| Can any director truly adapt Philip K. Dick's books? |
|
| written by Meldola |
January 29, 2007 - 9:25 PM PST |
|
3 out of 11 members found this review helpful
|
Philip K. Dick's novels and short stories are not comic books. Linklater's film is a moving comic book. Although I am sure many in the theatre will be titillated by the tweaked addicts in the film, and the unusual visual treatment, I believe that this film, like The Minority Report and Blade Runner before it, is abysmal. I don't believe the critics who say this film is an adaptation that is reflective of Dick's writings/themes. Dick fought the Scott version vociferously; one can only imagine him turning in his grave at A Scanner Darkly. I agree with one critic who suggested that if you are looking for pure science fiction, you will be disappointed. The critic, Phillip Craig, went on to say that it works as a black comedy. The joke, if there is one, may be on the viewer. If we had contemporary directors equal to Fritz Lang (and producers to fund them), then the answer to my title question would be yes; sadly, I continue to see directors use Dick's work as a vehicle to be exploited.
Note: I edited this review on 1/29/2007 |
| Re: Meldola's review |
|
| written by macewen |
January 24, 2007 - 2:19 PM PST |
|
9 out of 14 members found this review helpful
|
1) This film is not a moving comic book; it is an animated film.
2) Dick only fought against Blade Runner after reading the first draft. After reading the second draft he praised it to the hills. Also, he admitted from the start that a literal adaptation would be neither possible nor desirable. And he died before he could see the finished product on screen, so we will never know what he would have thought of the film if he had lived to see it.
3) Of course this film is not Dickensian. Charles Dickens did not write the book. I believe the term you meant to use was Phildickian.
4) I enjoyed this film immensely and recommend it to other GreenCine viewers, whether they are PKD fans or not. |
|
|