a scanner darkly

[Warren]

anyone seen it ?

anyone understand it ?


please explain.

[weazelz]

anyone seen it ?

anyone understand it ?

please explain.seen it - yes

understood it - ummm .. got a bit lost, should have paid more attention at the start

[Diego's dealer]

Yeah I saw it, think i understood it! Think I may lack the necessary English skills to describe what the fudge was happening though!

Thought it was good though, didn't know anything about it so I was pleasantly suprised by it.

[soulrider]

what is a scanner darkley? a film or something?

Cant say ive ever heard of it

[weazelz]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405296/

[Swiss]

Popping off to see it next Thursday.

Having read some of the reviews it has had an incredibly mixed reception. I like the look of the filming tecniques being used.

[Beenz]

Saw a brief review of this last weekend, looks like Mr K Reeves top performances with him able to exhibit expression in this film :lol:

An interesting idea, film everything then paint it like a graphic novel. Wonder if the story/plot works though.

I think this will be notable more for its' art than content. I'll wait and see. :?

[inevitable]

I'm going to try and watch it this week, I read the book a few years ago and that was pretty weird. They say it sticks to the plot of the book well though.

I'd try and explain but I'm sure google could do a better job for you. :?

Edit To Add: It was a very good book.[/i]

[Abyss]

Have any of the people who didnt understand it read the book?

I had to read the book twice to completely understand it and every time i re-read it again I seem to pick up on a couple things. Its a VERY good book tho.

If the book is closely based on the film (does look like it but i havnt managed to see it yet) then I can expect it to be a bit nuts, the book was written by Philip K **** who spent most of his life on one substance or another.

I really cant wait to see the film as i love the book so much but been so busy :(

[weazelz]

Have any of the people who didnt understand it read the book?

I haven't. I got the gist - I would have done better if I'd figured out the characters' names a bit sooner than after the end f the film

[northwind]

Not seen the film but I've read the book, it's typical Philip K **** drug-addled pish. Still not as rubbish as Ubik. Apparently it's all very poignant that the plot's all about someone whose brain's been demolished by drugs, with the obvious parallels to the author's life- but all I could think was "I'm reading a book by someone whose brain has been demolished by drugs"

The 3 years before saw him completely incapable of writing- he ended up "co-writing" Deus Irae with Roger Zelazny, but if you read Deus Irae it's about as "co-written" as those airport novels "Tom Clancy's XXX, based on a concept by Tom Clancy, written by a drama student". It's all Zelazny, and blatantly so, but Zelazny didn't have the heart to say so and so it stayed cowritten.

All very sad, really. But then, some would say that the drug-addledness of ****'s books are the only reason they're remembered at all, so maybe it's not so sad.

[Warren]

to be honest, i admire the time spent retroscoping the whole film, but i dont think its really nececarry.

after about 10 mins, you forget about the effects, and are just left to be confused.

i preferred sin city, (authough its in a different league) for different visual techniques in film.

[northwind]

Hmm. I love that "Philip K ****" gets autocensored, but pish doesnt :)