I thought to myself, "Holy shit, even if this movie sucks it'll at least be cool to look at." Then I found out that A Scanner Darkly was originally a novel by Philip K. Dick, the same guy who wrote the stories behind all kinds of cool movies. So this had to be a win/win situation, right?
Um. Not so much.
After seeing some more production stills I started reading up on the making of the fim. I discovered that it was made with a technique called interpolated rotoscoping, and that Richard Linklater (the director) was the first to use this technique for an entire feature film - A Scanner Darkly was the second film of his to use it (Waking Life was the first). I rented Waking Life last year because I wanted to see more of this animation technique as soon as possible, and only I bring this up because I think A Scanner Darkly suffers from the same problem as Waking Life: I feel like Linklater is trying really hard to sell me on some kind of Deep Philosophical Message by putting it in a visually interesting package. Admittedly, that's mostly the point of Waking Life, but that feeling definitely carried over into this film to the point where I couldn't really figure out what the hell the plot was until the movie was nearly over. I suppose that could have been by design, but I couldn't shake the feeling of "OH MY GOD GUYS, ISN'T THIS DEEP?!" being telegraphed to me at all times throughout the length of the movie. The hamfisted-ness left a really bad taste in my mouth and ruined me on the whole thing.
I was right that it was "at least cool to look at," but I was hoping for more than just style. Kind of like Sin City. It's just disappointing because the story itself is rather interesting if you like dystopian fiction and science fiction - two genres I'm a ho for. So it was worth my time in that it got me interested in reading the novel. I just wish there was more plot and less faux-enlightenment to be had, you know? It's rent-worthy if you want something interesting too look at (and really, it is stunning artistically) or if you're a fan of Robert Downey Jr. or Keanu Reeves and are a completist. If not? Pass.
I chose Das Boot for no other reason than it's one of the Top 250 movies at IMDB. Watching all 250 of the movies is a long-term goal of mine - it's both a way to see what film nerds think are good movies and it also serves as a kind of checklist of all of the movies I should see at least once.
Das Boot followed the story of the crew of German U-boat U-96 over a period of time (it's never stated how long they are at sea but it's likely several months), following everything from typical sea life to battles. As one can imagine, most of your time spent in a submarine is spent doing a lot of nothing, and boy howdy, Das Boot does not skimp, gloss over or de-emphasize the "lots of nothing" part. Netflix sent me the 219-minute Director's Cut version so you can imagine just how much of the downtime the sailors faced that I had to sit through. Holy hell.
I think I might have wanted to spoon my eyes out less if I'd seen the theatrical cut because there was a lot to chew on when things were actually happening. The most interesting thing to me was the contrast between the young recruits, heads still full of propaganda, and the captains who've actually been in the battles and know it's all bullshit. The captain of the boat we follow was a highlight in particular. When they weren't in the middle of a battle or some other crisis, he was often cynical towards Hitler and the war and even sympathized with the British a couple of times. He wasn't completely immune to the war machine, though. When he was in the thick of a battle he reverted back to something more like his crew - a proud Nazi with a thirst for blood who believed the lies. Good stuff.
Some other things I appreciated in the film were the set design (if submarines are really that clausterphobic, you could not pay me enough to go in one, let alone stay in it while it submerges) as well as the acting during the more dramatic scenes. You were able to get the sense of terror these people felt, and that - if only for a moment - the wool was pulled away from their eyes and they finally saw that this was really happening and that lives really were being lost. The megaton of irony (with a bit of schadenfreude!) at the end was great too.
I just wish I had seen the theatrical cut. The good parts of the movie were not enough to counterbalance the fuckton of boring that pissed all over everything. It's a shame, too, because I wouldn't be surprised if there was actually a good movie hiding in there somewhere.
Pride and Prejudice was an odd book for me. I'd never read it before now, mostly because I'm not all that into romance, but also because my English and Literature teacher in my junior year of high school ruined me on classics for a long, long time. A month-long study of Benjamin Franklin's diary entries about his gout will do that to a person. But I realized that I'm missing out on a lot of good stories, so I got over it and picked P&P as my first book to get back on the horse. That's not what made the experience strange to me, though. It's that I didn't care for the story but I really liked the book anyway. Figure that one out.
I think part of my dislike for the story is that I'm just not into romantic comedy. It's always so Mad Libs, for lack of a better description. When I read or watch a romantic comedy, I've never felt like I was experiencing anything new - even when it was my first time with the genre. It's kind of like the White Album by The Beatles - it's been talked about and rehashed so much that even if it's your first time hearing it, you feel like you've heard it before. That's not to say that I'm ignorant to the fact that Pride and Prejudice was one of the first romantic comedies, and probably the most popular one of all time. Actually, that's probably why I both liked and disliked it. I liked it because it's the original source of all the gooey fluff forced onto the world (and therefore the best for obvious reasons), but irritating because of the metric ton of shit that has been derived from it. I would even go so far as to say the lion's share of romantic comedies are just Pride and Prejudice in a different outfit. Why try improving the genre when it was done so well out the gate?
Enough whining! I want to talk about the characters, which were a big part of why I ultimately enjoyed the book so much. The Bennets are obviously all kickass in their own way, with Lydia as my favorite. I'm a sucker for high drama and the ruckus she caused was pure gold. I also enjoyed the interplay between Mr.and Mrs. Bennet. It reminded me a lot of the stereotypical husband and wife interplay in 1950s sitcoms (you can almost envision Mr. Bennet breaking the fourth wall and shrugging at us with an, "oh, that Mrs. Bennet! Teehee!" expression on his face in the opening scene of the novel), something that both surprised and delighted me (though I doubt I should be enjoying a loveless marriage so much). I'm actually not all that enamored with Elizabeth or Mr. Darcy, but I think that's more a dislike of the plot tarnishing them than not liking the characters themselves. I liked both of them a lot for the first two-thirds (do I even need to discuss Elizabeth's fabulous sass and how she and Darcy flirted?), but when she went to Pemberley and became more concerned with materialism than she had ever displayed at any point in the story before, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. My annoyance with Elizabeth evened out once she sassed Lady Catherine back to Rosings, but I can't help but still be completely over Mr. Darcy. Nobody can go from sarcastic ass to cuddly warm fuzzies that quickly and not be crazy or a fake. Sure, his change was explained convincingly enough, but I can't help but feel like it was more than a little deus ex in order to not make it look like Elizabeth had lost her damn mind.
I think I might get more out of it if I read it a second or third time (which I wouldn't be against despite my earlier whining). I was a little surprised with how engaging it was the first time through and happy that I "got" so much of it. That's probably a retarded thing to say - a writer from any era can be a pretentious windbag, most definitely, but reading things from previous centuries can be daunting. And why I was afraid of classics after reading about Ben Franklin's medical woes. So I'm glad Austen was an engaging writer - she helped me get over my hangups and make me look forward to reading more challenging material in the future.