enough people set themselves on fire in that film.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

Best usage of Keanu Reeves ever was in Dangerous Liasions, I mean wtf kind of awesome drugs was the casting director on???

NED RAGGETT OTM

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:52 (twenty years ago)

waking life rules

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:52 (twenty years ago)

best usage of keanu ever = little buddha (i'm guessing)

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:53 (twenty years ago)

Newton Boys was really surprisingly entertaining as I recall. Then again I have a higher tolerance for the leads in that film than the average bear.

Haha Ned that is a problem with many films made since film was invented!

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:54 (twenty years ago)

dude blount, watching waking life was like watching all of the most horrible moments of my life, in slow motion, in artsy "cartoon" format.

we were actually complete cocks throughout the whole thing, after we realized that this was what was going on in the movie, that it was every unacceptable conversation any of us ever were subjected to during our college careers or while like hanging out at "dinner parties" at hampshire, we really actually should've just left because we were total assholes the rest of the film, talking loudly and plotting what film we'd go see next to erase waking life from our minds (it was harry potter, approximately 15 minutes after waking life ended)

XPOST OMG I FORGOT ABOUT LITTLE BUDDHA

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:55 (twenty years ago)

i also forgot about Much Ado About Nothing

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:55 (twenty years ago)

Keanu was in fucking MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING haha!

When do we get to see Keanu AND Natalie Portman in the same movie together?!?!? SWIRLING VORTEX OF EMOTIONLESS EPXRESSIONS!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:56 (twenty years ago)

Scanners Live In Vain.

― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:56 (twenty years ago)

I like how Keanu got "dark" for his role in Much Ado... by, like, not shaving!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:57 (twenty years ago)

"Newton Boys was really surprisingly entertaining as I recall."

Although the best parts are the clips at the end of the REAL Newton Boys 600 years old and on Carson and Letterman!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

Keanu Reeves has been in so much fantastic shit. I haven't seen Speed in years, I think I might watch it, soon.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

Tombot, you are most correct there re burning...but let's face it, the film gave itself an opening, I would like to see it fulfilled!

(The other films that continually run at this bar are Snatch, Fight Club, The Animatrix and some goddamn nature films.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:00 (twenty years ago)

THERE'S A BOMB (smack smack smack)ON THE BUS.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:01 (twenty years ago)

Ethan Hawke's statements in Waking Life were consistently met with "HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA....ETHAN HAWKE!!!" by one of my co-viewers. Which actually didn't get old at all.

Add Ethan Hawke to the Natalie Portman/Keanu Reeves movie and you've perhaps got the most dead fish movie ever made.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:02 (twenty years ago)

Starring in...PLOT

*A Richard Linklater Experiment*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:04 (twenty years ago)

*A Richard Linklater Excursion*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:04 (twenty years ago)

Is there any way we can adapt a screenplay for this Hawke/Portman/Reeves/Linklater vehicle from a Momus ilx post?

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:05 (twenty years ago)

*A Richard Linklater Exposition*

Nickalicious, I think the trucker hat thread now has a purpose. That or a Kill Bill post or two.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:05 (twenty years ago)

xxxxpost:
You got that right, Ally, although perhaps they might also draft Andy Garcia to bring in the older crowd.

― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:06 (twenty years ago)

I liked Waking Life (though my memory of it is vague), but this looks truly awful. The rotoscoping looked much better in Waking Life, this hews too closely to what the actors actually look like and the color palette is fug-ly.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:06 (twenty years ago)

Actors that Keanu Reeves is has at least as many faces as, a list.

Ethan Hawke
Natalie Portman
Andy Garcia (thanks for reminding me, Ken!)
Kyle MacLachlan
Al Pacino
Chris O'Donnell

Please feel free to add more. It's a little way to remind you all that Keanu is NOT SO BAD.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

Kyle MacLachlan >>>>>>>>>>>>> Keanu

Twin Peaks! Showgirls! COME ON!!!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:09 (twenty years ago)

I FORGOT:

Richard Gere
James Spader

xpost: Kyle MacLachlan being awesome has everything to do with the fact that he ONLY HAS ONE FACE. I mean dude, Dune, Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks, Showgirls, Sex in the City--HE'S PLAYING THE SAME CHARACTER IN ALL OF THEM! Which is what makes him totally great.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:10 (twenty years ago)

what was the movie where kyle maclachlan has a beard?

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:11 (twenty years ago)

I mean any actor that can convey the same character playing an FBI agent OR the leader of some unknown made up outerspace faction that rides around on worms is totally ok by me.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:12 (twenty years ago)

so many actors do that tho - Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty to thread...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:12 (twenty years ago)

yes but they do it with multiple facial expressions!

Well maybe not Warren Beatty.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

KEVIN COSTNER, PEOPLE

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

Come on, Al Pacino used to be the greatest actor on the planet. He's amazing in The Godfather and Panic In Needle Park (after that he's definitely prone to monochrome acting, it's true.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:14 (twenty years ago)

And he certainly has more than one facial expression in both.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:14 (twenty years ago)

man i'm renting devil's advocate tonighte

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:15 (twenty years ago)

I think Keanu is actually really good in his parts - whether he's a "good actor" doesn't even really matter.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:15 (twenty years ago)

Kevin Costner doesn't even have any vocal inflections! He's just got 1) conversational, and 2) "passionate". Keanu at least can do, like, confused too.

This has become a Defend the Indefensible: Keanu thread!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:15 (twenty years ago)

dude having lots of different facial expressions and tones of voice doesn't make you a good actor! Jesus christ, people. Compare!

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/robin_williams.jpg
http://www.cyber-print-media.com/Posters/Actors/Clint-Eastwood-aaa.jpg

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:16 (twenty years ago)

Kyle MacLachlan >>>>>>>>>>>>> Keanu

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/sony_pictures_classics/touch_of_pink/kyle_maclachlan/touchofpink5.jpg http://www.fantafilm.it/attori/Maclac.jpg http://kyle.narod.ru/23.jpg http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/cinema/news/superman/kyle.jpg http://www.posterplanet.net/pictures/images/Km1b1.gif

...I can keep going. These are from the first page of image search!!!

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:17 (twenty years ago)

Hahah, oh man. (xpost)

Kyle rules. Always has.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:17 (twenty years ago)

Alright I'll specify Al Pacino

Al Pacino (post-Scarface) (though I am not 100% sold on the idea that he has more than, like, two faces in Godfather)

Tombot OTM expressions are overrated.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

I dare someone to rent Robin Williams' 1989 non-epic Being Human. You will rip out your skull.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

Oh come on, Robin Williams has lots of good films. Admittedly, they're the ones where he doesn't do so many faces.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to like both MacLachlan and Keanu!

Also Ned, the reason you refuse to see The Matrix is because of Reeves, right?

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

C'mon, Ned! The nature films are awesome! Especially the one with the penguins. Koyaanisqatsi plays a lot there too. As do Logan's Run and Tron.

I'm tremendously excited for this film, but then I like Linklater, PKDick, rotoscoping and Waking Life and Keanu is not really that awful in anything that I've seen that's not an action movie, so...

― firstworldman (firstworldman), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

I don't just like Kyle and Keanu, I LOVE THEM. They are awesome, at what they do.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:19 (twenty years ago)

"Also Ned, the reason you refuse to see The Matrix is because of Reeves, right?"

haha - I thought this was just me and my wife! (well another reason I never saw it is that the Wachowski brothers are horrible filmmakers. Bound is an unforgivably bad piece of shit)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:19 (twenty years ago)

i was hoping this was defend the indefensible: linklater. cause he pwns.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:20 (twenty years ago)

And really honestly, in the expressionless-FBI-agent-sweepstakes Kyle MacLachlan sure beats the shit out of David Duchovny (both as Mulder and as Dennis, for you Neds in the crowd)

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:20 (twenty years ago)

yeah keanu's great, it's weird to think we've had him for nearly twenty years now

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:21 (twenty years ago)

Let me try this again

BRING ME THE BACK FAT OF ANDY GARCIA!

― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:21 (twenty years ago)

That Robin Williams/Clint post is OTMer than George Washington!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:21 (twenty years ago)

I would rather watch any movie with Keanu, even Babes in Toyland, than watch Helen Hunt squish up her face.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:23 (twenty years ago)

Yeah. And I never understood the Linda Hunt love either.

― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:25 (twenty years ago)

I think Robin Williams was cast in Dead Poet's Society to even out Ethan Hawke's lack of any discernible facial expression ever. If you average them, they are like a normal human being.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:25 (twenty years ago)

C'mon, Ned! The nature films are awesome! Especially the one with the penguins. Koyaanisqatsi plays a lot there too. As do Logan's Run and Tron.

I've missed when they've shown Tron! I've been ripped off!

The nature films aren't bad but they are a visual non-sequitur to everything else about the place.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:25 (twenty years ago)

Ned, you never answered my question about The Matrix.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:29 (twenty years ago)

linda hunt is the midget, right? she RULEZ ally yu fule!

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:33 (twenty years ago)

i didn't say shit about linda hunt, i dunno who she is!

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:35 (twenty years ago)

oh whoops that was Ken L. SORRY ALLYZAY YOU STILL ROCK THE AWESOMEST.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:36 (twenty years ago)

linda hunt IS shadout mapes in DUNE:

http://www.davidlynch.de/dunemapes.jpg

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:37 (twenty years ago)

ally linda hunt's great! she's in kindergarten cop

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:38 (twenty years ago)

blount it's not ally we gotta yell at. it's ken l. wtf? dude?

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:39 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, people. I just wasn't convinced by her Academy Award-winning performance, but perhaps she was just overshadowed by Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver.

― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:40 (twenty years ago)

Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon= BEST PERFORMANCE EVER

― 57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:43 (twenty years ago)

no, Mick Jagger in Performance = BEST PERFORMANCE EVER. oh wait.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:49 (twenty years ago)

Pun.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:51 (twenty years ago)

BUT KEN SHE WAS PLAYING A MAN GEDDIT? OMG UNCONVENTIONAL CASTING

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:58 (twenty years ago)

This one time I was watching some movie she was in with these dudes and one of 'em for no reason was like "guys, imagine what it's like when she FUCKS PEOPLE" and then the other roffletacular jokesters we were with were all like "imagine her fucking HULK HOGAN" and "imagine her fucking ANDRE THE GIANT" and I'm just like UGH, JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN IMAGINATION DOESN'T MEAN YOU NEED TO SHARE.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)

http://www.mateas.com/samson.jpg
I'd hit it.

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 20:21 (twenty years ago)

Wow, you bunch of miserable dried up old cynics. I love Linklater, I loved Waking Life, and this film looks like it could be interesting (though even I am tiring of Keenyoos cardboard cutout acting now). I think the rotoscoping is possibly one of the few ways this story could have been captured. If it'd been done straight you'd all still be bitching. Can't win.

Sometimes I'm sick of this board.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:21 (twenty years ago)

I like Linklater too! don't take it out on everyone.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:23 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, I just saw a thread full of "HAHAH OMG LINKLATER SUCKS ETHAN SUCKS KEANU SUCKS HAHA THIS LOOKS SHIT" and got cranky.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:24 (twenty years ago)

Thanks for the trailer link, very cool looking.

― 57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:53 (twenty years ago)

Where was that thread, Trayce?

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:05 (twenty years ago)

Hang on, you started this thread dude! Does "this movie looks DAMN SILLY" mean something else in american? I'm confused now. Make up yer minds ya bastards ;P

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:14 (twenty years ago)

This is clearly going to be my favorite movie of all time.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:27 (twenty years ago)

(xpost: Coming from certain people, the word "silly" is not pejorative, much like "ridiculous" is not always pejorative.)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:28 (twenty years ago)

Yeah fair point there.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:30 (twenty years ago)

"Ridiculous" is almost always praise from me.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:44 (twenty years ago)

Suddenly I fear I have been misreading so much of ILX.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:45 (twenty years ago)

"http://www.re-played.com/images/tn_Jackson,%20Michael%20-%20Bad.jpg"

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 23:46 (twenty years ago)

six months pass...

just saw the trailer today. looks interesting.

http://www.philipkdick.com/images/films_scannerposter.jpg

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9453/scanner3sm.jpg

Ron Burgundy, NOOOOOO!!!!!!

― kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 September 2005 00:51 (twenty years ago)

Woody Harrelson looks absolutely unforgivable in the trailer.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 30 September 2005 01:14 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...

wtf apparently this is out NEXT autumn? in the uk, anyway.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 23 December 2005 09:45 (nineteen years ago)

Makes sense, I mean between that cast, linklater, and the Komputor Aidid Rotoskopink you have to assume about 48 months of dead time in between all the reshoots and post-pro. I can't imagine how you judge your dailies during principal photography when you know all that shit has to bee done to every single frame afterwards, the full-on green screening method is probably pie by comparison

― TOMBOT, Friday, 23 December 2005 13:36 (nineteen years ago)

Supposedly they lost half the computer imagery company, or the main guy from that company walked, or something of the sort. So all the footage was shot but nobody was around to do the animation thingy to it. Oops.

― mike h. (mike h.), Friday, 23 December 2005 23:47 (nineteen years ago)

RH to score Linklater's A Scanner Darkly?

― sleep (sleep), Saturday, 24 December 2005 00:28 (nineteen years ago)

this is test screening already... i passed up a chance to see it because i hate those marketing questions afterward.

― firstworldman (firstworldman), Saturday, 24 December 2005 00:54 (nineteen years ago)

I have nothing to say about this that anyone would want to read.

― J (Jay), Saturday, 24 December 2005 01:16 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Second trailer up

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 08:35 (nineteen years ago)

Oooh. Nice. I like the M86 in the soundtrack there - that better not be the usual "put cool song in trailer wot is not in film" thing. I am really looking forward to this film: I mean OK, Keanu and Whineona are in it urgh, but I guess this story suits Keenoo (his usual dazed "dude, woah" thing) and the twisty morphy story totally suits Linklater's amazing rotoscoped animation. Which I loved in Waking Life, but would love to see in a slightly less "talky philosophy" plot, which this seems on preview to have.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 10:04 (nineteen years ago)

two months pass...

http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23181

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 1 May 2006 17:57 (nineteen years ago)

are r4dioh34D scoring this movie or not? Seems unlikely as that would be too many "this movie will kick ass" factors at once for me.

― richardk (Richard K), Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:37 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

If you've ever wanted to read a Gary Indiana piece on Scanner where Linklater is called "the Dostoyevsky of movie dialogue," go crazy.

http://www.artforum.com/inprint/id=11066

My fave [sic] is "Linklater's madeleine is a vagina dipped in high school cafeteria tea."

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 2 June 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

i've started listening to the audiobook(done by paul giamatti). i'm wondering how much of the orange county/7-11/ suburban hell bits will make it into the flick.

― kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 2 June 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

are r4dioh34D scoring this movie or not?

I think on the ILM thread the conclusion was that some of their music was being used but they weren't doing an original score

― Renard (Renard), Friday, 2 June 2006 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

audiobook(done by paul giamatti)

DOOD I SO JUST PUT THIS ON RESERVE AT THE LIBRARY

― J (Jay), Friday, 2 June 2006 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

I find those Charles Schwab ads kind of annoying, so I'm not sure I could take this for an entire feature-length film. It does look kind of cool in the trailer though.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 2 June 2006 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

yknow, looking at the casting, it doesn't seem too bad.

a bedraggled keanu should be fine as a Point Break-kinda undercover narc as well as a SoCal wastoid, Robert Downey Jr as the effette(as Giamatti plays him) drug scientist, winona ryder as the neuron-fried girlfriend, rory cochrane as another gutter SoCal wastoid, etc.

Christ, do i wish Dick could have lived for another 30 years, tho.

― kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 2 June 2006 19:31 (nineteen years ago)

he is with us in spirit

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

yeah he has a new job scripting reality

― autovac (autovac), Friday, 2 June 2006 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

A cynic in me finds it extremely funny how our world resembles more and more the worlds created by a christian and a former speed addict.

― scnnr drkly (scnnr drkly), Friday, 2 June 2006 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

also, i think Linklater can pull this off.

two months til the flick hits, tho. Guess we'll see then.

― kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 2 June 2006 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

i'm excited about robert downey jr in this movie for some reason

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 3 June 2006 02:56 (nineteen years ago)

some of the rotoscopes give the flick a jessica abel/tomine/hernandez brothers vibe

― kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Saturday, 3 June 2006 05:04 (nineteen years ago)

I'm also kinda curious about how much of the pysch interrogation room scene will make it into the flick, with either the cognitive mechanics talk, the anecdote about the bike, or him just asking the labcoats for advice?

― kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 5 June 2006 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

According to that Gary Indiana piece, the bike thing DOES make it into the flick (though I imagine we probably see the "anecdote" occur rather than just having him recount it), and we do see a bit of the psych interrogation room in the trailer--I imagine they'd include at least part of it for exposition (and because of the cool left brain/right brain duality of the two docs).

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 5 June 2006 17:32 (nineteen years ago)

interview with linklater on the actual filmmaking process of the flick:

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/winter2006/features/schizoid_man.php

Did your actors have much knowledge of Dick’s work before they joined the project? Was Woody Harrelson, for example, a fan?

I don’t think he [knew Dick’s work], actually, but he liked the script. Winona, her dad knew Philip K. Dick. She had letters from him, and she brought a lot of knowledge to the table. Keanu is a total workhorse who did tons of research. He and I would always refer to the book and Dick’s letters. I would say Woody and Rory didn’t overthink it too much. Downey definitely has to dig in on an intellectual level, as does Keanu, but Winona probably had the most knowledge.

also, this bit of news from the official PKD site:

Feb. 23, 2006

Revolution pic 'Next' in line for Biel

Jessica Biel has signed on to co-star in Lee Tamahori's sci-fi thriller "Next" for Revolution Studios. Nicolas Cage and Julianne Moore are toplining the film, which is based on Philip K. Dick's short story "The Golden Man." Penned by Gary Goldman, the story centers on a man (Cage) with the unique ability to see future events and affect their outcome. Pursued by the FBI, which is seeking to use his abilities to prevent a global terrorist attack, he ultimately is faced with the choice of saving himself or the world. Biel will play Liz, the love interest of Cage's character, whom he must attempt to save from terrorists. Cage, Todd Garner, Norm Golightly, Graham King and Arne Schmidt are producing. Derek Dauchy is overseeing for Revolution, which has set a late March start date for the film. Biel, whose credits include "London," "Blade: Trinity" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," next appears in Neil Burger's "The Illusionist." She is repped by CAA, Management 360 and attorney Karl Austen. (Tatiana Siegel)

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:59 (nineteen years ago)

for some reason there's a penchant for making hollywood scripts out of some of Dick's weakest short stories - I really don't get it.

I have faith in Linklater and the casting here, hoping my faith is not misplaced...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

oh wow, whole bunch of good media hits from the official site, incl. a few Wired bits here and here

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

"The scene is the emotional climax of Richard Linklater's new film, A Scanner Darkly" and we've just printed a huge spoiler for it in the first sentence of the first para of this article! I guess it's not a huge plot revelation, but still.

― ledge (ledge), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 21:58 (nineteen years ago)

Is that the same story Paycheck was based on (if it was)?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:28 (nineteen years ago)

― lord pooperton (ex machina), Thursday, 8 June 2006 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

i finally got around to watching the trailer - major spoiler in the trailer, too!!

― renegade bear shot by cops on frat row (vahid), Saturday, 10 June 2006 21:14 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Slate preview from Joshua Glenn

WTF do all the litcrit wanky bits come from? How much do you have to force your thesis that Linklater only does slacker movies and trying to connect that with French leftist movements of the 70s?

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 June 2006 18:27 (nineteen years ago)

I saw it Tuesday night. Meh. I am enjoying the Paul Giamatti-read audiobook a lot, though. Except for the fact that his voice for Donna Hawthorne is SUPAANNOYING, it's great.

― J (Jay), Friday, 30 June 2006 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

it is pretty... meh. and rotoscoping is REALLY not that interesting.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 30 June 2006 22:04 (nineteen years ago)

aw I love rotoscoping. long live Bakshi.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 30 June 2006 22:11 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, S1ocki pretty much OTM. The rotoscoping works insofar as it creates the right paranoid, druggy atmosphere and makes room for a visually plausible scramble suit, but it seems like Linklatter didn't really think beyond that. The screenplay and the acting don't really do much with anything interesting with the material (well, Woody Harleson's Luckman is much more obnoxious than in the novel, but it's not like that adds anything); it just felt as close as possible to a condensed, illustrated version of the novel as possible in cinematic adaptation. It doesn't offer any new ways of thinking about the book or the issues it addresses.

This is all based on one viewing, obviously, I could be totally wrong, but I won't be rushing out to verify that any time soon.

Did anybody read the unproduced Charlie Kauffman screenplay?

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Saturday, 1 July 2006 02:05 (nineteen years ago)

best PKD film since Bladerunner.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 02:11 (nineteen years ago)

really? oh say that it's so! BETTER THAN TOTAL RECALL??

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 02:13 (nineteen years ago)

ah it was great, I dunno what people are complaining about. it is pretty much a literal book-to-movie interpretation. the inclusion of Dick's original eulogy at the end is really nice.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 02:15 (nineteen years ago)

(and the bike thing is in it virtually word-for-word)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 02:16 (nineteen years ago)

(also includes Slater from Dazed in Confused+20 yrs as Frick)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 02:17 (nineteen years ago)

altho yeah the bike scene actually "occurs" rather than appear as a flashback during the interrogation

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 02:24 (nineteen years ago)

(and the bike thing is in it virtually word-for-word)

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), Today 8:16 PM. (Shakey Mo Collier)

Ha, not to be a total dork but it was actually un update on the 5+2 = 7 gears in the book.

I had super-low expectations and I really liked it FWIW. I want to see it again strangely...

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Monday, 10 July 2006 03:30 (nineteen years ago)

awful. i thought it was an awful movie.

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Monday, 10 July 2006 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i wasn't a fan. the arctor stuff was so poorly telegraphed.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 13:55 (nineteen years ago)

I also dug the minor detail of cars having barcodes for license plates.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

i haven't read the book in at least 10 years so somebody explain to me what scramble suits accomplish that balaclavas could not?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

that's not a serious question is it? PKD isn't a "hard science" guy, the scramble suit is more important to him as a metaphor, the "vague blur" = a person who isn't really there, etc.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

I mean the book emphasizes how it makes someone so non-descript their presence doesn't even really register with other people - whereas something like a balaclava draws immediate attention to its wearer.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

you don't think the way they appear in the movie would draw attention to the wearer?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

and it's not a matter of "hard science," it's a matter of "doesn't make much sense."

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

if I recall correctly, in the book everybody who sees the scramble suit sees something different, albeit nondescript and vague. obviously a literal translation of that onto film is not possible, so Linklater shot for a more amorphous suggestion of what everyone seeing the suit sees - thus the composite approach they use for the animation.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:44 (nineteen years ago)

also, as with Hammett or Chandler's screenplays, there are all sorts of things in Dick's books that "don't make much sense" - plotholes and technological impossibilities and paradoxes galore. if what you want is a tightly plotted, scientifically plausible dystopian thriller, I recommend looking elsewhere.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

what if i want a movie that isn't a big turd

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

the problem in your argument being that if you hadn't read the book, you wouldn't perceive the scramble suit as being a stand-in for a scramble suit that looked like a vague blur. and as far as i know it IS technically possible to create a filmic effect that looks like a vague blur, especially with rotoscoping.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

The scramble suit is *precisely* as described in the book, fuck the stand-in. Compare the section of the book that describes how the scramble suit works to the effect of the suit in the movie, and you'll see what I mean.

But if that was the best reason to rotoscope . . . bad call, Rick.

― J (Jay), Monday, 10 July 2006 16:52 (nineteen years ago)

I think the rotoscoping is more about just giving the film a distinct visual film and less about satisfying the need for a specific special effect like the scramble suit. the film is really pretty naturalistic looking, with the exception of the handful of hallucination scenes and the scramble suit.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

it just seemed to me a pretty arbitrary "distinct look" to give the movie.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

plus, lets you do sfx on the cheap

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 10 July 2006 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

I haven't seen it yet, but it seemed to me that RLink wanted to stay very true to the novel's content but didn't want to do a bunch of zany CGI that would end up looking fake, so he went roto.

In fact, I haven't seen it nor have I read the book, so fat lot of help I am. Winona Ryder.

xpost way to say stuff in fewer words

― choinklate (nickalicious), Monday, 10 July 2006 17:30 (nineteen years ago)

way to say stuff in fewer words

no problem.

Winona Ryder.

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 10 July 2006 17:32 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I don't know. I think I had a sentence formed there before I began typing, but that's all that came out.

― choinklate (nickalicious), Monday, 10 July 2006 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

I thought s1ocki liked stoner comedies. :(

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i wasn't a fan. the arctor stuff was so poorly telegraphed.
-- s1ocki (slytus...), July 10th, 2006 10:55 AM. (slutsky) (later) (link)

elaborate please?

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 19:27 (nineteen years ago)

i actually did like the hanging-around-stoned stuff, for the most part.

but when it came to the whole arctor-narcing-on-himself, split-brain stuff, i thought that stuff didn't play at all.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 19:40 (nineteen years ago)

But that's an issue with the source material, not the movie itself, right? Or was it how that aspect was presented?

xpost (also sorry for bugging with questions, I am just creepily obsessed with PKD and want people's in-depth opinions on this flick)

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 19:58 (nineteen years ago)

well, like i said i haven't read the book in AGES but it seems to me linklater had trouble conveying some of the hard-to-convey-visually internal stuff.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:05 (nineteen years ago)

when it came to the whole arctor-narcing-on-himself, split-brain stuff, i thought that stuff didn't play at all.

so OTM. the identity of the other cop in the suit was obvious from the beginning of the film.

― Arial Pink (account), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:06 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, he's really not much of a visual director. :/

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:07 (nineteen years ago)

i guess i say "stuff" a lot

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:08 (nineteen years ago)

the entire film was a flatline. the plot unfolded with the mystery of a fucking sales circular. there were no arcs, no surprises, no development. i don't mind if films work this way provided that the film's present is engaging enough, but asd was impotent from the start. also the animation was fucking dizzying (especially the suits, which i was feeling at first but got exhausted by eventually) and this was, generally speaking, the most interesting aspect of the film. like slocki the hangingaround parts worked okay for me, but how are we to take an anti-drug stoner movie?

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

"so OTM. the identity of the other cop in the suit was obvious from the beginning of the film."

uh, it was? I don't see how that was telegraphed at all!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:12 (nineteen years ago)

you think this is an anti-drug movie?!? I think I watched a different film than the rest of you.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

"like slocki the hangingaround parts worked okay for me, but how are we to take an anti-drug stoner movie?"

To be fair, it's an anti-drug stoner book too.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

the book is def. anti-drug, but i haven't seen the flick yet

xpost

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:17 (nineteen years ago)

it just seemed to me a pretty arbitrary "distinct look" to give the movie.

Precisely. There was no real justification for the rotoscoping, unlike in Waking Life, where it actually did something for the movie.

― J (Jay), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:22 (nineteen years ago)

(BTW, I love PKD and Linklater, so my biases are laid bare)

― J (Jay), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:23 (nineteen years ago)

I can see how its portrayal of drugs is not the most positive or euphoric, but I guess I just associate the term "anti-drug" movie with hysterical propaganda like "Go Ask Alice" or "Not My Kid" and stuff like that... I mean is "Trainspotting" an anti-drug film? PKDs stance on drugs was pretty fluid (unlike, say, his anti-abortion stance).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:25 (nineteen years ago)

to me the rotoscoping thing is just similar to a director using a bunch of different filmstocks, or shooting in black and white - it does lend a weird hungover feel to the movie, and it makes certain scenes (Frick's for example) more easy to have fun with.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:27 (nineteen years ago)

RL was on Fresh Air today

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:27 (nineteen years ago)

Most drug books/movies try to have it both ways (Trainspotting, Drugstore Cowboy, Requiem For A Dream, for example) but Dick makes it pretty clear where he stands in the afterword of A Scanner Darkly.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:30 (nineteen years ago)

just similar to a director using a bunch of different filmstocks
Which is almost always a disaster.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:31 (nineteen years ago)

So there is only one correct filmstock?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

I think I noted upthread the afterword is included - in a truncated form - at the very end of the film and I found it genuinely moving (my wife thought it shoulda just ended with "Bruce" lost in the field)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:41 (nineteen years ago)

Linklater was saying on Fresh Air that he was anti-drug, he even started quoting Frank Zappa! He also said that Dick's daughters wouldn't have let him have the rights to ASD if he was out to glorify drugs.

― Marmot 4-Tay: You are beautiful, and you are alone. (marmotwolof), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:45 (nineteen years ago)

it def. doesn't glorify anything. and I can't listen to the Fresh Air thing at work but I'd take Linklater saying he's explicitly "anti-drug" with several grains of salt (or else his views have shifted since he was a young'un - Dazed n Confused seems pretty explicitly PRO-weed).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

So there is only one correct filmstock?

I assume he means using multiple stocks within one film, as in Natural Born Killers.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:02 (nineteen years ago)

x-post
I'll have to listen to it again, but from what I caught he it seemed like he was talking about hard drugs that would remove you from a certain standing in society, etc.

― Marmot 4-Tay: You are beautiful, and you are alone. (marmotwolof), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

Don't lots of movies use multiple stocks these days, it just isn't always as glaring as Natural Born Killers?

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:22 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, he's really not much of a visual director. :/

i've read this a few times in the last few weeks and i have to say that i really ardently disagree.

i think he can be spotty... big chucks of "school of rock" looked really slapdash. but on the whole he has a really good eye, i think. not necessarily "painterly," but a good eye.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

I'm more referring to his really heavy reliance on "telling" you things via dialogue rather than "showing" them visually, not so much that he has a particularly poor visual aesthetic.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

he does have a good eye--or can--but it's not really in evidence in this movie.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

This has all the makings of a cult-classic, I love it!

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:42 (nineteen years ago)

"Don't lots of movies use multiple stocks these days, it just isn't always as glaring as Natural Born Killers?"

Yeah, no one seems to complain about this when Wong Kar Wai does it.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:54 (nineteen years ago)

b-b-but this movie looked great, and totally unique as well! it doesn't even really resemble Waking Life or any of the other older rotoscoped films.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 21:54 (nineteen years ago)

local arthouse is doing a promo dealie with warner independent fer free tix to a thursday show, so i'm there

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:00 (nineteen years ago)

it looked like one big flash animation

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:01 (nineteen years ago)

but it made winona's hair look purty (also I like how winona will only bare her breasts in CARTOON FORM)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:02 (nineteen years ago)

is the ending as sad as the book? i cried when i finished the book. is the film as ambiguous about whether arctor has his brains back or not at the end?

― the fuckablity of late picasso (vahid), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

also WTF about identity of the cop? i just recently read the book and i didn't realize we ever found out who the other cop was???

― the fuckablity of late picasso (vahid), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:13 (nineteen years ago)

The end of the book is heart-rending, but I don't see too much ambiguity in it.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:15 (nineteen years ago)

Is this going to last more than one week in NYC?

― def zep (calstars), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

Wong Kar-Wai's use of different film stocks is mostly about colour palette and grain from what I've seen. Those aren't obtrusive changes in stock. Even something like Traffic, where different stocks had a purpose in dividing different parts of the continent, isn't a real bother.

Natural Born Killers, The Saddest Song In The World, House of 1000 Corpses, Blow, etc. are much more like rotoscoping if you want to connect the two, and they're all visual nightmares. Sometimes it doesn't ruin a film (Man on Fire/Domino) but it's still the worst thing about the movie.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:17 (nineteen years ago)

So basically when it is done well it is good and when it isn't, it sucks.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:20 (nineteen years ago)

Well, no. The one you brought up (Kar-Wai) isn't really relevant to rotoscoping at all. What I was talking about has never been put to good use. Ever. Always looks awful and distracts from whatever might be good about the movie.

and not Blow, I meant Spun. Blow is awesome, from back in the day when Johnny Depp was box office poison.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

blow is terrible. come on.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

Haha Blow is terrible. So is Spun. And the Sargasso Sea or whatever. So many bad 00s drug movies.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:25 (nineteen years ago)

I really don't see how using different stocks is relevant to rotoscoping ever...unless the rotoscoping is constantly changing in animation style, a la Waking Life. From the examples you've given, it seems like you are criticizing using multiple stocks when they are jarring or not used for a specific reason (like in Traffic)...so are you saying the rotoscoping is just jarring/inappropriate or was there more of a reason for this comparison? Anyway, how can multiple stocks be relevant to rotoscoping only some of the time? It either is similar or it isn't, no?

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:28 (nineteen years ago)

You know a movie that used interesting film stocks: Valiant. I think the film version of A Scanner Darkly should have been constructed as an animated talking pigeon film.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:30 (nineteen years ago)

I actually don't remember anything about Blow except for Paul Ruben and then Johnny Depp morphing into the aged coke dealer at the end.

I'm not saying anything about the specific rotoscoping of ASD, I haven't seen the movie since it isn't out in Texas for some reason. Someone else connected the two to defend ASD.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:31 (nineteen years ago)

http://static.flickr.com/73/186838444_e24be4ea72.jpg

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:37 (nineteen years ago)

"is the ending as sad as the book? is the film as ambiguous about whether arctor has his brains back or not at the end?"

Yes.

"also WTF about identity of the cop? i just recently read the book and i didn't realize we ever found out who the other cop was???"

the other cop is not explicitly identified in the book. In the movie, at the end its made pretty clear, but I don't think its telegraphed as suggested upthread. (I think the cop ID may be the one significant addition/change from the book that I can think of...?)

Anyway if you love the book go see it, I don't think you'll be disappointed. At least not as disappointed as you've probably been by every other PKD adaptation ever (Bladerunner excepted).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:38 (nineteen years ago)

"is the ending as sad as the book? is the film as ambiguous about whether arctor has his brains back or not at the end?"

Yes.

"also WTF about identity of the cop? i just recently read the book and i didn't realize we ever found out who the other cop was???"

Anyway if you love the book go see it, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Certainly not as disappointed as you've probably been by every other PKD adaptation ever (Bladerunner excepted).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:39 (nineteen years ago)

doubleread this now!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:39 (nineteen years ago)

when you watch the movie next time, you should focus on the animation used to make up the suit's appearance... every few seconds or so, there is a portion of the face of the person who is inside the suit. as if process of elimination weren't enough, the last scene in the office seems to use portions of winona's face even more than in previous scenes. beyond that, i wouldn't say that it is necessarily telegraphed, but it is the obvious choice and when it is revealed it is hardly a surprise.

― Arial Pink (account), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:45 (nineteen years ago)

I think I was just spoiled.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:49 (nineteen years ago)

I'm confused. If you've read the book, the thing that was maybe just spoiled is blatantly revealed so I am not getting what the deal is.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:52 (nineteen years ago)

At least not as disappointed as you've probably been by every other PKD adaptation ever (Bladerunner excepted).

Apparently no one else in the world saw Barjo

― Fsck Washing Ong's Hat (Chris Barrus), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:54 (nineteen years ago)

So far the criticisms I'm reading here are really making me look forward to this...

― Fsck Washing Ong's Hat (Chris Barrus), Monday, 10 July 2006 22:55 (nineteen years ago)

***SPOILERS (I GUESS)*****

" the thing that was maybe just spoiled is blatantly revealed so I am not getting what the deal is."

I have to go back and read that bit - I know at the end its clear Conna manipulated Arctor into getting into New Path, but I forget whether its spelled out that she's the other scramble-suited cop he was reporting to. At any rate, I hardly think this "twist" makes or breaks the movie.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:00 (nineteen years ago)

It does because there is this forced attempt at mystery when there really is only one possible outcome which is very unrewarding, imo. I haven't read the book so I can't say whether or not the book feels the same way to me, but I'm left with the impression that the animation is mostly necessary to try and obfuscate how weakly the plot is constructed.

― Arial Pink (account), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:08 (nineteen years ago)

multi-xp - I haven't read the book.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:13 (nineteen years ago)

donna's not the cop in the novel!!

― the fuckablity of late picasso (vahid), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

no but she *is* complicit in conspiring to get Arctor into New Path, her and Mike Westaway...?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:17 (nineteen years ago)

the whole thing is her plan!

― the fuckablity of late picasso (vahid), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

I thought she was a government agent, not a local cop, in the book?

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:37 (nineteen years ago)

yeah I thought the deal was she found out Arctor was a narc and then decided to get him addicted/break his branes (oh noes) so she could get him into New Path and from there they'd determine who was making Death etc.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 July 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

okay I looked it up - in the book she's tagged as a fed.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 July 2006 00:50 (nineteen years ago)

I really enjoyed this. I wish they woulda done more with the fried-synapse bit at the end with Bruce, but once he got in there, they kinda just sped towards the ending.

also, am disappointed that 7-11 and Trader Joes mentions didn't make it into the flick.

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Saturday, 15 July 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

Does the book get further into Arctor's head? In the movie, the only reason we know about the disassociation are the deus ex machina psychologists, and it's never really explained where the break occurs - at what point after taking off the scramble suit does he forget that he's a narc?

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 17 July 2006 01:46 (nineteen years ago)

It's more like when he's doing cop things, like wearing the suit and monitoring the video feeds, he forgets he's also Bob--he's just "Fred". When he's not doing this, he forgets Fred even exists (in fact he suspects his roommates of being narcs). Obviously, the divide becomes that extreme about halfway through the book (I think the breakdown starts after he begins spying on himself). He still has a pretty good handle on things the day they install the monitoring equipment, but it spirals quickly downhill after that. But yeah the book focuses a lot on Arctor's breakdown so you get a really good sense of how his brain has been fried that's probably impossible to portray on film.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 17 July 2006 01:53 (nineteen years ago)

If you don't own "A Scanner Darkly" you can leach it ONLY USING THE GOOGLECACHE off of the following results page:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=u6I&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=+site:www.american-buddha.com+%22A+SCANNER+DARKLY%22+%22CHAPTER%22

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:14 (nineteen years ago)

Fuck it, that's a pain in the ass, here's a .doc file (626kb):
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=BE7102177535EF48

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:29 (nineteen years ago)

also, i'll repeat my recommendation of the audiobook, read by Paul Giamatti

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 17 July 2006 02:46 (nineteen years ago)

i saw this tonight, after spending the last few days reading the book (i'd had it on my bookshelf for a while and figured i'd go ahead and read it before seeing the movie). the book, i liked a lot. the movie, it's really hard to say. i enjoyed as a fairly faithful visualization of the book, which i still had fresh in my head, but it definitely seemed to me like the psychological aspect of the book -- which is really the primary aspect of the book, the disintegration of arctor's mind -- was severely shortchanged in the movie. part of it is keanu -- how do you differentiate his existential confusion from his everyday affect? but i think it's more just that psychological deterioration is hard to show if you're also trying to tell a whole government-conspiracy story at the same time. and also trying to preserve the book's drug-talk highlights.

one thing that really struck me was that dick's closing dedication to his drug-casualty friends, which is sad and poignant at the end of the book, seemed borderline incoherent at the end of the film. the whole "punished too much for what they did" thing just didn't really track with what was actually in the film (i imagined people thinking, "jeez, pkd really knew a lot of undercover cops who ended up as drug-addled headcases working on secret corporate projects...").

i didn't mind the rotoscoping, it was a good solution to the book's most obvious how-do-you-film-this problems. but the adaptation could've used some work.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 17 July 2006 05:00 (nineteen years ago)

i haven't read the book and the dedication at the end of the movie made me REALLY sad.

i want to read it now, i think it would be a lot more satisfying than the movie.

― tehresa, who will here remain anonymous (tehresa), Monday, 17 July 2006 05:02 (nineteen years ago)

good, i'm glad it didn't just seem nonsensical.

oh, and

Does the book get further into Arctor's head?

yes. most of the book takes place in arctor's head. (with occasional detours into other people's heads, like the great great opening scene)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 17 July 2006 05:04 (nineteen years ago)

there is a really awesome chapter (or two chapters?) which i'll try not to spoil but that does a flipping-back-and-forth between arctor and fred where he also sort of loses track of time in a scary way.

everyone definitely read the book, easily one of the 10 best sci-fi novels of the last 30 years.

― the fuckablity of late picasso (vahid), Monday, 17 July 2006 05:34 (nineteen years ago)

1. this particular brand of rotoscopin' is easily the best contemporary method of expressing via film the iea of just being fucked up all the time.

1a. it took me about half the runtime to figure it out but when I did, it was fractionally revelatory; THIS IS what it felt like during those three-day benders when I was in college/the air force/whatever.

1b. the scramble suit effect was maybe not what I would have done. but I wouldn't have tried. didn't actively piss me off, like a certain other director's treatment of Dicksential plot elements (AHEM ANOTHER REASON TO HATE THAT GUY I HATE ALL THE TIME 'CAUSE HE FUCKIN SUCKS THX NETFLIX) so I'm down, you pulled it off probably as well as anybody could hope to which equals, yes, A+, especially for this kind of material).

2. ok anybody who couldn't figure out that winona=hank by the 60 minute mark needs to read more. like Agatha Christy or Arthur Conan Doyle might be good places to start. and oh, by the way, that's completely irrelevant to the story.

3. If you thought this movie wasn't completely anti-drugs, you really ought to start college all over again. Nix that, let's say fifth fucking grade.

4. If you don't understand, immediately, viscerally, the connection between the loose strings (freck, for one) and the postscript that rolls right before the credits, then I apologize. You wasted your money. Plz to request the manager for a refund, or an exchange for another viewing of Superman Economics.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Saturday, 22 July 2006 08:31 (nineteen years ago)

whooo wheee
does my syntax ever bite after a night of Konono #1 in a club with no A/C and some lager and some wine and some more wine. apologies, the sincere kind, this time.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Saturday, 22 July 2006 08:36 (nineteen years ago)

honestly though I really liked this film.

This summer (X3, Superballs, Scanner Drunkly) = the slutsky and I part. like the red sea. frightening, a little.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Saturday, 22 July 2006 08:38 (nineteen years ago)

I went in ready to love this movie, since I enjoyed Waking Life thoroughly and also enjoyed the book. The visuals seemed a bit rushed to me -- it didn't have the same magic as Waking Life. Maybe that was because there was only one style being used. I also could have used more of the disorientation that carried the book along.

― def zep (calstars), Saturday, 22 July 2006 11:51 (nineteen years ago)

The rotoscoping would have been put to much better use if it had started out close-to-normal and gotten more and more disorienting as Arctor loses more and more of his mind.

We didn't get enough Arctor/Fred crosstalk in the movie.

― J (Jay), Saturday, 22 July 2006 12:07 (nineteen years ago)

ok anybody who couldn't figure out that winona=hank by the 60 minute mark needs to read more. like Agatha Christy or Arthur Conan Doyle ...

...or anything except the book, where she's not. since everything else was mostly true to the novel, it didn't occur to me that donna would be hank in the movie. but yeah, it didn't matter to the story either way.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 22 July 2006 12:14 (nineteen years ago)

There were a couple of scenes where the rotoscoping was perfect, like the night scene where the anti-drug war guy gets kidnapped and taken out. The rest was OK, and yeah the scramble suit would have been attention-getting rather than avoiding as depicted. A true blur would have made the movie more difficult for most of the audience, though.

― milo z (mlp), Saturday, 22 July 2006 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

well at least fast food nation is supposed to be good.

― Supercalifragilisticexpiala Brosius (chaki), Saturday, 22 July 2006 20:28 (nineteen years ago)

saw this again today w/ buddy who still needed to view it.

watch closely when the chick is on the console, tracking their phone convo early in the flick. at least two of her windows are scrolling thru the screenplay for Blade Runner.

Also, i hadn't heard that the protestor guy had said, "i used to be one of you! why are you selling out your own species?!"

― kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 24 July 2006 03:45 (nineteen years ago)

watch closely when the chick is on the console, tracking their phone convo early in the flick. at least two of her windows are scrolling thru the screenplay for Blade Runner.

I noticed that immediately.

Also, megaphone protestor guy is played by Austin-based conspiracy talk show host Alex Jones (who was also in Waking Life). In the convenience store, you see his name on one of the magazines.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 24 July 2006 04:50 (nineteen years ago)

I dug this quite a bit... Obviously there's not going to be an easy way to display Arctor's dissolution, but did highlight the big PKD theme of small people (whether cop or junkie) just doing their humdrum work while macro-level society falls apart.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 24 July 2006 04:55 (nineteen years ago)

really not a good film at all. made me think of ghost world, another pointless inferior adaptation.

― Lmaoborghini (eman), Monday, 24 July 2006 05:07 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Just saw this tonight. A little bit limp on the overall story, and I was never deeply invested in it, but I was paying attention the whole way through and I think it basically worked. I think it's interesting that so much of the discussion here deals with the rotoscoping and whether "it" "works" or not. I think it's a sort of strange and arbitrary line to draw - one might as easily remark about Dazed and Confused, "I didn't think the live action really 'worked.'" Which is to say that I think with this film, much more so than with Waking Life, which was about the technique, the roto-animation is just the way they happened to film the movie.

Taken that way, I think it's a very, very well-filmed film. In particular, I think this approach to animation makes it easy for animators to approach what's in my mind the highest art of the cartoonist - capturing real things in relatively few lines, few shades, etc. You can employ tremendous selectivity in this format, and really get at the essence of "man holding beer bottle" or "crappy druggy dude hangout house" without visual clutter. Now, you could do that by just drawing it from scratch, but then it becomes considerably more effortful to get the parts that you do want to show in realistic detail. The rotoscoping approach as used here and in the more realistic episodes of Waking Life has only just begun to be explored as a tool for visual scene-painting, IMO.

― Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 13 August 2006 04:17 (nineteen years ago)

agreed, didn't have to be rotoscoped. I liked the sequences that were largely off-theme best, like the Downey-Harrelson logorhheic Bill & Ted stuff.

I couldn't figure out that winona=hank cuz I absolutely did not give a fuck (which is the case with me & mysteries, too).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 August 2006 14:24 (nineteen years ago)

like Tombot said above, I thought the roto worked well as a visual metaphor for what it was like to be fucked up on Death, this sort of mediated, speedy 2-D version of the world

but for the same reason it put some of the more poignant or emotional interactions between the characters at arm's length in a way that might not have happened in live action

it definitely seemed to me like the psychological aspect of the book -- which is really the primary aspect of the book, the disintegration of arctor's mind -- was severely shortchanged in the movie.

agree with this 100%, other than one monologue where Arctor refers to himself in third person the most interesting aspect of the book was largely cut out

overall I liked it okay. my expectations were probably too high. there were some great scenes ... that one part where they're fixing the car and start messing with Freck ...

― dmr (Renard), Wednesday, 16 August 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

i was really surprised when winona was in the suit! but maybe only because that didn't happen in the book and i wasn't looking for differences.

― toby (tsg20), Saturday, 19 August 2006 20:12 (nineteen years ago)

I'm normally one for sticking up for Keanu and his wooden qualities, but really, it hit me afterwards that the film could have been a lot better if it had had someone who could y'know ... act their mental collapse. I barely even noticed.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 21 August 2006 20:21 (nineteen years ago)

Better than the deed, better than the memory, the moment of anticipation.

alba otm

― stet (stet), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:17 (nineteen years ago)

keanu's the weak link casting-wise but he's about the only weak thing in the whole film - and even then he's passable (really it was only his one monologue in the middle that stuck out as clumsy to me.) Having just finished "I Am Alive and You Are Dead" this movie seems even more depressing upon reflection.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:39 (nineteen years ago)

I just finished "Our Friends from Frolix 8" and "Radio Free Albemuth" and holy shit, man. If somebody ever tries to film those...

― kingfish trapped under ice (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 21 August 2006 22:59 (nineteen years ago)

VALIS

― dmr (Renard), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:12 (nineteen years ago)

on the other hand if anyone tried it would probably come off as "latest Charlie Kaufman project"

― dmr (Renard), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:13 (nineteen years ago)

Awesome, awesome film. I speak as one who didn't read the book and went in with no expectations. What I got was a funny, mischievous, disorientating spectacle of paranoia and mental collapse, featuring one of my favourite scenes in recent film history (Freck's suicide attempt) and soundtracked to absolute perfection and featuring some of Radiohead's trippier electro.

A couple of things about that, actually. Firstly, in the scene where Arctor sees his friends turning into beetles, 'Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors' can be clearly heard playing in the background, yet this track is not mentioned in the closing credits. Secondly, I was wondering to myself 'what is this amazing song over the closing credits?' when it was unmasked as one of Yorke's solo efforts. May have to buy The Eraser now...

What a superb, brilliantly-scripted and shot film, though. Reeves probably kept it a bit too straight at times but his outward reserve certainly allowed us, the audience, to fill in most of the blanks with regard to his inward deconstruction. I'd also have liked to have seen the Barris character make a re-appearance towards the end, but you can't have it all. Genuinely, film of the year so far.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 22:30 (nineteen years ago)

I thought Reeves did well. I don't think it was that his breakdown was too fast, just that once we left his perspective, he seemed much crazier on the outside.

― The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 00:05 (nineteen years ago)

Is it me or in his final scene with 'Hank', wasn't Arctor's scramble suit not really changing very much at all?

Oh, and the bit about the bike was Chris Morris (Jam)-esque. Seriously. An initially silly joke taken so far and so seriously by the characters that it gained new and quite amazing levels of humour and pathos. Woody Harrelson especially hilarious/sad.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 00:14 (nineteen years ago)

I liked the movie, and I'm not a Keanu hater, but those Keanu voiceovers are just painful.

― Sym Sym (sym), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:31 (nineteen years ago)

This thread, btw, upon reading it in its entirety, is one long Shakey Mo Collier OTM. Dude, I salute.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:47 (nineteen years ago)

this is the worst film i've seen in years

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:49 (nineteen years ago)

Either you have no soul, or you've been watching Being John Malkovitch on repeat for the past 5 years.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:53 (nineteen years ago)

Question: is it worth reading the book before I see this or will that kinda ruin it for me somehow? It seems from comments so far the film'll stand on its own as not-the-book, in a way. I'm not a big PKD reader anyway, but I do like Linklater's stuff and I dont mind Keenoo, even if he is a ditz.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:55 (nineteen years ago)

A question best left to someone who's read the book, but I thought it was utterly brilliant myself and I've never touched a PKD novel.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:57 (nineteen years ago)

read book before.

the book is 10000000 times better than the movie and i've never met anybody who found the book less than devestating.

ruining the book would be much, much worse than ruining the movie.

― the art ensemble of chicago house (vahid), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 04:58 (nineteen years ago)

Good point.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 05:01 (nineteen years ago)

its true I don't know anybody who's read this book who wasn't into it. its pretty stunning, def. one of Dick's more coherent and emotionally heavy books.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

but yes the movie stands on its own.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

as a turd

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

slocki, yr on substance D

― Scourage (Haberdager), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:37 (nineteen years ago)

delightful

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

disappointing

― Scourage (Haberdager), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

I enjoyed this movie on the whole but so far I've completely disagreed with just about everybody else who liked it. which I guess is par for the course.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

sure as hell beats the living shit out of Minority Report

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

I started reading the book after seeing it, Trayce, and I quit halfway. The plot mirrors closely, but Dick is also a terribly dull writer.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

milo why you brake heart

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

Keanu was possibly cast, besides star pull, to keep the counter-Matrix qualities of the material at a conscious level.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

it's an iron law that cultlit fans will almost never like adaptations of cultlit. i haven't read 'ASD'; have read 1x dick novel and it was ok, except for the prose. i might read 'ASD' now though.

i didn't like this film as much as my favourite linklater films, but it was still pretty fucking great. but i suppose my problem here might be that the very funny bits are in the book too.

kudos to RDJr.

― Bashment Jakes (Enrique), Thursday, 24 August 2006 07:58 (nineteen years ago)

I've completely disagreed with just about everybody else who liked it

sure as hell beats the living shit out of Minority Report

disagreement level still at a perfect 100%!

― dmr (Renard), Thursday, 24 August 2006 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

oh no wait I otm'd something you said upthread

still, minority report was good

― dmr (Renard), Thursday, 24 August 2006 14:31 (nineteen years ago)

Hated the book, hated the movie except for, like, two funny scenes. The whole "cross/double-cross/wait, make that TRIPLE -- NO, FUCK ME, THAT'S NUMBER 4" is the weakest plot complication EVER, but I guess that's what happens when the author is a paranoid psycho.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 24 August 2006 14:37 (nineteen years ago)

This was so boring it almost didn't exist.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 August 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

i thought it was neat to look at.

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

nabisco in off the money shocker!

― Scourage (Haberdager), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:01 (nineteen years ago)

i liked the drifting around rooms/places aspect, which is basically, what linklater does in his films really.

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:01 (nineteen years ago)

Oh god, so boring. And someone gave me a really good book just before I went into the movie, so the whole time I sat there in the dark I was resenting the two hours of my life I WOULDN'T GET BACK TO RE-USE FOR READING.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

Also, the shifting suits were a decent idea in the book (even if they were an obvious crutch, the ONLY thing that made it sci-fi), but trying to focus on its wearers as if they were regular speaking characters was just being hit with an anvil after a while.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:06 (nineteen years ago)

The weird thing is that this movie was so MOR-boring that I feel like it was a 30-minute sitcom: there was some really uninteresting 90s-style druggy conversation, then some jacked pointless twisteroo that felt more informative, plot-wise, than in any sense meaningful. (It was like when someone tells you what a story's about -- "oh, it's really about jealousy" or "it's kind of a critique of the Bush administration" -- and you're like ... "Okay, fine.") Also Keanu is way too blank for this.

Apparently I hate all movies now, though.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

there was some really uninteresting 90s-style druggy conversation

The story is set in 1994. You need to recalibrate your OTMeter.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Thursday, 24 August 2006 19:11 (nineteen years ago)

nabisco offtm.

― Bashment Jakes (Enrique), Friday, 25 August 2006 07:38 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco OTM

The story is set in 1994.

The story is set "seven years from now", according to the film.

― steal compass, drive north, disappear (tissp), Friday, 25 August 2006 10:55 (nineteen years ago)

nabisco absolutely otm. this film is total shite

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Friday, 25 August 2006 11:34 (nineteen years ago)

The story is set "seven years from now", according to the film.

-- steal compass, drive north, disappear (tiss...), Today 4:55 AM. (tissp)

And yet the dialogue is lifted almost directly from the text*, which is set in 1994 (but more interestingly written in the late 70s, gotta love Dick's prescience that Bay Area stoner talk would proliferate not only to LA but also the western world within a decade and a half).

*a couple exceptional modernized updates, one of which I highlighted way upthread.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 25 August 2006 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

not to be a total dork but it was actually written in the early 70s, Feb-March 1973 to be exact.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 25 August 2006 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

(and is based on Dick's experiences of the previous couple years, '70-'72)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 25 August 2006 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

fuckin' shit movie. even harrelson sucked. (downey ok.) 'fritz the cat' was better

― dave q (listerine), Monday, 28 August 2006 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

I loved it. I have no idea whether it would make any sense if one wasn't familiar with the book, but as a HUGE fan of the book, I thought they did a good job. It was never going to be able to take you on that journey into disassociation that the book does, so the best thing about the book = immediately missing, but worth it for the stoner dialogue and the general PKD-ness of it.

― Zora (Zora), Monday, 28 August 2006 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

I have decided that PKD should not be filmed ever again. You all are not allowed to disagree with me.

― J (Jay), Monday, 28 August 2006 11:52 (nineteen years ago)

as he's dead i don't think that'll be much of a problem.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

Still waiting for that videogame set in the PKD omniverse, where replicants, substance D, precogs, VALIS and Jason Taverner all co-exist in a cel-shaded dystopian sandbox

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

And you occasionally go on lengthy, difficult quests only to find out it was all pharmaceutically induced and you did not actually find any damn treasure at all, man

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:55 (nineteen years ago)

haha

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

Instead of casting heal, you use parapsychology to undo your injuries in the past

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

You'd start each game by setting up what odd psionic power you had, and at what stage your divorce proceedings were.

― kingfish high command (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 28 August 2006 13:20 (nineteen years ago)

pink laser mini-game

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 28 August 2006 13:20 (nineteen years ago)

"Spend a hundred credits for some Ubik?"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 28 August 2006 13:22 (nineteen years ago)

yeah this was sort of a waste of time, wasn't it?

― ryan (ryan), Monday, 28 August 2006 13:28 (nineteen years ago)

seven months pass...

I just watched this for the first time, without knowing much about the movie (although I read the book a long while back and thought it was okay). I would have been better off turning this off before it was over.

It was like the film was sitting back waiting for the computer effects (effect?) and the twisty plot to do all the work.

― Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 5 April 2007 22:30 (eighteen years ago)

not a good movie

― admrl, Thursday, 5 April 2007 22:32 (eighteen years ago)

More like A Scanner DORKLY!

― Abbott, Thursday, 5 April 2007 22:34 (eighteen years ago)

i dunno, i kinda liked it.

― latebloomer, Thursday, 5 April 2007 22:37 (eighteen years ago)

I haven't seen it, I just wanted to make that joke because I do everything DORKLY.

― Abbott, Thursday, 5 April 2007 22:38 (eighteen years ago)

This was the first time Robert Downey, Jr. annoyed the shit out of me.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 5 April 2007 23:47 (eighteen years ago)

Wait, the FIRST? Good god, man, your tolerance level is frightening.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 5 April 2007 23:48 (eighteen years ago)

rdj's the man!!

― s1ocki, Friday, 6 April 2007 01:05 (eighteen years ago)

I liked it. Way more faithful to the book than I expected.

― Jordan, Friday, 6 April 2007 01:28 (eighteen years ago)

Have I even posted in this thread? I don't know.

I love this movie and thought everyone involved in it did outstanding work.

― nickalicious, Friday, 6 April 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

Oh hey, I did post on this thread before, what do you know.

― nickalicious, Friday, 6 April 2007 15:15 (eighteen years ago)

this movie is great, the acting in it is really fun, and it captures the book perfectly

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 6 April 2007 15:20 (eighteen years ago)

I was also happy to learn that its nominal failure at the box office has driven down the value of PKDs work in Hollywood - hopefully making more shitty action films based on his work less likely (I'm gonna pretend "Next" does not exist)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 6 April 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

two months pass...

this movie is fucking beautiful, and i am watching it again tonight

― Just got offed, Saturday, 23 June 2007 17:26 (eighteen years ago)

i still haven't seen this damn movie and i really want to.

also, someone needs to do a robert downey jr. poll. not me, i'm getting on a plane in three hours.

― Roz, Saturday, 23 June 2007 17:40 (eighteen years ago)

two years pass...

why is this movie so hated

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:48 (sixteen years ago)

Because the book is so good.

― Trip Maker, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:50 (sixteen years ago)

also it keeps fucking people's moms

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:51 (sixteen years ago)

ok, bear with me a moment here, what if you haven't read the book, but the movie is one of your 20 favourite films ever

what does that make you, apart from suggest banned

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:51 (sixteen years ago)

Young?

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:52 (sixteen years ago)

I think i still have the promo large rubber band/bracelet thing from opening night; all black with DOOM in bold white letters.

I do still have one of the half-size posters up in my bathroom, too.

― kingfish, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:53 (sixteen years ago)

i liked it and some of it was hell of funny.

not quite sure why he rotoscoped it though tbh.

― history mayne, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:53 (sixteen years ago)

in a sort of semi-fantastical, shifty half-world way the rotoscoping made sense, and i probably wouldn't have thought a great deal of the movie had it not been implemented; the rotoscoping made the goddamn thing a work of art

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:55 (sixteen years ago)

winona ryder is a profoundly attractive woman and shdn't be rotoscoped, i think.

― history mayne, Thursday, 3 December 2009 20:57 (sixteen years ago)

but, like, that is the closest a visual style has come to representing dreams, that i can think of; i mean form here, not content, although the content (drugs, dystopia, fracturing relationships, people going incognito amidst other people) suits that form very well

and come on the death of freck/fleck is like one of the classic scenes ever in all movies

you can still perceive beauty and ugly in this film, in a confusing sort of a way

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:00 (sixteen years ago)

(freck)

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:01 (sixteen years ago)

winona ryder is a profoundly attractive woman and shdn't be rotoscoped, i think.

but if they hadn't rotoscoped her we never would have seen her Winaynays

― strange asses outside liquor stores (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 December 2009 21:13 (sixteen years ago)

this was a gd attempt - the scene w/ the bicycle best captures the hilarious stoner stupidity of the druggos, their endless inane chitchat (i miss the convo from the bk abt carving a man out of a gigantic block of hash and walking him through customs) - tho' it is nowhere near as terrifying as the nov, and it doesn't have anywhere near the same empathy for/involvement with the characters precisely because of the rotoscoping (which yes, does capture the dreamy surreal side of dickworld, but slightly at the expense of visionary paranoid dickworld, my fave kind of dick ahem)

linklater's new film abt orson welles looks like total shit

― Ward Fowler, Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:00 (sixteen years ago)

I went into it thinking it'd be really, really top-notch and ended up hating it. All by myself!

― Udon Nomi (Stevie D), Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:03 (sixteen years ago)

I love the book and the movie and they are different things. Winona is too old for the role if we're holding it up to the novel, but she brings her own angle that is useful. The "suit" is amazingly psychedelic and most of all the emotional tone seems right to me- it has the despair and sourness that dick wallows in. The actors seem more "themselves" than ever because of the rotoscoping, if you know what I mean- they don't lose particularity but seem even more recognizably Harrellson, Downey, Reeves-ish. The failed suicide scene is the funniest moment in the movie.

― twice boiled cabbage is death, Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:09 (sixteen years ago)

best PKD film since Bladerunner.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, July 10, 2006 2:11 AM (3 years ago) Bookmark

me = OTM

― strange asses outside liquor stores (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:15 (sixteen years ago)

This thread, btw, upon reading it in its entirety, is one long Shakey Mo Collier OTM. Dude, I salute.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:47 (3 years ago) Bookmark

lol didn't this end in the famous *cocksuck* moment

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:22 (sixteen years ago)

no, that was a mcdonalds thread

anyway yeah. i dig this movie. whatever.

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:24 (sixteen years ago)

lol didn't this end in the famous *cocksuck* moment

haha waht

― Owa Tana Siam (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:24 (sixteen years ago)

McDonalds: Edible or Not

WmC's rejoinder OTM

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:26 (sixteen years ago)

btw pizza hut is 50000000x worse than mcd's, is something experience has taught me

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:28 (sixteen years ago)

but, like, that is the closest a visual style has come to representing dreams

dunno 'bout you but my dreams don't look rotoscoped.

― poster x (ledge), Friday, 4 December 2009 11:17 (sixteen years ago)

nine months pass...

saw this last night

-was apprehensive cuz I really really hated waking life - in fact most of the criticisms ppl in this thread are leveling against this movie I leveled against waking life
-am a big pkd fan
-really liked the shots of keanu in his suit - they add a sort of mistiness and reflective glow to his eyes that gets across the fact that he's breaking apart. even if keanu can't convey it.
-really liked the scenes with the docs psychoanalyzing keanu. it's a totally dickensian plot device to have someone 'in the know' passively analyze exactly and how you will break down without offering any help at all, leaving you to drown slowly.
-woody harrelson almost ruined it with his hamming. rdj otoh was pitch perfect, pulled off the "is he sober or just really really wasted" act off really well.
-really liked the rotoscoping effect - everything in their world seemed so bland and same-y. the shade of green they used for the grass was so awesomely puke-y and gross. the tired southern california sun orange was also a nice touch.
-didn't like the 'my roommates are turning into bugs' bit, felt too literal

― subtle like the g in 'goole' (dayo), Tuesday, 14 September 2010 00:57 (fifteen years ago)

one year passes...

watched this again last night, after finally reading the novel. I still like it. The acting is great in it, or at least people are well cast for the roles they occupy. In the vicarage we disagreed with Dayo above as we wuvved Woody Harrelson's "dude!" persona.

The bonus feature interviews are funny, in that Winona Ryder comes across as the biggest spacer in the cast. Who would have thought it?

― The New Dirty Vicar, Monday, 7 November 2011 13:30 (fourteen years ago)

But one thing - is Rory Cochrane well known? He is great in the film, but I don't know him from anything else. Also, is he as well known as the other actors for rumoured or documented instances of serious drog abuse?

― The New Dirty Vicar, Monday, 7 November 2011 13:32 (fourteen years ago)

he is well known if you've seen dazed and confused

― just sayin, Monday, 7 November 2011 13:58 (fourteen years ago)

Oh wait, I have. Dude!

― The New Dirty Vicar, Monday, 7 November 2011 16:50 (fourteen years ago)

"or what if they come in through the bathroom window like in the infamous Beatles song"

― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 November 2011 17:14 (fourteen years ago)

Woody is great in this movie

― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 November 2011 17:15 (fourteen years ago)

At this point, I pick up any non-trade PKD I find in all the used bookstores I hit on the road

― Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Monday, 7 November 2011 18:05 (fourteen years ago)

I think that is a good strategy.

Has anyone read any of his non-SF books?

― The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:12 (fourteen years ago)

yes, sadly

― turkey in the straw (x2) (remy bean), Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:17 (fourteen years ago)

i bought In Milton Lumkey Territory thinking it was sf. but it was pleasant enough, reminded me of anne tyler.

― koogs, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:17 (fourteen years ago)

When I read Flow My Tears I started imagining what the non SF books might be like, and thinking I would like to read one.

― The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:52 (fourteen years ago)

There is a great bonus feature on the ASD DVD where Dick is talking to a French SF convention about how the Government had installed bugs in his house around the time he was living the life that became the book. He had that great delusional thing of saying outlandish things in a very reasonable and convincing manner. God bless.

― The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:53 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.rhythmism.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=28458&stc=1

― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 13:04 (fourteen years ago)

blocked at work... category "nudity".

― The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 13:12 (fourteen years ago)

it was a non-nudey page from r. crumb's pkd strip

― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 13:26 (fourteen years ago)

Has anyone read any of his non-SF books?

I've actually read maybe 4 or 5 of them. They're enjoyable enough, but nothing essential, with the exception of Confessions of a Crap Artist, which is great.

― peter in montreal, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 14:12 (fourteen years ago)

one year passes...

want

http://www.hipsoul.com/bmz_cache/5/581694a2a54bdf2de4465d6f65b35973.image.224x215.gif

― Bathory Tub Blues (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 12 June 2013 18:06 (twelve years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.