Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Stompgal_87 I first saw this film in 2007 when I hired it from my now-defunct local Blockbuster because I was interested in seeing what the rotoscoping technique looked like. I bought the DVD a year later. Upon seeing it, I was very impressed with the graphics and animation because they were rather lifelike due to them being traced over live-action footage. The funny thing about this film is that it was set seven years from its year of release (2006), thus making it take place in, wait for it... 2013 (although this fact may seem dated in many years to come).As well as the graphics and animation style, the other positive aspects are the well-known cast of Keanu Reeves, Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder and Robert Downey Jr, although to me Rory Cochrane is a lesser-known addition to the cast since I hadn't heard of him prior to seeing this film. In spite of this, he played a decent Charles Freck but Reeves as Bob/Fred/Bruce and Ryder as Donna/Hank/Audrey were the standouts while Downey Jr was comical as James Barris. The dialogue had a fine mix of darkness, poignancy and humour while a few of the visuals were bizarre (a policeman shooting Freck's head off in his imagination and Freck encountering an alien-like creature with multiple eyes later on in the film) in a good way. I also liked the animation and appearance of the scramble suits. The story was hard to follow at times, but I know for sure its basic premise was Arctor being addicted to Substance D and eventually going to rehab under the name of Bruce.All in all, this is a visual treat that inspired me to make my own short rotoscoped film as part of my animation course at university. To summarise, the strongest points were the cast, the dialogue, animation and graphics. 8/10.

The Squeerelist The story of A Scanner Darkly has never seemed more relevant than today. Director/Screenwriter Richard Linklater adapts here the work of Philip K. Dick and his original reflexion on government with this non-typical sci-fi piece. It deals with social issues, surveillance and drug-caused paranoia while abandoning the usual features of sci-fi spectacular like spaceships and other aliens. I am truly impressed by the vision of Linklater who literally made 2 movies. The first one was shot like a normal feature-film and the second movie was made by animators and drawers who painted over each and every frame of the first movie. The animation crew worked for 18 months: that's more than 350 man-hour per minute of film you will watch. You should watch A Scanner Darkly even only out of respect for the creation process and the originality of the project. Linklater turns the psychotic fate of an undercover cop into a dark comedy. Behind the drug addiction, the governmental surveillance, and the paranoia of its characters, A Scanner Darkly is definitely funny. Keanu Reeves who plays (once again) the misfit hero is actually not the best character of the story. Woody Harrelson, on the other hand, is a total blast. But in my opinion, Robert Downey Jr. totally steals the screen with his interpretation of the eloquent and sciency junkie. Winona Ryder is mysterious and Rory Cochrane is the psychotic druggie of the crew that loses it the most (he is exceptional too). I admire the artwork of the movie that makes me think of a complex underground graphic novel minus the geeky superheros. I feel that the characters are as normal as they can be considering they've been brain-damaged by the highly addictive 'substance D': yes, they are paranoid and have no future but they are also relatable which is the key to a good sci-fi movie. I believe good sci-fi is credible sci-fi. A Scanner Darkly is incredibly credible and can be adapted to any era: it worked back in the 70s and it works now more than ever.1 reason to watch: The 'Scramble-suit'!Read it here: http://squeerelist.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-scanner-darkly- 2006.html

KineticSeoul This film is based on a book by Philip K. Dick. Now I haven't read any of his books yet but from what I heard this is a solid adaptation. And this is a pretty darn good conspiracy film about a guy coping with his surroundings and a drug called Substance D. A drug that causes bizarre hallucination and makes them go all schizo and paranoid. It's basically a film that might be difficult to comprehend at first but you get use to it and it all makes clear to a degree. Keanu Reeves plays a guy named Bob Arctor who goes by other aliases. Now I don't think Keanu Reeves is a brilliant actor but he usually fits the roles he is given and in this case just perfectly. Keanu is really good at playing these confused and apathetic roles. Just about everyone is right for the roles they were given for this film. Robert Downey, Jr. is good at playing these pedantic and slightly weird characters and he nails it in this. Woody Harrelson is alright in this. But the guy that really nails it in this is Rory Cochrane, who is this jumpy, twitchy and overly paranoid character. And Rorly plays him flawlessly. Winona Ryder is also in this but felt that a bunch of other actresses could have played her role. When it comes down to it, it's the interactions between these characters that is the primary focus. And the conversations and the direction is clever and sometimes dumb(in a good way) but mostly amusing. This movie is shot with real actors but rendered into animation. Which adds to the weirdness of this film and bring out more of that trippy feel while it being cool and all. But wondered why they picked this subtle movie to do that in. Cause if they could have picked a story with explosions, car chases and other special effects and just used animation. It would have saved themselves a lot of budget and still could have gotten away with it in the audiences eyes. Although the animation rendering works in this film and doesn't seem like a gimmick. And even has couple of messages that can keep the audiences that watch this film thinking. And it's clever with it's execution, despite a twist when it hits I wondered how I could have missed that. Overall this is a good sci-fi conspiracy film that is well blended together. It's just a shame this film bombed at the box office.7.4/10

dcobbimdb I must admit I was intrigued by the 7.5 rating on IMDb and since it was on HBO (which I already get) I figures why not. The whole "Cartoon" aspect of the movie I guess added to the whole drug aspect to it, but honestly I was bored through most of it, and sadly rather unfulfilled by the ending as well. So all in all a bomb for me and not in the good sense… I'm left thinking that if I might have been high on something (which I gave up years ago) or drunk off my ass (which I wasn't) I might have enjoyed this more, but sober I found this movie again rather dull and more or less uneventful. The thing is there wasn't really much that surprised me either and I was hoping for this "Ah ha" moment, which unfortunately never came, least not for me. I rate this as 3 stars, 1 obviously being the minimum. So the +1 was for it's originality of the whole psychedelic cartoon aspect which was fitting for the subject matter of the film, the other +1 was for that whole scene when the car broke down which reminded me of many years ago of getting wasted with friends and making up the weirdest and dumbest stuff, so that bit cracked me up.Other than those two aspects again I found the film drawn out, dull and worst of all non entertaining. And I've seen some druggie movies that I've liked, so it's not like the subject matter bored me, just the overall movie itself. Obviously others have gotten something more out of this than I have for it to have gotten such a decent rating, but if anything it proves to me that you cannot trust the ratings