Closet Sci-Fi Geek

A Scanner Darkly

Based on the novel by Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly highlights a world “seven years in the future” where a highly addictive and lethal drug has taken a hold of 20% of the population.

The gimmick of this film is the computerized animation called “rotoscoping,” which is the film equivalent of running an expensive Photoshop filter over a picture. Because of this effect, it is obvious that “real actors” are guiding the movements of the so-called “animated” characters, giving the film a somewhat surreal effect. Some fans of the film loved this effect. Personally, I thought it was not only unnecessary, but implemented poorly. (At times, the “real world” surroundings underneath the animation were all too real, thus popping you out of the animated world.)

I’m a fan of animation but it must be done well. Poorly done animation is worse than poor cinematography. And while this wasn’t so bad as to be painful to watch, the animation was distracting and not captivating to me personally. If the film had been shot straight with top-notch cinematography, I feel that it would have enhanced the film greatly. I’ll hazard a guess that it would have made a huge difference in the success of the film, making it much more appealing to mainstream audiences, and giving it much more stature as a long-lasting cult sci-fi film.

So thus the film already has a strike against it (in my book) with the cheap, gimmicky animation effect. From there, director Richard Linklater’s screen adaptation is simply not as strong as it could be. Not having read the original book, I could still get a glimpse of probably what was originally a much better story. Linklater seems to be confused himself as to whether he’s directing a futuristic thriller, an underground humorous drug flick filled with meaningless clever banter meant to appeal to the hipster crowd, or a purposefully confusing arthouse piece meant to “make you think.”

The beginning, in particular, is a confused mish-mash as we begin with not the main character, but a secondary character who barely plays a role as the film goes on. He’s having an obviously bad drug trip and imagining bugs crawling all over his skin. We creep slowly from there to meet our hero/anti-hero played by Keanu Reeves, who is apparently some sort of undercover cop out to bust a drug ring.

Meandering to start and sometimes painful in dialogue and delivery, the film finally picks up a bit in the middle. Things get more entertaining, at least, with the introduction of Woody Harrelson’s character, who breaks up some of the confusion and monotony by being quite funny at times. He plays well off of Robert Downey, Jr. (Alas, it’s hard not to think Downey probably referred to his own coke-induced stupors as his inspiration in playing a druggie).

Fortunately, the momentum picks up and the film does have a satisfying ending. Still, I think this could have been much, much better. It’s a great concept and an important topic, so I hope another director will someday take a shot at Dick’s novel.

I give this a B-.

Children of Men

From the likes of some reviews, Children of Men is the second coming of Blade Runner. Well, first off, I was never blown away by Blade Runner…and this is no Blade Runner.

This is a poorly written film dressed up to look like something special. If you’re into cinematography, brutal realistic warzones, and camera shots that include fake blood spattered on the lens, then you’ll find this to your liking. And while I did feel that the execution was mostly well-done, the premise and plot itself left a lot to be desired.

It’s Britain in the year 2027 and women have not been able to bear children for 18 years. The end result is a world of totalitarianism, violence, xenophobia, and anarchy. Our reluctant hero, Theo, has a job to do: Deliver the first pregnant woman in 18 years safely into the hands of some sort of secretive Human Something-or-Other Project, which is working on developing a cure to the infertility problem.

Now, if you can accept that basic premise, then you’ll be fine. Don’t think about it too much, because if you do, you’ll ruin it for yourself.

Among other things, you may wonder:

1. Why, with the population aging so much, is everyone running around being a violent asshole? If people are aging, don’t you think they’d be slowing down and a little calmer by now? Probably. And isn’t it possible, with such a world crisis going on, that people might be more inclined to stop fighting and killing each other and band together to come up with a solution?

2. Why on earth don’t they go public with the pregnancy? There’s a lame explanation near the beginning of the film that truly makes no sense and involves the British government being opposed to having the first pregnant woman being an illegal immigrant. Excuse me? The world has no babies, and they’ll kill her off because she’s illegal? C’mon. That’s just totally off the wall.

3. What is this mysterious project that purports to be saving the world, and why is it able to drive a large boat into British waters without being seen or stopped, even though massive, armed airjets are shooting through the sky? And who is behind it? How can they be trusted? It’s never made clear.

Here’s the thing: The more “realistic” you try to make a sci-fi film, the better your plot and writing should be. Children of Men fails on both counts. With its patently absurd premise, Children of Men mocks the seriousness with which it was filmed.

All in all, this is one piece of pretentious overblown crap that is only saved by the amazing camera work. If you are looking for a recent dystopian future flick, try Equilibrium instead.