People like to throw around words like "auteur" and "art film" and all that, but it's important to remember that Richard Linklater isn't, and neither is this film. Remember, this is the guy who brought us "Dazed and Confused," "The Newton Boys," and "School of Rock." He is far, far from an artist. He's only ever pointed the camera at the actors, and added a fair-to-great soundtrack.
With the name Phillip K. Dick all over the publicity, I eventually caved to check "A Scanner Darkly," primed for a trippy experience. And so, once again, was I underwhelmed. It's Linklater, after all, so all he did was... point the camera at the actors, and add a fair-to-great soundtrack (depending on your feelings about Radiohead, the sole band that you'll be hearing).
With the animation technique, I expected it would somehow tweak itself throughout the film-- that it would lend something to the story, that it would take the visuals someplace they wouldn't ordinarily be able to go with conventional 2-D actors. And... it doesn't. There are the "scramble suits," which are extended special effects, but that's it. A character turns into a bug during a drug trip sequence (it's been done, see "The Naked Lunch"), objects appear and disappear. There's no need for this animation; it's a gimmick, a way to cover up the green screen technology that was used far more effectively in the underwritten "Sky Captain" and the under-directed "Sin City."
The story of "Darkly" seems to concern one Bob Arctor, drug user by day (or is he?) and narcotics officer by... er, also by day (or is he?). When everything is revealed at the end, it's inconsistent with what came before... the novel seems to place focus on the drugs and how they affect Arctor, the story seems to want to be his journey down the drug-induced path. The film doesn't know where its focus is, as it glances over important aspects of Arctor's life (how he became a narcotics officer, or any aspects of his personality, for that matter), dutifully shooting scenes in the book but giving them no context-- this is merely "Dazed and Confused" all over again, with some great actors but no point, riffing from scene to scene until we're just out of story to tell.
There are better drug movies out there, better Phillip K. Dick adaptations, and better Richard Linklater movies. I didn't wholly dislike "A Scanner Darkly," but neither can I recommend it. When some filmmakers make experiments, the result can be quite interesting. This one just kind of lays there, begging to be understood, but with not enough depth to really be a comment on anything. If drug use is this boring, no one will ever do them again. So the movie isn't a total waste. 6/10.
With the name Phillip K. Dick all over the publicity, I eventually caved to check "A Scanner Darkly," primed for a trippy experience. And so, once again, was I underwhelmed. It's Linklater, after all, so all he did was... point the camera at the actors, and add a fair-to-great soundtrack (depending on your feelings about Radiohead, the sole band that you'll be hearing).
With the animation technique, I expected it would somehow tweak itself throughout the film-- that it would lend something to the story, that it would take the visuals someplace they wouldn't ordinarily be able to go with conventional 2-D actors. And... it doesn't. There are the "scramble suits," which are extended special effects, but that's it. A character turns into a bug during a drug trip sequence (it's been done, see "The Naked Lunch"), objects appear and disappear. There's no need for this animation; it's a gimmick, a way to cover up the green screen technology that was used far more effectively in the underwritten "Sky Captain" and the under-directed "Sin City."
The story of "Darkly" seems to concern one Bob Arctor, drug user by day (or is he?) and narcotics officer by... er, also by day (or is he?). When everything is revealed at the end, it's inconsistent with what came before... the novel seems to place focus on the drugs and how they affect Arctor, the story seems to want to be his journey down the drug-induced path. The film doesn't know where its focus is, as it glances over important aspects of Arctor's life (how he became a narcotics officer, or any aspects of his personality, for that matter), dutifully shooting scenes in the book but giving them no context-- this is merely "Dazed and Confused" all over again, with some great actors but no point, riffing from scene to scene until we're just out of story to tell.
There are better drug movies out there, better Phillip K. Dick adaptations, and better Richard Linklater movies. I didn't wholly dislike "A Scanner Darkly," but neither can I recommend it. When some filmmakers make experiments, the result can be quite interesting. This one just kind of lays there, begging to be understood, but with not enough depth to really be a comment on anything. If drug use is this boring, no one will ever do them again. So the movie isn't a total waste. 6/10.