Carini on 12/7/2006 at 13:37
Quote Posted by The Alchemist
The graphic effect reminds me most of Waking Life. Hopefully the movie isn't as hard to watch.
That's because they're both Richard Linklater movies. It's called Rotoscoping.
Paulie007 on 12/7/2006 at 14:05
Whatever it's called the first time I saw it I thought I was having a seizure!
I heard Charles Kaufman was supposed to be involved in the screenplay but they thought his script was too weird.
voodoo4936 on 12/7/2006 at 14:50
The problem with "rotoscoping" is that it seems like such an arbitrary effect. Does the movie really need it? It made more sense with Waking Life (barely), but it was still gimmicky. Plus, it's distracting. I'd probably get fidgety after about an hour of watching it.
Also, Keanu. Just...no.
Headphones on 12/7/2006 at 14:54
PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE FICTION
WHATEVER NEXT
Briareos H on 12/7/2006 at 15:00
Rather this than someone starting a thread debating fundamental physics at a high school level.
Oh wait.
Rogue Keeper on 12/7/2006 at 15:09
Yes, the movie would definitely benefit from it. It's supposed to be a mind blower. The story heavily plays with characters' perception of the "true reality" and by extension, perception of the reader. In this case, it will - it should - play with the audience's perception of the reality. I presume most of the movie you shouldn't be able distinguish what is real and what is not in the storyline. Lynch and Burroughs in hi-tech dystopia.
Ercles has made a good point, it was most likely used to create a drug induced hallucination effect and probably also to invoke 60's psychedelic hippie era to tribute Dick's autobiographical elements.
It isn't that bad, in fact it's like if you watch an animated movie. It might look eccentric, but I believe the use of the technique will be well justified in this case.
But if you thought that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was a total mess, this probably won't please you much. Just 3.5 times darker. We shall see.
godismygoldfish on 12/7/2006 at 15:44
Well I got to see it last wednesday for free (sneak preview screening) and I thought it was one of the better films I've seen this year. Keanu is a bit wooden in it, but it works great for the role of Bob Arctor, especially as he's meant to be a burning out druggy. All the other performances were great, especially from Robert downy Jr. as a slightly sociopathic wordsmith and Rory Cochrane as a druggy gone one to many tokes too far.
The visual style never felt abrasive for me, very likely because it mimics the actual footage very closely for most of the movie. (I also had no problem with Waking Life) There were also some excellent uses of sound and visual elements. [SPOILER]Bob's blackout being a moment where I went "That's brilliantly done!"[/SPOILER]
The story was great, and bounced from seriousness to an almost manic comedy often, though it was done quite fluidly.
Easily one of the best PKDick adaptations out there, and the best of recent years, which have had quite a few bad ones. It's not a movie that everyone will enjoy, especially as the characters in it have very ambiguous moralities, but I highly recommend it.
Shadowlord on 12/7/2006 at 20:42
I can't wait for it. It's really easy to beast on Keanu, but seriously for the movie's sake watch it.
Fringe on 12/7/2006 at 21:17
Quote Posted by Headphones
I'M AN INTERNET REBEL
man you got us
you're too cool for us i guess.
Shadowlord on 12/7/2006 at 23:39
So I guess that Keanu is in movies that question perception of reality?
