A Scanner Darkly

[JonPorobil]

I love Philip K. Dick. I haven't read a book of his I didn't love, and Scanner Darkly might be his best.

I love Richard Linklater. Even when he's doing fluffy crap like School of Rock or Bad News Bears he sells it with sheer exuberance. And when he's doing serious stuff like Dazed and Confused or Waking Life, he transcends film.

So I'm a little biased. Even so, I was worried about Linklater's film adaptation of A Scanner Darkly. I mean, it got delayed so dramatically that by the time it came out, it wasn't a big thing anymore. And all the rumors of trouble taming the rotoscoping technique are true; the animation looks great when it works, though it often doesn't work.

Advantage of rotoscoping is that it offers the bright vivid feel of animation, and lets you do crazy stuff like the constantly-morphing scramble suit without it looking like a cheap special effect, while still preseving the actors' performances. The disadvantage of rotoscoping is that it flattens the screen, so there's very little depth of field. There's something uncomfortable about watching Scanner Darkly, and it's not just its wigged-out druggy plot.

Speaking of wigged-out druggy plot, I was surprised at how faithfully Richard Linklater adapted the screenplay without bogging it down (too much) in rhetoric. Keanu gets a couple of long monologues, sure, but whereas I remember the pace of the book crawling, the movie never halts. Woody Harrelson, Rory Cochrane, and especially Robert Downey Jr. nailed their roles down tight.

Combine all these with a few completely trippy sequences (one of which involving a character turning on the radio only to hear, and by manner of response, act out, passages from the audiobook of A Scanner Darkly), and you've got a film that, despite getting a little didactic at times (it has a right to be, after the experiences that led Dick to write the book), manages to be darkly hilarious and deeply disturbing... often both at once.

B+

[raisedbywolves]

I haven't read the book, so for all I know it's faithful to the spirit and tone and blah blah blah. But man, it's boring. Whoever cut the trailer did a good job of making it seem like it has an actual story, when it's really just a bunch of junked-up dudes pondering things. People think their conversations are interesting and insightful when they're high. But of course, they're not. Linklater pretty much nails this, but I don't need to watch it. D

[jb]

This movie proved once and for all that I just don't like drug movies. I mean, of course there will be one or two that I'll like, but overall, I just don't like drug movies. And this one bugged the hell out of me.

<b>C-</b>

[anti-m]

Indeed. Here's how two movie-watching cohorts summed up the movie:

Chad: "Dude, like, what if TREES were ALIVE?"

Nick: "Dude! But... trees ARE alive!"

Chad: "Wooooah. You just blew my F@#$in' mind."

Rotoscope that shit and release it as a Linklater short.

[fodroy]

This movie proved once and for all that I just don't like drug movies.

Agreed. I'm a big fan of Gilliam, and I couldn't even get into Fear and Loathing.

I'm not familiar with the story, but I didn't enjoy Waking Life and found Dazed and Confused to be a bit disappointing. I think I'll skip this one.

[WeaselSlayer]

I think that if you go into this movie without having read the book you're at an extreme disadvantage. I loved the book and the movie. I wouldn't really call it a "drug movie." It's based on Philip K's drug abuse and his druggie friends, etc., but it's also got all the paranoia and identity crisis and distopia that defined an era then and is starting to define a new one. Also, the author's note made me cry when I read it, it was my favorite part of the entire book, I'm infinitely pleased it was in the movie.

[JonPorobil]

I didn't realize the divide would be so huge, especially since it had been so long since I read the book, and memories of it were kinda fuzzy at points... Still, it seems that those who've read the book enjoyed the movie a lot more. That strikes me as a rare phenomenon.

Anyway, I didn't think it was all random ramblings on par with "What if the TREES are ALIVE?" type stuff, mainly because the ramblings in the movie were all so paranoid, and (to a point) justly so—I mean, our main character is a narc. The part when the group panics about all the things that "they" could have done with the broken car and their house? I just don't see how that compares to your average pot scene. There's a real sense of urgency about those two scenes, and given the rest of the world that PKD has set up for us, there's also the worry that in all those paranoid ramblings, there's some kernel of truth.

But like I said right from the start, I'm a little biased on this one.

[Seamus.]

That freeway scene is, to me, exemplary of the problem with this movie. What it does show of the book is very faithful in action and physical detail but not in meaning. The car was apparently tampered with, but what came of it? How was it addressed? It was just a bunch of stuff that happened to this character on his way from point A to point B.

In the book, we don't find out who is sabotaging Arctor's stuff (It could be him.), but it isn't about who did it; it's about raising the stakes on the Who am I? factor. The movie had a lot of nice components, but they needed more hooking up. PK Dick really puts those high conversations to work, but the movie is only reminiscent of that. Also, Harrelson was too much. Robert Downey was good.

I appreciated this movie as a visual guide for fans of the book but it's a cold dish by itself.

[j$]

Anyone complaining about this film being lots of meaningless conversations and not much else should go see, oh, ANYTHING ELSE BY RICHARD LINKLATER.

Though it works in D&C. don't know why. Maybe I just fancy a couple of them there.

[anti-m]

Anyone complaining about this film being lots of meaningless conversations and not much else should go see, oh, ANYTHING ELSE BY RICHARD LINKLATER.

Yeah, I know, right? I don't know why I keep going back. The "TREES ALIVE!" conversation actually happened on our way into the theater, so we completely knew what we were getting in to. RBW is right about the trailer... I think that's ultimately what got me to go see this flick, previous RL films notwithstanding.

So, uh... I also can't resist bringing up this point: What the hell is the purpose of the shifty-changy suit? It was my favorite visual gag in the movie, but, c'mon... this technology is somehow supposed to make you blend into the crowd?? "Dude... that guy over there? The one in the trippy face-melting apparition gear? I THINK HE MIGHT BE A NARC!"

(I'm sure this metaphorical point was handled in the book much more adroitly.)

[erik]

SPOILERS SPOILERS BLAHBLAHBLAHLBHALBHLAHBLAH SPOLIERS

I dunno, I don't read, and I kinda liked it. Like all Linklater movies, if you don't like the characters, you are not going to like the movie, because the overall plot is weak. Whatever that shit was with the morphsuit, the bullshit with Winona being some stupid ass double-agent, that shit at the end with the brainwashing: all that was shit. It was stupid, it didn't make any sense, it wasn't built up to any degree, and it was paced all wrong. The rest of it, freed from the plot, was my favorite parts of the movie. I really thought the Woody Harrelson and Robert Downey Jr characters were hilarious. That shit with the bike was comedy gold where I come from.*





















*Austin, TX.

[WeaselSlayer]

The suit is to keep them anonymous from one another within the police department. But thematically it's an identity/anonymity crisis manifested in technology. I think there definitely was a story here, and I think we might have already established that maybe that's less clear if you haven't read the book. So perhaps the movie isn't as successful as a movie as it could have been, but I still think it's incredible.

[erik]

It's not that I thought it was unclear what the meaning of all that crap was, it's just that I thought it was stupid, and the least entertaining parts of the movie.

[j$]

I saw this. I liked it. B

[mkilly]

Strung out is not a way I wanna be. I thought the film was pretty intense, in parts, really funny in others. The direction, editing, and photography (animation) are all pretty stellar. I thought the screenplay was generally pretty great too. Call me crazy. Anyway, solid A, on the dumb scale y'all are compelled to employ

[Märk]

The thing that kept me from seeing this for so long is the fact that it stars Keanu. On the advice of a friend, I downl..er, *rented* it. Yeah. Rented it.
I hate that retarded cardboard cutout asshat so much. He's not an actor.

But, for some reason, even though his 'acting' is basically the same dull emotionless crap in everything I've ever seen him in, (and this wasn't really a huge departure from that) I didn't mind him at all in this.

That said, I *loved* this movie. So many memorable scenes, many of which keep going through my head the day after watching it; the bugs right at the start, the suicide scene... Robert Downey Jr. was great in this too, an edgy mix of creepy and fucked up and hilarious.

I got used to the rotoscope animation fairly quick, although at some points I wished it would just back off. I guess my only gripe about it was that I think it should have been used for effect, not as a complete concept in film-making. On the other hand, though, it made a creepy, uncomfortable film even more surreal.

I'd give this an A. One of the best movies I've seen in at least a few months anyway.

[Mostess]

This was my favorite Dick novel. Dick's estate made Linklater promise to be entirely faithful to the book. So for the first, and probably only time in my life, here's a movie that is:

1) based on a book I've read and loved
2) made by a filmmaker I like and respect
3) faithful to the book in plot/character/dialogue/spirit

I enjoyed it. But I didn't love it. Very odd.

I will never again complain about a movie being not faithful enough to the book. If this one didn't ring my bell, book-faithfulness is not the problem for all those other book-based movies I couldn't love.

However, all that said, if you thought the druggy dialogue was just boring stuff that people would never say if sober, if you didn't understand the purpose of the identity-cloaking suits, and if you thought it didn't have a plot, you didn't really see the movie. Probably the movie's fault, though.

[fodroy]

If this one didn't ring my bell, book-faithfulness is not the problem for all those other book-based movies I couldn't love.

Word. I've found that it's better to look at a film adaptation as a completely different piece from the book. It allows for much more enjoyment.

[jezebelus]

I had this DVD few days ago but didn't watch it cause I wasn't able to stand stupid photoshop effect. I mean comeon its interesting to make animated movie which looks like real but doing vice versa is

[jimtyrrell]

I never read the book, but I've enjoyed the movies made from his other works, so I expected good things.

This did not disappoint. I liked it a lot. The bonus features on the DVD were particularly interesting.