The_Monocled_Mutineer Honestly? - Are the reviews here real, or are they members/friends of he film crew? I don't wish to sound indelicate here, but this is a truly awful film. It is a film made of a great story, but it falls short on so many levels. The acting is sub-par, the dialogue is tenuous, the action is moderately interesting and the visuals are woeful. I had been waiting for this film for a long time and like many other Dickian's, I relished the thought of a new addition to the world of PKD. However, this is by far, one of the worst adaptations that I have seen, yet. I am genuinely astonished that it has garnered 5.9, moreover though, are some of these reviews fake? I cannot for the life of me see anything of merit in these reviews, other than obvious bias. There is so much wrong with this film, I feel cruel listing them all. From writing to filming, from filming to post, from post to release - It is obvious that this film has had troubles from the start. I would implore Simon50 to keep hold of the rights to the novels that he has bought - And I would ask him to leave it to the professionals.

schltrlegal Full disclosure: a producer of this film is my cousin. She is also the wife of the writer/director.This is one of the most utterly sincere films ever made. That is high praise. I am a lawyer. This movie reminds me a new lawyer who prepares his argument in front of a judge with impossible carefulness and utter conviction in the rightness of his cause. Some mid-career judges might overlook that meticulous preparation and utter conviction because they are impatient to call the case with the notable lawyer, who is in the back of the courtroom drumming his fingers on his costly, leather briefcase embossed with his full name in gold letters. Some mid-career judges fawn over such notable lawyers. That's because they feel important when such a lawyer appears in front of them. They overlook that the notable lawyer lost his sincerity when he learned that he could win without believing, and he lost his passion for the law when he realized that he was rich.This film is an act of devotion. In fact, it has occurred to me that it is an act of religious devotion.I myself am religious. This film is not my religion. But I look upon it as a passionate statement of someone else's utter belief. We still value other viewpoints. We might not share them, but that does not mean they fail to challenge and inform – like many a new and zealous advocates who prepare meticulously and argue with the pure beauty of utter conviction.I have a particular background in a way that I won't describe here. As I watched this film, it occurred to me that that particular dimension of the human condition was depicted more truthfully than it has been in any other film. Those who share my particular background – and there are many of us – will understand when they see the film.The film has its flaws. All films do. I love "To Kill a Mockingbird." But I know many of its faults. I have written a blog- post about them. ("To Kill a Mockingbird: A Crumdgeon's Guide." http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/09/to-kill-mockingbird- curmudgeons-guide.html )But I so love "To Kill a Mockingbird" that its faults are like the defects of a much-loved woman. Somehow, those faults become inseparable from her beauty – in fact, they are part of her unique beauty.Think of this movie that way.One more thing. Some films are prescient about casting. "Boogie Nights" is a fine movie. (But the first time I saw it, I quit it, and I demanded my money back from the video store.) But whether you love it or hate it, you have to acknowledge that it cast people who went on to great fame and accomplishment. Mark Wahlberg. Heather Graham. Julianne Moore. Philip Seymore Hoffman. John C. Reilly. William H. Macy. Don Cheadle. Of course, some of these actors were already on their way to fame. But it is phenomenal how many actors seem to have gotten a leg up from "Boogie Nights".That has already proved somewhat true for Radio Free Albemuth. The makers of it had an eye for talent on the rise. That may make its place in film history.

Green-Irish-Eyes If this is a faithful adaptation of a Philip K Dick book, then I guess I'm glad not to be a Philip K Dick fan. The acting was flat, the script incomprehensible, and the story line simply ludicrous.Alanis Morrisette, bless her heart, can't act any better than she can sing -- thankfully she only attempts one of those in this project. The other actors, unfortunately, aren't much better, though they do try. And try. And try.There is WAY too much dialog and, again, most of it make no sense (or sound issues make it too difficult to hear). While acknowledging that the film is set in "an alternate America" in the late 1980's, it doesn't look 80's at all.Bottom line, this is a terrible movie. Hardcore Philip Dick fans may enjoy it, but I'd advise viewers who appreciate a good *movie* to look elsewhere.

mynameismonkey It was surprisingly satisfying to see a much-loved work adapted to screen in a way that felt, smelled, tasted like the book. There are times I read Dick and his characters' affect is brusque, maybe wooden. Intentionally or not, it was that way in parts in the film, and I loved it. It was the most home-y Dick adaptation I've ever seen. At no point did I feel the film directed the work away from his mind, his work, his thoughts. I was home, back in his books, but on the screen.In Wales we have a word; "hiraeth". Sort of a longing, a wistful lack of home and hearth that one was. To be rid of the hiraeth one has to go home and dig one's toes into the soil, breathe in the atmosphere, and reminisce. That feeling is what I got watching this film... my Philip K. Dick hiraeth was reset for a while. Very, very few of Dick's works have been so lovingly and faithfully placed on screen.In this instance I got exactly what I wanted: a faithful transformation from page to screen, and damn the horses. I wouldn't have it any other way.