Just saw this film. It was actually a lot better than I thought. For some reason the trailer which I've seen a couple of times before made it look like a carbon copy of the original adaptation, when in fact it is quite different in many respects. The new plot elements in many ways make more sense than ones they replaced... but with one fatal flaw which unfortunately renders any attempt to make the story more logical and consistent null and void - 'The Fall'.
The Fall is a mode of transport that can take you from the UK to Australia in 17 minutes... by traveling through a tunnel bored right through the centre of the earth, passing through the very core itself. It is one of the most nonsensical technological gizmos I've seen in a sci-fi film in a while. Both utterly pointless and scientifically ridiculous in a number of different respects.
At the start of the film they claim this is 'the only mode of transport possible' due to the earth being contaminated by chemical warfare. But later in the film we see that humans can survive in the chemical zones with just gas masks for protection. So any aircraft with a fully pressurised cabin would have a problem... why exactly?
Okay granted even a sub-orbital flight would take a good bit longer than 17 minutes, but then so would a vehicle travelling through the centre of the earth in order to be even vaguely plausible.
Wouldn't the chemicals build up on engines that would then need constant cleaning? Far more cost-effective to build a tunnel through molten lava. Soap is probably dead expensive because it's the future, but lava is probably really cheap because they use it instead of coal because it's the future.
Still, I'm glad they insisted on not having Mars in this one in case that seemed silly to audiences.
An alternative view:
Not good!
Poor old Phil Dick has been particularly badly served by this adaptation.
There's was lots for the eyes but very little (and I mean little) for the brain.
The performances were serviceable, but they were serving a pretty moronic and tedious plot that had little wit and a visual style that was derivative of pretty much every other Blade Runner inspired Sci-Fi movie.
And what exactly was the three breasted women for (apart from being a blatant reference to the 1990 film)?
She seemed to come from an entirely different film, as there was no other reference to mutations in the film!
The whole "what is reality" angle was also poorly handled.
A real pointless enterprise really.
Oh well, Dredd next week! :D
So: no Mars and no mutants?
I have absolutely no interest in watching this.
Quote from: Richard on 01 September, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
So: no Mars and no mutants?
But: a three breasted chick.
I have will end up watching this.
FTFY
A friend of mine went to see this and said "You know it's going to be a bad film as soon as you realise the acting is worse than in the original" !
He also complained that a certain mutant who makes you wish you had three hands doesn't make an appearance but is mentioned.