Re: A Scanner Darkly
 

Aren't you short a few Xs?

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

saw this tonight. It's pretty damn badass. more later (as in Sunday)

click for initial notes

WARNING: extreme gloating in that link. You may be crushed by the excessive name-dropping.

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

tomorrow!!! ahhhhhhhh

i.can't.wait...............

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

got to wait until the fourteenth for vancouver, but that's all right because i have some friends' wedding and rehearsal dinner this weekend so i couldn't go anyway....

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

impatiently strumming fingers on heavy wooden table

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

Stupid second tier city release! Argh...it's only tuesday. Tomorrow never comes until it's too late.

You hear that Pig Vommit, er....Paul Giamatti did the audio book version of A Scanner Darkly for the movie release tie in?

I'm curious to hear Paul Giamatti do some reading of Philip K. Dick before he graces the screen in M.Night Shamalamadingdong's overly bloated The Lady in Water. (At least the mad drunk Chris Doyle shot this film so it should be visually pleasing to the eyes.)

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

I'll be seeing this again this weekend I think. I know I posted up there that it was badass but my feelings on it since March have been steadily declining into mediocrity. I still think certain visual aspects of the movie are amazing but the more I've thought about it the more problems I have that I hope they've fixed... It's playing here but I'm waiting for my favorite theater to get it.

I'm not seeing Lady in the Water though unless someone tells me it's fantastic. I don't care how pretty it is :)

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

A good friend of mine expressed similar sediments, mainly that he doesn't understand the need for so much visual 'no handism'. (no handism being a ref to something that is flashy for the sake of being flashy and showing off, like saying, "Look ma, no hands," as you balance yourself perfectly while riding a bike with no hands in front of your parents.)

His whole point was, whats the point of the rotoscoping animation? How much will it bring to the film as an animated piece, where as if it were shot conventionally, or even on digital, with normal visual effects integrated?

I can see his point and understand that the use of the advancing rotoscoping technique being able to serve what purpose exactly?

You've seen it B.miller? Would you kind of agree with these sediments, already preconceived in the viewers mind before even seeing the film?

Roger, roger. I find the Cinematographer aspect somewhat harder to stomach, than say the actor factor. You know, you see said film because said actor/actress is in it, despite how horrible it may. The same appliest to crew members.

Dante Spinotti A.S.C., may have shot one of my favorite films, The Insider for Michael Mann in addition to three other films for Mann (Manhunter, The Last of the Mohicans, and Heat) over the course of 13 years. Despite this admiration for Spinotti's work, I still cannot bring myself to see the Brett FUCKING Ratner piece of shit that is The Family Guy or After the Sunset or even X3:The Last Stand.

However, I did thoroughly enjoy both LA Confidential and Wonder Boys which Dante Spinotti served as the DP on for director Curtis Hanson.

I could rationalize seeing the Psycho remake on multitude of factors, ranging from the Cinematographer factor to the director-is-from-my-home-town-I've-met-him-before factor. One factor being Christopher Doyle had shot the film for Gus Van Sant and I was aware of Doyle because of Wong Kar Wai's films I'd seen at that point in my life.

However, Doyle has only shot three films now in the US, or rather for US based directors with M. Night Shamamlamadingdong being one of them.

In the end I'm gonna have to see just The Lady in Water only so I can rag on Shamalamadingdong some more, and justified in my complaints as I've actually seen the film. I would like to be surprised by the film, but somehow, I just don't see that happening.

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

actually I found the animation extremely suitable to this particular story... My main problems that have been springing up are mostly with the script... Granted i saw a pretty early cut back in March and apparently the script is a lot better than what I saw but... it's like it was missing several pieces, mostly of character, so you have this pretty confusing plot thing and you're always distracted by the visuals anyway but I never felt like I got to know any of the characters... which is odd for a Linklater movie. I dunno, maybe it was tweaked to the point of cohesion but it kind of fell apart for me the longer i went after seeing it.

I think they decided to animate the film though just for the scramble suits alone. The style of animation is actually much more realistic and consistent compared to Waking Life... and the scramble suits are done as well as they possibly could be I think. It's by far my favorite aspect of the film... and fits the story perfectly and the movie perfectly... Just wish it was a little more... and i say this very carefully.. overt in its meaning. I haven't read the story but I hear that the drug stuff is pretty front and center... and it's really as much about the drugs as it is about the paranoia and dark future and blah blah blah... The drugs aren't completely out of the picture in the movie but they are definitely not dwelled upon much either.

As an interesting side-note... I heard that Charlie Kaufman's script had this set in the future but it was circa-70s future... would've been really interesting I think, but can see why Linklater opted for a more contemporary timeless feel since there's already so much going on with the animation.

Re: Scanner Darkly
 

WOW! that was a badass film.
i will talk A LOT later about it because i have so much questions :)// but yeah.. super punk rock. One more for Linklater.

It was subtance D or T??? that was tight for me!!

Grady: you didn't felt that those roto things moving and floating were pretty damn trippy.. i was like oo oh !! substancce d/t works!!