A Scanner Darkly (2006)

Hello dear readers (whoever you are), and a belated Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you all! What better way to start the new year than with a review, yes?

What is the first review for the year 2011, you ask? Well, I was asked by a user on Fiverr to review A Scanner Darkly (2006) due to my background in graphic design. I was glad that someone finally pushed me into watching this movie, as I had wanted to see it for a few years now but never got around to it.

The official poster for the film.

A Scanner Darkly is a film directed by Richard Linklater (of Dazed & Confused and School of Rock fame) from a short story by Philip K. Dick, who is know for writing Minority Report and the story behind Blade Runner (the story called Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?).

I'm not going to sit here and reiterate the plot to you, either you can watch the movie yourself or view the many online summaries of the film. But just so I don't lose you, IMDb describes the film as such:

An undercover cop in a not-too-distant future becomes involved with a dangerous new drug and begins to lose his own identity as a result.

Let me just start off by saying, I am definitely glad I finally watched this film. What little I had ever seen of this live action/animation film had continually intrigued me into wanting to watch it in the first place. Visually, it is a gorgeous film. Everything is crisp, clean and constantly maintained my attention. In the middle of watching the film, just from the animation, it feels as if I was watching a modern day Ralph Bakshi animation (referring entirely about The Lord of the Rings film). Basically, the entire film was shot live action, then animated over, and while this was apparent throughout the film, it didn't interfere with the story.

When this is pointed out, one begins to take notice in small directions that Linklater had possibly given in order to make this film look and feel more like an animation rather than just a trace over. For one, a majority of the characters (but more prominently Rory Cochcrane's character Freck) engage in far more gestures and facial expressions than almost seems necessary. But depending on how one views this film, as an animation or a live action, it can either be necessary or excessive. I for one have watched the entire film as an animation, therefore it would be needed.

The process of animating as well as Cochcrane's expressions.

I could go on and on about how great the animation is (and I most likely will because it was just that good). For one, Keanu Reeves' character, Bob Arctor, spends a decent amount of the film in what one character of the film describes as a "scramble suit", a full body suit that is constantly changing by shifting physical characteristics of as many people as possible. There is not one one second in the film where Arctor is in the suit that it isn't changing. As an animation, this works very well. The shifts, though clearly separated into sectors, are seamless and just very interesting to watch. A few other scenes in the movie also echo the fact that this movie probably wouldn't have been nearly as interesting if it weren't an animation of a sort.

The image doesn't do the Scramble Suits justice.

I could easily write another 5 paragraphs on how much I enjoyed the animation, because honestly, it was quite refreshing to see a more mature animated film that looked good.

Yep, that good.

But honestly, you've heard enough about the animation haven't you? Of course you have.

Onto the meat and potatoes of the movie: the plot. First off, I have never read Philip K. Dick's story , so I can't really make a comparison. If I do ever get a chance to read it (hopefully soon) I will make sure to come back here and include the story and how the film did or didn't adapt to it.

That all being said, the plot came across as rather bland. For the most part I could follow what was going on: Bob Arctor works in a sort of police organization trying to fight the spread of a drug referred to as "Substance D." While he is part of the fight against it, he is also apparently taking the drugs (either because he wanted to or for undercover purposes). The rest of the film seems to involve his descent into the mental repercussions of taking the drug. While this is happening, his "friends" (played by Cochcrane, Woody Harrelson and Robert Downy Jr.) go on and on (particularly Downy Jr. himself) with almost inane druggie chatter. It honestly starts to get annoying about half way into the film.

One of the better scenes involving 2 of the 3 actors.

That is not to say that the story is flat out boring, rather, it just takes a while to start picking up the pace. Once it finally does and hits its climax, it's almost hard to tell if it was worth the wait. I got to the end of the film, where there is a sort of mini climax and it wasn't till then that I convinced myself I need to watch this one more time. But only ONE MORE TIME.

While I felt that the plot was somewhat extremely slow paced, I don't feel that the actors within the film are to blame for this. Either it was poor direction or poor literary source, but I'm not pointing any fingers.

This is one of the few films where I felt that Keanu Reeves actually maintained an interesting character throughout the entire film. Reeves, along with a few other actors within the industry, have this habit of being given or taking roles where they are not becoming the character, but rather the character is becoming them.

In lament terms, A Scanner Darkly had Keanu Reeves playing Bob Arctor, not Bob Arctor playing Keanu Reeves.

As much as I previously complained about their "druggie chatter", Robert Downy Jr., Woody Harrelson, and Rory Cochcrane played really well off of each other, as well as on their own. They made me believe that they were in fact, 3 guys on a very destructive, very addictive drug. That doesn't mean however, that I want to sit there and listen to them, just like I wouldn't think it would be fun to sit to 3 real addicts sit there and talk about nothing.

The only one I really have a grudge against after this movie, was Winona Ryder's character Donna. Donna played the semi love interest of Arctor (I say semi because the closest they get to being a couple is in one scene where Reeves tries to sleep with Ryder, but due to Ryder taking cocaine, she has an aversion to people touching her). What little character development Donna underwent felt tacked on, almost a last minute decision. When her purpose is finally revealed, it is almost unbelievable, and not in that, "I can't believe this happened!" kind of way either. During 3/4s of the film Ryder's character feels useless, and almost like she's not even present in the film. Her character's existence picks up around the same time the plot decides to, and even then she feels more and more useless. At the end of the film, Ryder's charcter herself is in almost realization that she is useless.

Things sort of get interesting here. Sort of.

If I had to rate this film out of 5, I would give it a 3. The visuals of the film are enough to make me watch it one more time (and that's it). Even the second time around, I'll probably try focusing even more on the plot (and hopefully getting something more out of it). But unless upon an additional viewing something awe inspiring comes out at me, it probably isn't going to get much better than the first watch. But I like to remain optimistic.

Lastly, would I recommend this? Probably only to people who appreciate art and/or animation.

Love,
Thrila

I'm hoping to maintain a schedule of one review a week, perhaps two text reviews and two video reviews? Let's see what the new year has in store!