'Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them' - Yahoo! News UK
Does this mean that the hand isn't actually quicker than the eye? Or just that it doesn't have to be after all?
Of course, every illusionist knows that misdirection is what makes a trick work but I guess it's nice to have some scientific proof.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Review The Grudge 2
Review: The Grudge 2
Sequel to the re-make of the sequel of the original Japanese film Ju-on. Or something like that. Better than most of these remakes because, although the original director has also directed these films he has also made enough concessions to Western preferences that this is neither as weird nor as tedious as I’ve found previous Japanese horror films in this vein. Indeed, although there is little to distinguish this film thematically or plot-wise from The Ring and so on there is much better use made of the plot. Sometime in the past something bad was done to a Japanese woman and she’s become some kind of freaky ghost that kills people who were nothing to do with her suffering but are unlucky enough to cross her path. In this case by entering the house where she was murdered.
What is different from The Ring films is that this actually manages to create some tension and some real jump-in-your-seat moments. It is an effective and truly creepy film, but is marred by being somewhat confusing for most of its length. It’s not until most of the way through the film that it becomes clear the events we are seeing take place not only thousands of miles but several years apart. Since the curse has now followed one its victims to Illinois, we can safely assume that any future sequels will be firmly set in America thus saving budget and depriving it of any cultural context which might confuse the more Xenophobic of the Peoria audience.
Sequel to the re-make of the sequel of the original Japanese film Ju-on. Or something like that. Better than most of these remakes because, although the original director has also directed these films he has also made enough concessions to Western preferences that this is neither as weird nor as tedious as I’ve found previous Japanese horror films in this vein. Indeed, although there is little to distinguish this film thematically or plot-wise from The Ring and so on there is much better use made of the plot. Sometime in the past something bad was done to a Japanese woman and she’s become some kind of freaky ghost that kills people who were nothing to do with her suffering but are unlucky enough to cross her path. In this case by entering the house where she was murdered.
What is different from The Ring films is that this actually manages to create some tension and some real jump-in-your-seat moments. It is an effective and truly creepy film, but is marred by being somewhat confusing for most of its length. It’s not until most of the way through the film that it becomes clear the events we are seeing take place not only thousands of miles but several years apart. Since the curse has now followed one its victims to Illinois, we can safely assume that any future sequels will be firmly set in America thus saving budget and depriving it of any cultural context which might confuse the more Xenophobic of the Peoria audience.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Reids Speech
Reid's Speech
Few people would think that telling members of a group that they are in the best position to be aware of signs that their children are being subverted by radical elements is a bad thing. Especially if that community is insular to the point of racism and further distance themselves from the rest of us by continuing to refuse, in some cases, to even learn the language of their adopted country. When the radicals we're worried about are exclusively from within their community and when these radicals have openly declared war upon the rest of us, is it in any way surprising that we ask the non-radical majority of that community to be involved in policing themselves?
To have made that request at an open meeting within that community can be considered either brave and courteous or opportunistic and manipulative. With New Labour involved you can guess which is my call, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. However, to allow known radicals to just walk in without the slightest check was foolhardy and stupid.
The guys who did, whose names I can't relate, clearly are not the ones who would ever be strapped to a bomb. No, those cowards talk others into doing that for them. Reid did, however, hand them something of a media coup.
Few were talking about his request or his attempt to encourage ordinary, decent muslims to engage with the rest of us, in some way, in the war against terror. Those that were were were doing so in the terms of the radicals. The rest were just simply talking about what those radical hecklers said and did. News-wise they were far more interesting than boring old Dr Reid and New Labour's spin-meisters should have expected that.
Leaving that aside, though, am I the only one in the word to have noticed one chilling comment amid the bile they were spouting? "How dare you come into a muslim area?" they said. A tacit admission that they have already identified areas which they claim from the rest of us, areas that they want in this country where the indigenous population are not only not welcome but are actually banned.
Some would say that such areas have long existed, but that no one chose to pass comment on it, that Dr Reid himself allowed them to publicly claim such an area for themselves was equally terrifying to me. Was he afraid to dismiss such a claim?
Few people would think that telling members of a group that they are in the best position to be aware of signs that their children are being subverted by radical elements is a bad thing. Especially if that community is insular to the point of racism and further distance themselves from the rest of us by continuing to refuse, in some cases, to even learn the language of their adopted country. When the radicals we're worried about are exclusively from within their community and when these radicals have openly declared war upon the rest of us, is it in any way surprising that we ask the non-radical majority of that community to be involved in policing themselves?
To have made that request at an open meeting within that community can be considered either brave and courteous or opportunistic and manipulative. With New Labour involved you can guess which is my call, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. However, to allow known radicals to just walk in without the slightest check was foolhardy and stupid.
The guys who did, whose names I can't relate, clearly are not the ones who would ever be strapped to a bomb. No, those cowards talk others into doing that for them. Reid did, however, hand them something of a media coup.
Few were talking about his request or his attempt to encourage ordinary, decent muslims to engage with the rest of us, in some way, in the war against terror. Those that were were were doing so in the terms of the radicals. The rest were just simply talking about what those radical hecklers said and did. News-wise they were far more interesting than boring old Dr Reid and New Labour's spin-meisters should have expected that.
Leaving that aside, though, am I the only one in the word to have noticed one chilling comment amid the bile they were spouting? "How dare you come into a muslim area?" they said. A tacit admission that they have already identified areas which they claim from the rest of us, areas that they want in this country where the indigenous population are not only not welcome but are actually banned.
Some would say that such areas have long existed, but that no one chose to pass comment on it, that Dr Reid himself allowed them to publicly claim such an area for themselves was equally terrifying to me. Was he afraid to dismiss such a claim?
Better
Better?
Tony, Dubya and all their pals on the side of Might=Right keep telling us that Iraq and her people are better off since they removed Saddam Hussein. People trying to make a fool of anti-war campaigners keep telling us that, especially regime change for the benefit of Iraqis has become their justification for going in there since they admitted there never were any WMD. According t them we're spreading democracy and freedom and the Iraqi people are grateful to us, that things are getting better all the time.
Manfred Nowak, UN's chief anti-torture expert, would beg to differ. According to his report things there are now far worse than they ever were under Saddam. According to him, things are now completely out of control in that beleaguered country. Bodies in the Baghdad morgue frequently show signs of severe torture. Who's responsible for this?
Local militia, insurgents and the security forces.
At least in Saddam's day they knew who they had to watch out for. Now it seems that anyone could head into their homes in the middle of the night, take them away and pull out their nails & teeth.
Which part of this sorry mess has improved these peoples' lives?
And in a timely addendum, the US Security services have reported that The War on Terror has made America (never mind the rest of us) less safe. We all knew that, but I’ll be interested to see how George & the rest of the NeoCons spin this one out. I also discovered that the US apparently has sixteen spy services. What do they need so many for?
Tony, Dubya and all their pals on the side of Might=Right keep telling us that Iraq and her people are better off since they removed Saddam Hussein. People trying to make a fool of anti-war campaigners keep telling us that, especially regime change for the benefit of Iraqis has become their justification for going in there since they admitted there never were any WMD. According t them we're spreading democracy and freedom and the Iraqi people are grateful to us, that things are getting better all the time.
Manfred Nowak, UN's chief anti-torture expert, would beg to differ. According to his report things there are now far worse than they ever were under Saddam. According to him, things are now completely out of control in that beleaguered country. Bodies in the Baghdad morgue frequently show signs of severe torture. Who's responsible for this?
Local militia, insurgents and the security forces.
At least in Saddam's day they knew who they had to watch out for. Now it seems that anyone could head into their homes in the middle of the night, take them away and pull out their nails & teeth.
Which part of this sorry mess has improved these peoples' lives?
And in a timely addendum, the US Security services have reported that The War on Terror has made America (never mind the rest of us) less safe. We all knew that, but I’ll be interested to see how George & the rest of the NeoCons spin this one out. I also discovered that the US apparently has sixteen spy services. What do they need so many for?
BLOODY HELL
BLOODY HELL!
It's a strange day indeed when I find myself in agreement with the leader of the Tory party, but that's exactly where I am today.
In a speech in Glasgow Mr.Cameron has acknowledged the errors his party has made in Scotland and called for more understanding of Scots from the English. I never imagined that when a Sassenach politician finally addressed the behaviours, attitudes and policies which helped create so many Nationalists it would be a Tory. It is particularly ironic that it comes so close to Scot and likely soon-to-be Labour leader Gordon Brown made another statement of his Unionist credentials, even going so far as to cite Margaret Thatcher as his role model!
That this is a clear appeal to the sort of "sour Little Englander" Mr.Cameron talks of (for a perfect example of whom see the response to my entry about the World Cup furore) is neither surprising nor new from any Unionist politician. What is new is a Tory risking offending what has to be seen as his core voters.
Labour has always thrown sops Scotland's way. It makes sense for them to keep us predominantly Labour-voting as it swings the result their way if the polls are close in England. At the same time they blocked our desire for any degree of self-determination far more effectively than the Conservatives ever did because they need a compliant Scotland in the Union.
Conversely, the Tories treated us with complete contempt because they could never swing enough voters in Scotland to make a difference to them. So we had our industries stripped and taken South and we were used, as Cameron admits, as a test-bed for new policies.
So, is this a heartfelt apology and change of attitude from the Conservatives? Naah! They see a potential close vote in which actually winning some seats up here might help them gain control of Westminster again. I bet the smug little git won't dare stand up and repeat those sentiments at a party meeting in the Home Counties. I doubt if they're even being reported in either the English or national media.
Besides, did he do anything to stamp on the anti-Scottish rantings of his senior party members during that World Cup nonsense? Did he even distance himself from them?
Did he hell.
It's a strange day indeed when I find myself in agreement with the leader of the Tory party, but that's exactly where I am today.
In a speech in Glasgow Mr.Cameron has acknowledged the errors his party has made in Scotland and called for more understanding of Scots from the English. I never imagined that when a Sassenach politician finally addressed the behaviours, attitudes and policies which helped create so many Nationalists it would be a Tory. It is particularly ironic that it comes so close to Scot and likely soon-to-be Labour leader Gordon Brown made another statement of his Unionist credentials, even going so far as to cite Margaret Thatcher as his role model!
That this is a clear appeal to the sort of "sour Little Englander" Mr.Cameron talks of (for a perfect example of whom see the response to my entry about the World Cup furore) is neither surprising nor new from any Unionist politician. What is new is a Tory risking offending what has to be seen as his core voters.
Labour has always thrown sops Scotland's way. It makes sense for them to keep us predominantly Labour-voting as it swings the result their way if the polls are close in England. At the same time they blocked our desire for any degree of self-determination far more effectively than the Conservatives ever did because they need a compliant Scotland in the Union.
Conversely, the Tories treated us with complete contempt because they could never swing enough voters in Scotland to make a difference to them. So we had our industries stripped and taken South and we were used, as Cameron admits, as a test-bed for new policies.
So, is this a heartfelt apology and change of attitude from the Conservatives? Naah! They see a potential close vote in which actually winning some seats up here might help them gain control of Westminster again. I bet the smug little git won't dare stand up and repeat those sentiments at a party meeting in the Home Counties. I doubt if they're even being reported in either the English or national media.
Besides, did he do anything to stamp on the anti-Scottish rantings of his senior party members during that World Cup nonsense? Did he even distance himself from them?
Did he hell.
Review DOA
Review: D.O.A.
When is someone finally going to make a videogame film that's anything more than mediocre? Not that this is anywhere near that good.
This is grade-a Bernard Matthews product. Its one saving grace is that it's well into so bad it's good territory. Oh! Did I say 'one saving grace'? Not quite true. The female cast are stunning and spend a great deal of time semi-naked. Which is just as well as there's bugger all else to pay attention to.
The plot is laughable, the dialogue execrable and the fights derivative to the point of being lifted from the likes of Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Apparently each of the fighters summoned to this "ultimate" competition is master of one fighting style. Jaime Pressley (Giving a performance completely indistinguishable from her turn in My Name is Earl), for example, is a wrestler. Apparently. Yet all of them, without exception, are clearly using the same eastern martial arts forms. And whichever skill they've mastered also gave them the same floaty, ninja-style gymnastic and climbing abilities as well as master-level swordsmanship.
I often found myself laughing at this film, but never at a point the writer would have intended. Especially if the scene featured Devon Aoki from Kill Bill. Dialogue featuring her always sounded like the kind of stilted overly-formal, literal translation you get in 70's chop-socky films or scholar-done versions of Ibsen or Chekov. Quite how a script that was written in English can end up sounding like it was translated one word at a time from a dictionary by someone with no comprehension of idiom or casual speech patterns I'll never fathom. No more than I will understand how any self-respecting actor could actually speak these lines as written.
As an out & out turkey there is some fun to be had from this film. Take half a dozen lads (preferably still undergoing puberty), copious amounts of beer and a couple of pizzas and you'd have the perfect audience for this film. Especially if they happen to be American frat-boys.
The underlying tone of misogyny, especially in the way all of these strong, independent women just have to get paired off with a matching male (no matter what he's done to her or what a twat he is), leaves a nasty taste, though.
If Uwe Boll had directed this it would have an excuse. Corey Yuen, who helmed the excellent Transporter, has no such mitigation. Although it does explain much of the chop-socky dialogue…
When is someone finally going to make a videogame film that's anything more than mediocre? Not that this is anywhere near that good.
This is grade-a Bernard Matthews product. Its one saving grace is that it's well into so bad it's good territory. Oh! Did I say 'one saving grace'? Not quite true. The female cast are stunning and spend a great deal of time semi-naked. Which is just as well as there's bugger all else to pay attention to.
The plot is laughable, the dialogue execrable and the fights derivative to the point of being lifted from the likes of Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Apparently each of the fighters summoned to this "ultimate" competition is master of one fighting style. Jaime Pressley (Giving a performance completely indistinguishable from her turn in My Name is Earl), for example, is a wrestler. Apparently. Yet all of them, without exception, are clearly using the same eastern martial arts forms. And whichever skill they've mastered also gave them the same floaty, ninja-style gymnastic and climbing abilities as well as master-level swordsmanship.
I often found myself laughing at this film, but never at a point the writer would have intended. Especially if the scene featured Devon Aoki from Kill Bill. Dialogue featuring her always sounded like the kind of stilted overly-formal, literal translation you get in 70's chop-socky films or scholar-done versions of Ibsen or Chekov. Quite how a script that was written in English can end up sounding like it was translated one word at a time from a dictionary by someone with no comprehension of idiom or casual speech patterns I'll never fathom. No more than I will understand how any self-respecting actor could actually speak these lines as written.
As an out & out turkey there is some fun to be had from this film. Take half a dozen lads (preferably still undergoing puberty), copious amounts of beer and a couple of pizzas and you'd have the perfect audience for this film. Especially if they happen to be American frat-boys.
The underlying tone of misogyny, especially in the way all of these strong, independent women just have to get paired off with a matching male (no matter what he's done to her or what a twat he is), leaves a nasty taste, though.
If Uwe Boll had directed this it would have an excuse. Corey Yuen, who helmed the excellent Transporter, has no such mitigation. Although it does explain much of the chop-socky dialogue…
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Murphy Strikes Again
The wee bastard's just trying to wind me up.
As if it's not bad enough that, thanks to our new, pointless security procedures, I have to be up at the crack of frigging dawn to get a mid-morning flight to my sister-in-law's wedding, I've just discovered that the moth I kindly haven't killed whilst it spent the last two days fluttering about my flat has eaten the arm off my suit.
Bastard!
I've only worn the damn thing about four times, too.
That's it. No more Mr Nice Guy. Anything flying gets twatted in future and the next mouse-eating spider I find running across the living-room floor will not be caught under a glass and gently evicted to the outdoors. Oh no! It'll be put in my wardrobe to eat any sumbitch moth that decides to have a go at whatever I have to buy to replace my suit.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
REVIEW SEVERANCE
REVIEW: SEVERANCE
This British horror film starts off as a pretty bog-standard slasher/survival-type movie and pretty much stays there.
Yes, the characters are the usual clichéd bunch. Yes, the situation is pretty unimaginative and somewhat poorly explained. Yes, you can see who’s going to survive and who’s going to die within moments of meeting the characters. We all know that the token American will be the hero because that’s the only way an American audience will ever even think of watching any film not made there and starring the same people they’ve seen in the last fifteen moovees they saw. Yes, it’s trying to cash in on the likes of Dog Soldiers and Descent (Not, as other reviews & even its own trailers will tell you, Shaun of the Dead. This is not a spoof.) And, yes, I do realise that this is shaping up to be a negative review.
It’s not, though, and the film’s far from bog-standard.
Because full of clichés though this film is it uses them very effectively, turns quite a few of them on their heads and is a great, fun-filled, thrill-ride. Too many survival films either take themselves too seriously or try to be funny and don’t manage it. This sends itself up as it goes along and does it well from the characters spinning tall tales and recounting urban myths about why all this might be about to happen down to the kind of Babes with Guns-type sequence members of the NRA are so fond of. The performances are excellent, especially Tim McInnery who turns in his usual, but wonderful, chinless-wonder character. The script is fairly tight, though it could be a little quicker to the point and clearer over which urban myth is right. The effort to make all of them at least partly true is quite clever but does add to the confusion a little. Then again, when you’re lost in a forest in Eastern Europe and someone’s killing your friends in gruesome and imaginatively cruel ways the odds are rather long on your having or caring about a complete grasp of their motives and, since they’re not Bond villains, and you don’t speak even a word of their language, anyway, explanations aren’t likely to be forthcoming, either. Put rather more bluntly, though, this kind of film doesn’t need a whole lot of plot just something to hang it on that’s remotely plausible then you get on with the action.
Once it starts it’s relentless. The body-count is pretty high, the deaths are satisfyingly gruesome and there’s no indestructible Jason/Freddy/Michael Myers type villain. The violence is pretty realistic, too. There’s none of moviedom’s usual nonsense about people not feeling pain or fear or making altruistic gestures just because they’re the good guys. With their lives on the line the worst comes out in just about everyone.
Cock-ups to watch out for: the most ineptly hidden blood-bag in history on the first victim. It’s not even needed as it’s opened out of shot. Wondering why a CEO who’s been ‘…dying to demonstrate this.’ BFG doesn’t know what it’s going to do. (It gives one of the best laughs in the film, though, so I’ll forgive them.)
Well worth a viewing with some great scares and some genuinely creepy moments. Highly recommended.
This British horror film starts off as a pretty bog-standard slasher/survival-type movie and pretty much stays there.
Yes, the characters are the usual clichéd bunch. Yes, the situation is pretty unimaginative and somewhat poorly explained. Yes, you can see who’s going to survive and who’s going to die within moments of meeting the characters. We all know that the token American will be the hero because that’s the only way an American audience will ever even think of watching any film not made there and starring the same people they’ve seen in the last fifteen moovees they saw. Yes, it’s trying to cash in on the likes of Dog Soldiers and Descent (Not, as other reviews & even its own trailers will tell you, Shaun of the Dead. This is not a spoof.) And, yes, I do realise that this is shaping up to be a negative review.
It’s not, though, and the film’s far from bog-standard.
Because full of clichés though this film is it uses them very effectively, turns quite a few of them on their heads and is a great, fun-filled, thrill-ride. Too many survival films either take themselves too seriously or try to be funny and don’t manage it. This sends itself up as it goes along and does it well from the characters spinning tall tales and recounting urban myths about why all this might be about to happen down to the kind of Babes with Guns-type sequence members of the NRA are so fond of. The performances are excellent, especially Tim McInnery who turns in his usual, but wonderful, chinless-wonder character. The script is fairly tight, though it could be a little quicker to the point and clearer over which urban myth is right. The effort to make all of them at least partly true is quite clever but does add to the confusion a little. Then again, when you’re lost in a forest in Eastern Europe and someone’s killing your friends in gruesome and imaginatively cruel ways the odds are rather long on your having or caring about a complete grasp of their motives and, since they’re not Bond villains, and you don’t speak even a word of their language, anyway, explanations aren’t likely to be forthcoming, either. Put rather more bluntly, though, this kind of film doesn’t need a whole lot of plot just something to hang it on that’s remotely plausible then you get on with the action.
Once it starts it’s relentless. The body-count is pretty high, the deaths are satisfyingly gruesome and there’s no indestructible Jason/Freddy/Michael Myers type villain. The violence is pretty realistic, too. There’s none of moviedom’s usual nonsense about people not feeling pain or fear or making altruistic gestures just because they’re the good guys. With their lives on the line the worst comes out in just about everyone.
Cock-ups to watch out for: the most ineptly hidden blood-bag in history on the first victim. It’s not even needed as it’s opened out of shot. Wondering why a CEO who’s been ‘…dying to demonstrate this.’ BFG doesn’t know what it’s going to do. (It gives one of the best laughs in the film, though, so I’ll forgive them.)
Well worth a viewing with some great scares and some genuinely creepy moments. Highly recommended.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Review A Scanner Darkly
Review: A Scanner Darkly
Keanu Reeves plays an undercover cop in this animated version of a Philip K. Dick tale of a near-future dystopia. As usual with Dick's works this story is heavily coloured by his own substance-abuse and paranoia, but given the subject of this tale it gives him a perspective which, for once, enhances the narrative. That is presuming you can be entertained by an hour and a half of paranoid junkie rambling to get to a not very surprising 'twist'. You won't even get a satisfactory ending as the film just peters out without a conclusion.
Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson, neither one unfamiliar with, shall we say, major elements of their characters' makeup, act the pants off everyone else in a show-stealing double act so believable one could believe they got stoned and were left in the Big Brother house. They bring a much-needed lightness and sense of humour to an otherwise rambling, leaden and tedious script. Reeves' preferred underplaying technique by comparison leaves him looking more wooden and dull than ever. Given his manic turn in the Bill & Ted films we know he can be freer, so why he refuses to do so any more is a mystery.
Another mystery is why this is animated. As you doubtlessly know the scenes were all filmed as normal and then the animation was Rotoscoped over it. With the exception of the suits the undercover agents wear to hide their identities there are no special effects so it wasn't to cut the budget. This would have had an inflationary effect and served to delay the film's release by over a year. One is tempted to say that it's an attempt to enhance the feelings of unreality and disassociation, but can't escape the feeling that it's just one big technical jerk-off.
Too much is left unresolved - including the main plot. When Reeves has an apparently drug-induced hallucination that the girl he's sleeping with has transformed into his touch-averse girlfriend (Winona Ryder in her only nude role. Oh, that's why they animated the whole thing!) it makes sense as a guilty reaction. At least it does until his character is watching the surveillance tapes (don't ask) and we see the face morph and he doesn't question it.
Philip K. had a lot of good ideas for stories. Sadly, his writing technique and his own paranoia usually left them poorly developed and even undermined. That's why adaptations of his works are often so heavily re-written. This needed more of that treatment. Worth seeing but should/could have been much better. Far too much concentration on the kind of rambling waffle only the seriously stoned could care about.
Keanu Reeves plays an undercover cop in this animated version of a Philip K. Dick tale of a near-future dystopia. As usual with Dick's works this story is heavily coloured by his own substance-abuse and paranoia, but given the subject of this tale it gives him a perspective which, for once, enhances the narrative. That is presuming you can be entertained by an hour and a half of paranoid junkie rambling to get to a not very surprising 'twist'. You won't even get a satisfactory ending as the film just peters out without a conclusion.
Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson, neither one unfamiliar with, shall we say, major elements of their characters' makeup, act the pants off everyone else in a show-stealing double act so believable one could believe they got stoned and were left in the Big Brother house. They bring a much-needed lightness and sense of humour to an otherwise rambling, leaden and tedious script. Reeves' preferred underplaying technique by comparison leaves him looking more wooden and dull than ever. Given his manic turn in the Bill & Ted films we know he can be freer, so why he refuses to do so any more is a mystery.
Another mystery is why this is animated. As you doubtlessly know the scenes were all filmed as normal and then the animation was Rotoscoped over it. With the exception of the suits the undercover agents wear to hide their identities there are no special effects so it wasn't to cut the budget. This would have had an inflationary effect and served to delay the film's release by over a year. One is tempted to say that it's an attempt to enhance the feelings of unreality and disassociation, but can't escape the feeling that it's just one big technical jerk-off.
Too much is left unresolved - including the main plot. When Reeves has an apparently drug-induced hallucination that the girl he's sleeping with has transformed into his touch-averse girlfriend (Winona Ryder in her only nude role. Oh, that's why they animated the whole thing!) it makes sense as a guilty reaction. At least it does until his character is watching the surveillance tapes (don't ask) and we see the face morph and he doesn't question it.
Philip K. had a lot of good ideas for stories. Sadly, his writing technique and his own paranoia usually left them poorly developed and even undermined. That's why adaptations of his works are often so heavily re-written. This needed more of that treatment. Worth seeing but should/could have been much better. Far too much concentration on the kind of rambling waffle only the seriously stoned could care about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
