we saw a scanner darkly last night. i read the book about 15 years ago and i realize going into it that i remembered nothing about the book except broad plot outlines.
anyway, as i watched the film, it all came back. it really followed the book much closer than any other phillip k. dick film i've seen. dave criticizes the film for not having much of a plot. it actually does, but it's slow, convoluted, and seems to take a back seat to broader ideas. in other words, it's a lot like reading a phillip k. dick novel. plot is not a major element in his stories; he's more of a big idea person. hollywood likes phillip k. dick, but historically its adaptations of his stories (blade runner, total recall, screamers, and minority report) have all been action flicks. hard-core fans of the novels (which i once was) would occasionally gripe that the movies bore little resemblance to the original story. "a scanner darkly" essentially gives the gripers what they've been wishing for. i don't remember enough of the book to notice what they cut out, but i recognized plenty of scenes as they appeared. it seemed to follow the book rather closely.
the problem is, that it really doesn't work as a film. the use of rotoscope was great (rotoscope is when they film a movie with live actors, but then cartoonists draw on top of the live image. it produces an animated image that looks both like an intensely realistic cartoon that still maintains a surreal dreamlike feel). it's perfect for a movie where virtually everyone is high. and yet aside from the visual aspect, it was a little dull at times. the ideas that were supposed to push the film along were a little muddled. in other words, it was a lot like i remember the book. so book snobs beware, sometimes you just might get what you gripe for.
(ASIDE: i had to rewrite this post. i realized that lines like "hollywood likes dick" and "hard-core dick fans (which i once was)", somehow didn't quite sound like what i was trying to get across. damn you dick!!!)
