A scanner Darkly
- Thread starter Jenkins
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I saw the movie ages ago but only read the book last month.Jenkins said:
I thought the movie was great, then I read the book. The book is at least 7 times better (and that number is not arbitrary). You should buy it and read it, buy it 'cause you'll want to read it again.
Don't be dissing The Reeves! He is/was a great actor, he just has problems, not his fault. Ever seen Point Break? Yeah, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout.Jenkins said:
I guess different strokes for different folks... although the one about shoulder height usually suffices.ravens_nest said:
it's one of the few times that the movie follows the book pretty well, tho they do change a bunch of things from the book to the movie. the only cut out some subplots and change a character or two.
i really liked both of them tho
i really liked both of them tho
I love Philip K Dick's books. I recently bought Ubik and Flow my Tears... and have yet to read them. I thought A Scanner Darkly was great, albeit a bit hard to get your head around. The book of course is better. You should all see Waking Life, which was done by the same director. It's about Lucid Dreaming and Existenialist thought. Quite good indeed.
I just saw Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure today so I'm getting a kick out of your post.IrirshTerrorist said:
W/r/t 'A Scanner Darkly', I think it was a meh-good movie that could have been better with some tighter editing (it dragged a little) and the casting choices were a bit funky. Reeves worked a little bit too well, while RDJ had a curiously bland off-day (it didn't come anywere close to his brilliance in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang which I saw a little while before Scanner). Winona Ryder worked well too, but I don't remember her having much screen time, and for the life of me I can't remember Harrelson's part in it at all. I haven't read the book though, so I don't know how it compares to that.
Generally though, the weird filter they used to make the film all quasi-cartoonish had pros and cons. Although it gave the film a gritty somewhat abstract quality, it also obscured facial expressions at times and made emotions harder to convey I think.
A couple of things:Spectrum_Prez said:
Firstly, they didn't use a filter. People had to draw over every frame, one by one to get that effect.
Secondly, the book is way better than the movie, but if you don't like the movie you won't like the book because its the same story only better.
'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure' is an all time classic, love that movie.
And 'Kiss, Kiss. Bang, Bang' is better than a than the movie of 'A Scanner Darkly' in my opinion.
I saw it a while ago thanks to a load of DVDs my mum left here. I didn't expect much. I came out of it in awe. Fantastic. The visuals alone are worth seeing the film for. I'll read the book someday when I get through my current backlog.
Is that a problem in a film starring Keanu Reeves?Spectrum_Prez said:
I enjoyed the hell out of it and there were some strong performances from people who have had contact with drug abuse in the past.
And Winona Ryder is hot as they come, and i'd love to make her.
And Winona Ryder is hot as they come, and i'd love to make her.