I was hoping for Deux Ex by way of an acid trip. Not so much, huh?

Commuting through the center of the earth? What? That is so fucking stupid. Really? How does that make a god damn bit of sense, even for dumb sci-fi? Well, guess I won't go see this one either.

@3 Because it's a short-cut compared to going over the surface, don't-you-know? Also not filled with molten metal at 11,000 degrees, apparently. Here's my honey Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHBDiR5u…

I think the movie looks sorta good.

Philip K. Dick wrote subversive, existential science fiction. It was sociological sci-fi and it questioned our consensus reality at every turn. It was gritty and gross, but in a streamlined way that got down to the deepest levels of why people are so fucked up and weird.

Hollywood makes glossy, essentialist oversimplifications that tie everything up neatly in a bow at the end of every installment.

Is it really so hard to see why the two don't mesh up well? I don't ever expect to see a good Hollywood interpretation of Dick, nor of Gibson nor Stephenson nor fucking Pynchon for that matter. The source is just not compatible with the culture of the medium.

I love that Bryan Cranston can simultaneously make the untouchably brilliant Breaking Bad while also appearing in dreck like this and John Carter*. Adapting PKD is admittedly difficult; Blade Runner is great but barely has any PKD lineage. Substance D did a great job, but the faux-rotoscoping put a lot of people off. Most of the rest are just crap. But 90% of everything is crap.

* I know Paul Constant more-or-less liked it, but I watched it twice on recent flights and it really is quite awful.

why fucking bother, hollywood?

i saw it last night. if you don't expect too much out of it, it is fun-ish. not great though, and it lacks a lot of the character that the first one has.

and it's entertaining to parse through whether or not they got the physics right for the travel through the earth thing.

The title of this review - 'Dickless' - is perfect...

“You have to betray the book in order to be faithful to the book,” he said. “You have to recognize that literature is not cinema.”

Cronenberg quoted in the NYT.

@3: It's totally feasible. William Hurt told me so.