| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
Buy This DVD and Watch it Instantly
Watch the Amazon Instant Video rental on your PC, Mac, compatible TV or compatible device at no charge when you buy this DVD from Amazon.com. Your rental will expire 2 days after you begin watching or 30 days after your disc purchase, whichever occurs first. The Amazon Instant Video version will be available in Your Video Library and is provided as a gift with disc purchase. Available to US customers only. See Terms and Conditions.
|
||
 |
 |
From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. See it at Cinemark theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
- Commentary by writer/director Richard Linklater, Keanu Reeves, producer Tommy Pallotta, author Jonathan Lethem, and Isa Hackett Dick (daughter of Philip K. Dick)
- "One Summer in Austin: The Story of Filming A Scanner Darkly" featurette
- "The Weight of the Line: Animation Tales" featurette
- Trailer
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
How well you respond to Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly depends on how much you know about the life and work of celebrated science fiction writer Philip K. Dick. While it qualifies as a faithful adaptation of Dick's semiautobiographical 1977 novel about the perils of drug abuse, Big Brother-like surveillance and rampant paranoia in a very near future ("seven years from now"), this is still very much a Linklater film, and those two qualities don't always connect effectively. The creepy potency of Dick's premise remains: The drug war's been lost, citizens are kept under rigid surveillance by holographic scanning recorders, and a schizoid addict named Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) is facing an identity crisis he's not even aware of: Due to his voluminous intake of the highly addictive psychotropic drug Substance D, Arctor's brain has been split in two, each hemisphere functioning separately. So he doesn't know that he's also Agent Fred, an undercover agent assigned to infiltrate Arctor's circle of friends (played by Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder, Rory Cochrane, and Robert Downey, Jr.) to track down the secret source of Substance D. As he wears a "scramble suit" that constantly shifts identities and renders Agent Fred/Arctor into "the ultimate everyman," Dick's drug-addled antihero must come to grips with a society where, as the movie's tag-line makes clear, "everything is not going to be OK."
While it's virtually guaranteed to achieve some kind of cult status, A Scanner Darkly lacks the paranoid intensity of Dick's novel, and Linklater's established penchant for loose and loopy dialogue doesn't always work here, with an emphasis on drug-culture humor instead of the panicked anxiety that Dick's novel conveys. As for the use of "interpolated rotoscoping"--the technique used to apply shifting, highly stylized animation over conventional live-action footage--it's purely a matter of personal preference. The film's look is appropriate to Dick's dark, cautionary story about the high price of addiction, but it also robs performances of nuance and turns the seriousness of Dick's story into... well, a cartoon. Opinions will differ, but A Scanner Darkly is definitely worth a look--or two, if the mind-rattling plot doesn't sink in the first time around. --Jeff Shannon
Product Description
Set in a not-too-distant future where America has lost its "war" on drugs, Fred, an undercover cop, is one of many people hooked on the popular drug, Substance D, which causes its users to develop split personalities. Fred is obsessed with taking down Bob, a notorious drug dealer, but due to his Substance D addiction, he does not know that he is also Bob. Based on a classic novel by Philip K. Dick. Starring Keanu Reeves ("Constantine," "The Matrix" trilogy), Academy Award-nominee and Golden Globe-winner Winona Ryder ("Girl, Interupted," "Mr. Deeds"), Academy Award and Emmy-nominee and Golden Globe-winner Robert Downey Jr. ("Good Night, And Good Luck" "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang"), and Academy Award and Golden Globe-nominee and Emmy-winner Woody Harrelson ("North Country," "The People vs. Larry Flynt"). Directed by Academy Award-nominee Richard Linklater ("Before Sunset," "Dazed and Confused"). Filmed in live-action, and then animated using the same critically acclaimed process that Linklater used in his previous film, "Waking Life."
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
75 of 81 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
This is a movie you definitely want on DVD - because you'll want to watch it first with just the movie playing, and then after that with the audio soundtrack that includes director Richard Linklater, actor Keanu Reeves and most importantly the daughter of Philip K Dick. The insights that she provides into the movie and the storyline are priceless.
It's important to realize that Philip K Dick usually wrote about characters, not action sequences - and specifically, he wrote about those in society who did not "fit in" well. If you look through his stories, you'll find they often feature people who are misfits, who society overlooks or forgets. In A Scanner Darkly, the featured 'oddballs' are druggies hooked on Substance D - a drug that is never really described, but apparently causes paranoia and hallucinations.
The key here is to sit down with a glass of wine, a big bowl of popcorn and settle back for a character-driven story. This isn't a Rambo or Dirty Dozen story - it's about how people relate to each other, in many subtle ways. It's a study of interactions.
I really appreciate that this was done in a combination of real life acting and animation. It floors me that in modern times anyone might look down on this because it is a "cartoon". Is a Renoir less worthy than an Ansel Adams because a Renoir was done by hand? Animation isn't inherently kiddie. Hand drawn works can contain quite mature topics. In this case it is *ideally* suited to the story - because a main aspect of the tale is that the characters never quite know what is real and what is imagination. Are the bugs really there? Can he trust what he sees? All signs point to NO. The viewer is caught up in this same confused world. If this had been live action, then 'odd things' would have instantly stood out. But the point of a drug haze is that everything seems 'unreal' - and so odd things fit into that flow much more smoothly.
If you don't know druggies, rest assured that characters like this are quite average - and this story is in essence an autobiography of Philip K Dick's life in the 70s. He lived in a house just like this with his two brothers after his divorce. He lost his wife and two young girls. He was very paranoid that one of his house-mates was a narc, spying on their druggie activities. One of his friends did think bugs were crawling on him. At the end of the movie is Dick's actual ending to the story - a list of his friends who were damaged or slain by drugs. Included on this list are his ex-wife and himself.
So what you have in the movie are the druggies at turns being nice to each other, being very cruel to each other, mistrusting each other, and turning to each other for help. One of the druggies - Bob - is actually a narc cop code-named Fred. He's gone undercover to figure out who is supplying Substance D to the area. Unfortunately, he's gotten himself hooked during his undercover work. Even worse, part of what Substance D does is to destroy your brain - so he's developed in essence split personalities. The Bob-Druggie part forgets most of the time he IS a narc. The narc half of him, when he's in the police station, knows he's spying on this group of druggies but forgets that he is one of them. So when the narc is told to specifically spy on "Bob", he literally doesn't realize that this is him.
Here's where the movie - trying to stuff a dense book into under 2 hours - has some problems. If you haven't read the book, it's not clear at all that Narc-Fred forgets who he is when he goes undercover as Bob. It's a big twist in the book, but in the movie it seems clear to the watcher that it's the same person, and it's not made clear in the story that he's forgetting his "other half".
Other than that, the story is really pretty straightforward, plot-wise. The druggies are paranoid about the world around them and plug on with their lives. The cops are trying to figure out who the supplier is, so they bug the house and try to get that information. Like most Dick stories, there's a twist, although to be honest I thought it would be a much larger twist. Also, like most Dick stories, there's little female presence and the ending is only slightly hopeful. These aren't happy-go-lucky romances that he writes - they are dark warnings about where society is heading when it marginalizes those who don't fit in perfectly.
If you're confused about the movie, I definitely recommend reading the novel. That might be easier to grasp and give you more insight into the characters. Then go back and watch the movie again - taking it slow. Pay attention to the nuances of what they say, and how the characters relate. See how they feel society is treating them - and then take a look what society actually does with these people. Maybe they aren't quite so paranoid after all - maybe there is some resaon for how they feel.
It's important to realize that Philip K Dick usually wrote about characters, not action sequences - and specifically, he wrote about those in society who did not "fit in" well. If you look through his stories, you'll find they often feature people who are misfits, who society overlooks or forgets. In A Scanner Darkly, the featured 'oddballs' are druggies hooked on Substance D - a drug that is never really described, but apparently causes paranoia and hallucinations.
The key here is to sit down with a glass of wine, a big bowl of popcorn and settle back for a character-driven story. This isn't a Rambo or Dirty Dozen story - it's about how people relate to each other, in many subtle ways. It's a study of interactions.
I really appreciate that this was done in a combination of real life acting and animation. It floors me that in modern times anyone might look down on this because it is a "cartoon". Is a Renoir less worthy than an Ansel Adams because a Renoir was done by hand? Animation isn't inherently kiddie. Hand drawn works can contain quite mature topics. In this case it is *ideally* suited to the story - because a main aspect of the tale is that the characters never quite know what is real and what is imagination. Are the bugs really there? Can he trust what he sees? All signs point to NO. The viewer is caught up in this same confused world. If this had been live action, then 'odd things' would have instantly stood out. But the point of a drug haze is that everything seems 'unreal' - and so odd things fit into that flow much more smoothly.
If you don't know druggies, rest assured that characters like this are quite average - and this story is in essence an autobiography of Philip K Dick's life in the 70s. He lived in a house just like this with his two brothers after his divorce. He lost his wife and two young girls. He was very paranoid that one of his house-mates was a narc, spying on their druggie activities. One of his friends did think bugs were crawling on him. At the end of the movie is Dick's actual ending to the story - a list of his friends who were damaged or slain by drugs. Included on this list are his ex-wife and himself.
So what you have in the movie are the druggies at turns being nice to each other, being very cruel to each other, mistrusting each other, and turning to each other for help. One of the druggies - Bob - is actually a narc cop code-named Fred. He's gone undercover to figure out who is supplying Substance D to the area. Unfortunately, he's gotten himself hooked during his undercover work. Even worse, part of what Substance D does is to destroy your brain - so he's developed in essence split personalities. The Bob-Druggie part forgets most of the time he IS a narc. The narc half of him, when he's in the police station, knows he's spying on this group of druggies but forgets that he is one of them. So when the narc is told to specifically spy on "Bob", he literally doesn't realize that this is him.
Here's where the movie - trying to stuff a dense book into under 2 hours - has some problems. If you haven't read the book, it's not clear at all that Narc-Fred forgets who he is when he goes undercover as Bob. It's a big twist in the book, but in the movie it seems clear to the watcher that it's the same person, and it's not made clear in the story that he's forgetting his "other half".
Other than that, the story is really pretty straightforward, plot-wise. The druggies are paranoid about the world around them and plug on with their lives. The cops are trying to figure out who the supplier is, so they bug the house and try to get that information. Like most Dick stories, there's a twist, although to be honest I thought it would be a much larger twist. Also, like most Dick stories, there's little female presence and the ending is only slightly hopeful. These aren't happy-go-lucky romances that he writes - they are dark warnings about where society is heading when it marginalizes those who don't fit in perfectly.
If you're confused about the movie, I definitely recommend reading the novel. That might be easier to grasp and give you more insight into the characters. Then go back and watch the movie again - taking it slow. Pay attention to the nuances of what they say, and how the characters relate. See how they feel society is treating them - and then take a look what society actually does with these people. Maybe they aren't quite so paranoid after all - maybe there is some resaon for how they feel.
140 of 161 people found the following review helpful
Here's the interesting thing about Richard Linklater's "A Scanner Darkly": for a film about heavy drug use set in the not too distant future, it's probably one of the most honest and complex anti-drug stories ever told. I say this in spite of the fact that I found the specifics of the plot incredibly difficult to grasp. All I could comprehend were the general bits of information, most of which were gathered from trailers and commercials. Apparently, a fictional drug called Substance D rules the streets of Orange County, California. It's a highly addictive, brain-frying narcotic that has a long list of negative side effects. It's also an illegal substance, one that undercover cop Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) has gotten quite familiar with in his attempt to locate its main distributor. Upon infiltrating the home of a group of pill popping slackers, he starts using in order to blend in. Unfortunately, this drugged lifestyle eventually leaves him unable to distinguish reality from hallucinations.
Through the cinematic process of rotoscoping, Linklater has enabled the audience to feel the exact same way as Arctor does. Each frame of film was traced over and stylistically repainted, making the world the characters live in--as well as the characters themselves--look half like a cartoon and half like the physical realm. It was an absolutely incredible look, and I found that it gave the story an added dimension by representing a kind of realistic unreality (if that makes any sense at all). In that sense, it's almost symbolic that the undercover cops wear scramble suits, which are high tech cloaks with anatomical images that continuously shift from one to the next (apparently, a single suit can project millions of appearances). The state of the world these characters live in is ruled by uncertainty and deception. Arctor is ultimately tested, not only in terms of what he believes to be the truth, but in terms of his state of mind, as well.
I now understand why that rotoscoping process was used for an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel. Only he could have written about the life-destroying effects of an addictive substance. Likewise, only this kind of film can do justice to the point he was trying to make, namely that you can't trust anyone, especially when you're addicted to a powerful drug. Unfortunately, elaborating on that point would give too much away; I will say that all in this movie isn't exactly as it seems, and more than a couple of characters have hidden agendas. There are a number of truths hidden amongst the film's eccentric style, and by the time you get halfway through, you're completely lost.
However, this is the kind of movie you don't mind getting lost in, even if you have no idea what's going on. I have to admit that while I understood the underlying message of the story, I barely understood this film as a whole. Watching the sequences unfold and listening to the characters interact is almost as brain scrambling as the evil Substance D is. This is especially true of the conversations between James Barris (Robert Downey, Jr.), Ernie Luckman (Woody Harrelson), and Charles Freck (Rory Cochrane), three of Arctor's equally spaced out friends. Their esoteric banter flows seamlessly from topic to topic in an Altered Consciousness sort of way, filled with anti-establishment ramblings that almost come off as poetic. It even gets comical at times; during a road trip to San Diego, Barris claims he left the front door of their house unlocked and attached a note for burglars to read (which, supposedly, was all part of an elaborate scheme to record the intruder and solve the mystery behind the Substance D ring).
There are some interesting moments shared between Arctor and his girlfriend, Donna Hawthorne (Winona Ryder). Their relationship revolves around their mutual abuse of Substance D, which doesn't exactly enhance their moments together so much as it leaves them in a perpetually dazed state of awareness. Their conversations are almost as esoteric as those of Barris, Luckman, and Freck, the only difference being a small degree of intimate, meaningful language. One also gets the sense that Arctor is trying to understand Donna as a person, specifically why she's behaving in certain ways. He knows how devastating the effects of Substance D can be, and he fears that maybe she's going too far with her usage. The two show genuine concern for one another, even when they find themselves lost in a conversation about drooping, floating cats.
Despite the free flowing course the story takes, everything does come together by the end. "A Scanner Darkly" is one of those movies that can cleverly hide behind a hallucinogenic facade in order to convey a serious message. If you're considering seeing this movie, you have to be willing to get jerked around somewhat, especially when it comes to your expectations for solid characterizations and straightforward storytelling. I think I knew all along that I'd find this film confusing; the ads made it perfectly clear that this was a very unconventional project. But in the end, I didn't really mind; the story takes on the form of a seriously warped puzzle, and I welcomed the opportunity to put the pieces together and figure things out for myself.
Let me end by quoting the tagline from Jim Henson's "Labyrinth": "A world where everything seems possible, and nothing is as it seems." I find this to be a fitting way to describe the world of "A Scanner Darkly." If you see it with that quote in mind, you just might come away with a better understanding of it.
Through the cinematic process of rotoscoping, Linklater has enabled the audience to feel the exact same way as Arctor does. Each frame of film was traced over and stylistically repainted, making the world the characters live in--as well as the characters themselves--look half like a cartoon and half like the physical realm. It was an absolutely incredible look, and I found that it gave the story an added dimension by representing a kind of realistic unreality (if that makes any sense at all). In that sense, it's almost symbolic that the undercover cops wear scramble suits, which are high tech cloaks with anatomical images that continuously shift from one to the next (apparently, a single suit can project millions of appearances). The state of the world these characters live in is ruled by uncertainty and deception. Arctor is ultimately tested, not only in terms of what he believes to be the truth, but in terms of his state of mind, as well.
I now understand why that rotoscoping process was used for an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel. Only he could have written about the life-destroying effects of an addictive substance. Likewise, only this kind of film can do justice to the point he was trying to make, namely that you can't trust anyone, especially when you're addicted to a powerful drug. Unfortunately, elaborating on that point would give too much away; I will say that all in this movie isn't exactly as it seems, and more than a couple of characters have hidden agendas. There are a number of truths hidden amongst the film's eccentric style, and by the time you get halfway through, you're completely lost.
However, this is the kind of movie you don't mind getting lost in, even if you have no idea what's going on. I have to admit that while I understood the underlying message of the story, I barely understood this film as a whole. Watching the sequences unfold and listening to the characters interact is almost as brain scrambling as the evil Substance D is. This is especially true of the conversations between James Barris (Robert Downey, Jr.), Ernie Luckman (Woody Harrelson), and Charles Freck (Rory Cochrane), three of Arctor's equally spaced out friends. Their esoteric banter flows seamlessly from topic to topic in an Altered Consciousness sort of way, filled with anti-establishment ramblings that almost come off as poetic. It even gets comical at times; during a road trip to San Diego, Barris claims he left the front door of their house unlocked and attached a note for burglars to read (which, supposedly, was all part of an elaborate scheme to record the intruder and solve the mystery behind the Substance D ring).
There are some interesting moments shared between Arctor and his girlfriend, Donna Hawthorne (Winona Ryder). Their relationship revolves around their mutual abuse of Substance D, which doesn't exactly enhance their moments together so much as it leaves them in a perpetually dazed state of awareness. Their conversations are almost as esoteric as those of Barris, Luckman, and Freck, the only difference being a small degree of intimate, meaningful language. One also gets the sense that Arctor is trying to understand Donna as a person, specifically why she's behaving in certain ways. He knows how devastating the effects of Substance D can be, and he fears that maybe she's going too far with her usage. The two show genuine concern for one another, even when they find themselves lost in a conversation about drooping, floating cats.
Despite the free flowing course the story takes, everything does come together by the end. "A Scanner Darkly" is one of those movies that can cleverly hide behind a hallucinogenic facade in order to convey a serious message. If you're considering seeing this movie, you have to be willing to get jerked around somewhat, especially when it comes to your expectations for solid characterizations and straightforward storytelling. I think I knew all along that I'd find this film confusing; the ads made it perfectly clear that this was a very unconventional project. But in the end, I didn't really mind; the story takes on the form of a seriously warped puzzle, and I welcomed the opportunity to put the pieces together and figure things out for myself.
Let me end by quoting the tagline from Jim Henson's "Labyrinth": "A world where everything seems possible, and nothing is as it seems." I find this to be a fitting way to describe the world of "A Scanner Darkly." If you see it with that quote in mind, you just might come away with a better understanding of it.
33 of 38 people found the following review helpful
By cassdog
I enjoyed this movie thoroughly. It is not a movie glorifying drug use. It is a disturbingly accurate portrayal of the paranoia, confusion, selfishness and loss of personality that comes with the territory of being a junky. All told in a mildly sci-fi, hallucinatory and even humorous manner with a slight twist at the end. But don't be dissuaded if this sounds too heavy. It is quite entertaining, humorous and filled with great performances.
I am a little surprised at some of the reactions to this movie from people that couldn't understand it, or had trouble visualizing the movie with the unique animation, or didn't see the change in tone to a darker story that was blaringly obvious. To me the animation style was essential and even the scatter suits were reminiscent of the visualizations one gets on psychedelic drugs. The two doctors which were competing just like the two halves of his brain was amazing. The scene where he looks around his bosses desk and his visualizations aren't quite right is spine-tingling. The confused, paranoid, stoner scenes were brilliantly funny and equally disturbing but also very easy to follow. The performances particularly by Robert Downey Jr. were dead-on accurate, extremely entertaining personalities.
So don't be dissuaded by reviewers criticizing the specifics of the arresting animation, or who were confused by the plot and therefore thought it was thin and hard to follow. The problem in these cases lies with the viewer. This is a deeply emotional, easy to follow but very entertaining look at the drug subculture.
I am a little surprised at some of the reactions to this movie from people that couldn't understand it, or had trouble visualizing the movie with the unique animation, or didn't see the change in tone to a darker story that was blaringly obvious. To me the animation style was essential and even the scatter suits were reminiscent of the visualizations one gets on psychedelic drugs. The two doctors which were competing just like the two halves of his brain was amazing. The scene where he looks around his bosses desk and his visualizations aren't quite right is spine-tingling. The confused, paranoid, stoner scenes were brilliantly funny and equally disturbing but also very easy to follow. The performances particularly by Robert Downey Jr. were dead-on accurate, extremely entertaining personalities.
So don't be dissuaded by reviewers criticizing the specifics of the arresting animation, or who were confused by the plot and therefore thought it was thin and hard to follow. The problem in these cases lies with the viewer. This is a deeply emotional, easy to follow but very entertaining look at the drug subculture.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
Trippy
There's a few loose ends left hanging, but otherwise this is a trippy look into a future drug ridden dystopia.
Published 2 days ago by ascagnel
3.0 out of 5 stars
If I wanted a comic book I would have bought one.
This comic book arrived just after the announcement that a third Before movie will be released in theaters in a few weeks. This one will be in Greece. Read more
Published 3 days ago by Zarathustra
3.0 out of 5 stars
far out
the most far out film presentation i've ever seen! takes awhile to get used to but it eventually held my interest.
Published 3 days ago by Ronald P. Kedzierski
1.0 out of 5 stars
no matter what,,,
It does not matter what the movie content is, or who else is in it, if they made it understandable to Keanu Reeves, then the thing is a turd from start to finish. Read more
Published 5 days ago by aldo ray
5.0 out of 5 stars
Entertaining from start to finish!
I rented this movie a few years back and was extremely surprised at what I'd lucked upon, this movie is both entertaining and unique in MANY ways, and probably has a cult following... Read more
Published 5 days ago by Crystal Belote
5.0 out of 5 stars
Mind bending
This film is a unique blend of stoner comedy, ceribral, and undercover cop story all rolled into a caotic twisting world of drugs and their users and the life that they have... Read more
Published 6 days ago by Christian Bergh
5.0 out of 5 stars
Its a little strange but I loved it!
This one won't be for the average person..if but I suggest giving it a try! Turned out to be a great movie! Great Cast as well! It is sort of animated.. Read more
Published 15 days ago by kentucky mom
1.0 out of 5 stars
Horrible junk
I guess this is some sort of cult film, but I couldn't stand it. The visuals were completely irritating and I just kept hoping they would go away. Read more
Published 24 days ago by G. Kuhn
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting, but weird
Fun to see these actors as animated. It was interesting, just weird. Kind of slow. Some funny scenes with woody and robert.
Published 1 month ago by Janet Martin
5.0 out of 5 stars
Love Linklater
Another master piece from Linklater that will make you think. The cast did a brilliant job with the portraying of the crazy cast of characters.
Published 1 month ago by GJF
