I have to defend the actors against the bad reviews. As is often the case, flat and non-compelling acting has a lot more to do with the director and the script than the actor's abilities. In this case, the director and the scriptwriter are the same. Given to a different director, this might have been a compelling story (or not, since I don't find the scifi religious spiritualism remotely interesting, and I find it objectionable on an intellectual basis). I also hold the director responsible for the bad taste (IMO) in the visual effects. While the pink of the book was changed to purple, film student/amateur filmmaker purple glows and lighting (when called for and NOT called for by the scripted action) didn't help sell anything here. In fact, the visuals made the film look decidedly low budget and cheesy.
But is this even a compelling idea for a film? Not in my opinion. It's naive and quite telling of the state of mind Philip K. Dick was in at the point in his life when he wrote the texts this film is based on. In fact, he didn't actually publish this story. He rewrote it as a completely different book. The story this film is based on was published posthumously. Who knows if Dick would have approved.
Overall, the film doesn't deserve the brutal assassination given by some reviewers. It also doesn't deserve the praise other reviewers have given it. It's an amateur effort with poor choices made in direction and cinematography that sabotage the overall result. Even the choice of story to put to film was probably not the best. I respect the desire to honor a beloved author, but no one knows of Philip K. Dick would himself have approved of this. The film adaptation history of his works has been mostly poor. It's a shame. On top of that, unsophisticated reviewers use this film to demean the skills of the actors present in it.
Taste varies, and there's no universal standard, but this film didn't deliver for me. I like slow films. I like subtle acting. I like dialog-heavy content over action-heavy content. I even tolerate low budgets when the filmmakers don't try to sell unconvincing visuals. This film failed to pass my rather tolerant standards for intellectual and slow art movies.
It was not satisfying. It almost wasn't worth my time, if not for sheer curiosity satisfaction ("is this another bad PKD adaptation?"). It was another reminder that resources don't necessarily get divvied out to the best people or the best projects. It's sad and frustrating for a lover of the potential of cinema and storytelling.
If not for the weirdly bipolar reviews, I wouldn't bother to write one of my own. The film deserves a "meh"; not hate or praise.
But is this even a compelling idea for a film? Not in my opinion. It's naive and quite telling of the state of mind Philip K. Dick was in at the point in his life when he wrote the texts this film is based on. In fact, he didn't actually publish this story. He rewrote it as a completely different book. The story this film is based on was published posthumously. Who knows if Dick would have approved.
Overall, the film doesn't deserve the brutal assassination given by some reviewers. It also doesn't deserve the praise other reviewers have given it. It's an amateur effort with poor choices made in direction and cinematography that sabotage the overall result. Even the choice of story to put to film was probably not the best. I respect the desire to honor a beloved author, but no one knows of Philip K. Dick would himself have approved of this. The film adaptation history of his works has been mostly poor. It's a shame. On top of that, unsophisticated reviewers use this film to demean the skills of the actors present in it.
Taste varies, and there's no universal standard, but this film didn't deliver for me. I like slow films. I like subtle acting. I like dialog-heavy content over action-heavy content. I even tolerate low budgets when the filmmakers don't try to sell unconvincing visuals. This film failed to pass my rather tolerant standards for intellectual and slow art movies.
It was not satisfying. It almost wasn't worth my time, if not for sheer curiosity satisfaction ("is this another bad PKD adaptation?"). It was another reminder that resources don't necessarily get divvied out to the best people or the best projects. It's sad and frustrating for a lover of the potential of cinema and storytelling.
If not for the weirdly bipolar reviews, I wouldn't bother to write one of my own. The film deserves a "meh"; not hate or praise.