# Philip K Dick Dumbed Down Again



## The Wanderer (Apr 28, 2007)

Review: 'Next'? Go to the back of the line
POSTED: 9:14 a.m. EDT, April 27, 2007
(CNN) -- Even when we haven't seen an action movie before, we've seen it before.

Case in point: "Next."

A Vegas showman blessed with the power of precognition, enlisted to foil a terrorist bomb plot? It's "Deja Vu" all over again. Unfortunately, without Denzel Washington.

Nicolas Cage is Frank Cadillac -- but only for five minutes. Tragically, he jettisons this fine and fitting stage name in favor of the eminently forgettable Cris Johnson, thereby signaling that this will be a relatively subdued Cage performance.

Frank/Cris is a magician hiding his very real but frustratingly circumscribed extra-sensory powers in plain sight. If he imagines he's escaped detection, that's probably because his gift only stretches two minutes into the future (except, of course, when it's convenient for the screenwriters to allow otherwise). Plus, he doesn't get much: a sneak peek at his next big scene, maybe some permutations, but no bigger picture.

Still, a little foreknowledge can go a long way in Las Vegas -- at least until tough FBI agent Callie (Julianne Moore) starts chasing his shadow. Someone (suspiciously French-speaking!) has smuggled a nuclear weapon into L.A. and she wants Cris to save southern California.

In what must constitute something of a new low even for cynical action-movie types, he decides to forego that chore and chat up Jessica Biel instead. (It doesn't make his decision easier to stomach that the scene with Biel -- easily the wittiest in the movie -- is ripped straight from "Groundhog Day.")

Precious little of this has anything to do with Philip K. Dick's short story "The Golden Man," the film's alleged source material, and if the marketing men want to claim that connection then they had best be prepared for unfavorable "Paycheck" comparisons. (Could this be the worst Dick adaptation yet? Unconvincing CGI effects, crummy story, lousy performances ... it's got to be a contender.)

In fairness, "Next" attempts to put a spin on such hoary melodramatic cliches as the blonde in peril (strapped to a chair and wired to explosives) and the car chase (with an oncoming train cutting off the pursuers). In one scene, Cage makes like Buster Keaton, escaping from a motel by flinging himself down the Grand Canyon in front of a rockslide.

But wait, there's more!

Cris is also like a human TiVo. One of his party pieces is zapping the cable stations, repeating the next line before it's spoken. And that's not the half of it. At times, he stops, fast-forwards and rewinds the "Next" plot itself in his mind, even opting for alternate scenes while he's at it. (Buster Keaton did all this, too, in "Sherlock Jr.", but that's another story.)

Unfortunately, these twists in "Next" don't do much for the film. All this time-shifting would be a lot more fun if we had the remote. It might even make a good videogame. But as a movie, "Next" soon becomes an exercise in futility. It keeps stumbling down blind alleys and doubling back on itself to start over. That may or may not be a legitimate expression of the postmodern condition, but it would help if there was something or someone here we could believe in.

As it is, director Lee Tamahori's film comes within a whimper of blowing up Hollywood. Given the quality of "Next," that result may have been welcome.

"Next" is rated PG-13 and runs 96 minutes.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 28, 2007)

*Re: PPhilip K Dick Dumbed Down Again*

*sigh* And so yet another opportunity to introduce the audiences (once again) to intelligent sf is lost.... You know, I'm beginning to rethink my stance on remakes and sequels. If this is the best they can do with adaptations of an untouched story... let 'em keep doing the retreads on the retreads on the retreads on the.....

The hope of the intelligent sf/f film seems to be largely in the hands of either the small filmmakers or foreign-language films these days. Lucas and Spielberg, see what thou hast wrought!


----------



## Pyan (Apr 29, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Lucas and Spielberg, see what thou hast wrought!



A bit harsh, that, isn't it, jd? Without those two, an awful lot of people would never have read any SF/F at all, and a certain percentage of those who tried a SF or Fantasy book *because* of _Star Wars _or_ E.T._ or_ Close Encounters_ or whatever, will have gone on to enjoyed the genre as a whole - and that can't be all bad!
And let's face it - without the kick in the pants that _Star Wars _in particular gave the SF film, would a lot of the good stuff that has been made since ever got funding? I doubt whether _Serenity,_ or _Matrix _or the first _Alien_ film would be around if it weren't for L & S.


----------



## Connavar (Apr 29, 2007)

*Re: PPhilip K Dick Dumbed Down Again*

I can understand Lucas and Star Wars but Spielberg???

Those Spielberg movies you mentioned killed of the quality big movies days of hollywood with his big-grossing special-effects movies.

He is prolly the biggest reason why hollywood think film like Next is a good idea.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 29, 2007)

*Re: PPhilip K Dick Dumbed Down Again*

It depends on how you read it. The earliest _Star Wars_ films were fine; and I've no trouble (particularly) with *Close Encounters*, or *Raiders of the Lost Ark* (though I have quibbles, at least, with the following films). But it's the fact that they didn't even maintain that level of quality, but became increasingly idiotic in what they put out (in most cases). So, what had begun as a tiny branch of sf in film became the model. Even when given original material that was more challenging... they made it into bubblegum. So no, I don't think it's particularly harsh. They had the opportunity to not only make good entertaining popcorn films (which I've no problems with _in proportion_) but to also help make entertaining, thought-provoking films that were not only nice eye-candy but intelligent and stimulating ... and they chose to keep with the big-budget "boy's adventure" sort of thing, even when wrapped up in a different guise. For all that I have a fondness for *AI* for various reasons, essentially, the way Spielberg did it, it's a retelling of *Pinocchio* with gadgets.

On the other hand, someone like Guilermo del Toro has done both bubble-gum films and thoughtful, reflective, and stimulating films. There are other examples of this, but they don't have quite the clout of a Lucas or Spielberg (and don't even get me started on what Lucas did with *Howard the Duck*!).  They had the chance and the clout to make a difference, and they chose to go for the mickeymouse. So, no, I don't think it's too harsh at all....


----------



## Connavar (Apr 29, 2007)

*Re: PPhilip K Dick Dumbed Down Again*

AI is prolly the most overrated SF movie of all time.  Everyone talks about it like its Bladerunner or Old Star Wars good.


I think the only great thing Spielberg has done is Schindler's List , an awesome movie mostly cause of Ralph Finnes.  I cant believe he didnt win the oscar.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 29, 2007)

*Re: PPhilip K Dick Dumbed Down Again*

Funny. Around here, *AI* is not liked _at all_. For myself, having gone into it without any preconceptions, I thought it was an enjoyable little film, but nothing spectacular. Nice effects, and a story that was pleasant (if more than a bit maudlin)... but, as I said, essentially a retelling of* Pinocchio* in sf terms; so nothing new, really. Would have been interesting to see what Kubrick would have done with it.....


----------



## Dave (Apr 29, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Funny. Around here, *AI* is not liked _at all_. For myself, having gone into it without any preconceptions, I thought it was an enjoyable little film...


I wouldn't call it a _little_ film at 2 hours and 26 minutes! I also don't understand why it is generally hated, but the Kubrick parts of it and the Spielberg parts of it obviously stand out.

As for why Hollywood movies tend to run in batches, I've no idea. They must see that _Next_ is too similar to _Deja Vu_ for them not to be compared. But it happens all the time - _Equilibrium_ and _The Matrix_, _Antz_ and _Bug's Life_, _Armageddon_ and _Deep Impact_, etc. etc.

They are like the old adage about London buses, none for ages, then three come along together!


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 29, 2007)

*Re: PPhilip K Dick Dumbed Down Again*



Connavar of Rigante said:


> AI is prolly the most overrated SF movie of all time.  Everyone talks about it like its Bladerunner or Old Star Wars good.
> 
> 
> I think the only great thing Spielberg has done is Schindler's List , an awesome movie mostly cause of Ralph Finnes.  I cant believe he didnt win the oscar.



Spielberg is a confectioner, De Palma makes better, more interesting films, though unfortunatly he's never been able to turn his script for 'The Demolished Man' into a movie, it would have been interesting, though the Studio didn't give him the go ahead and he made 'Mission to Mars' instead


----------



## PTeppic (Apr 29, 2007)

Caught "Next" yesterday - it plays quite well as a comedy/farce... with some action thrown in if you like it. As mentioned above, though, there's more hole than plot...


----------



## Steve Jordan (Apr 29, 2007)

Dave said:


> As for why Hollywood movies tend to run in batches, I've no idea.



That's easy: Very few people with original ideas in Hollywood.  When one idea comes up, or starts to get developed, it tends to get spread around, until half a dozen people think they can create that movie better, and go to every studio in town to shop it around.  2 or 3 bite, and everyone rushes to get their version out first (and not taking the time to do it right is often exactly what kills the movie).

There's also the "if they liked that one, they'll like mine better... it has bigger explosions" attitude.  And finally, the "mine will make money, because no one will be able to tell the difference between mine and the good one" attitude.

Gotta love Hollywood.


----------



## iansales (Apr 29, 2007)

pyan said:


> A bit harsh, that, isn't it, jd? Without those two, an awful lot of people would never have read any SF/F at all, and a certain percentage of those who tried a SF or Fantasy book *because* of _Star Wars _or_ E.T._ or_ Close Encounters_ or whatever, will have gone on to enjoyed the genre as a whole - and that can't be all bad!
> And let's face it - without the kick in the pants that _Star Wars _in particular gave the SF film, would a lot of the good stuff that has been made since ever got funding? I doubt whether _Serenity,_ or _Matrix _or the first _Alien_ film would be around if it weren't for L & S.



*Star Wars* dumbed down sf. *ET* larded it with saccharine. Less than a decade before you had *2001: A Space Odyssey*. Afterwards, you had dumb sf movies. *Star Wars* proved that spectacle was good box office, not necessarily science fiction. Just look at how much more "talky" films were in the first half of last century compared with today...


----------



## Dave (Apr 30, 2007)

iansales said:


> *Star Wars* dumbed down sf. *ET* larded it with saccharine. Less than a decade before you had *2001: A Space Odyssey*. Afterwards, you had dumb sf movies.


You did get films like *The Black Hole* and *Saturn V*, that's true, but what you also got was a lot more Science fiction films than had been made for twenty years before. Pyan's point, that *Alien* would never have been made, is a valid one. Not every one of those films was dumb. And there were plenty of dumb scifi movies before *Star Wars* too!

I agree with the seeming need to add action/explosions/general mayhem in todays films. It isn't only in sf films though, it is across the board.


----------



## Connavar (Apr 30, 2007)

Yeah for once it would be nice to see a true sci fi without all the so called action.


*2001: A Space Odyssey* i have never actually seen.  I know the hype of it but havent seen it anyway.


----------



## Pyan (Apr 30, 2007)

My point, which I don't know whether I got over, was that the success of _Star Wars _in particular, which was almost entirely down to SS and GL, woke the studios up to the *general* public's willingness to go and see SF films, which before then were regarded as minority interest.
Yes, there have been a few clunkers made, but at least _the money has been available to make them,_ and my contention is that the studios would not have funded SF/F films to the degree they have without the success of _Star Wars, _dumbed down SF or not.


----------



## Pyan (Apr 30, 2007)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> *2001: A Space Odyssey* i have never actually seen.  I know the hype of it but havent seen it anyway.



Worth seeing, CoR, at a cinema if at all possible, though - it loses a lot of impact on the TV-size screen.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Apr 30, 2007)

pyan said:


> ...my contention is that the studios would not have funded SF/F films to the degree they have without the success of _Star Wars, _dumbed down SF or not.



Point taken... although, to be sure, those same studios used their limited vision to green-light projects that were more like _Star Wars_, and less like, say, _Brainstorm_.  So yes, we got more SF, but we were also force-fed more of the pablum and less of the steak and eggs.  I'm not sure that left us better off.


----------



## Pyan (Apr 30, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> So yes, we got more SF, but we were also force-fed more of the pablum and less of the steak and eggs.



Force-fed? No-one _*makes*_ me go and see a bad film!




Steve Jordan said:


> I'm not sure that left us better off.



Say that only twenty per cent of SF/F films are worth going to see.
They release ten in a year - that's two you go and enjoy.
They release twenty-five - that makes five good ones - an improvement, surely?


----------



## Connavar (Apr 30, 2007)

That theory works only if there were 20% of SF movies thats worth seeing.

I would say the true % is like there is 1% of SF movies worth seeing.

I mean there are movies like Doom coming out.....


----------



## Lucien21 (Apr 30, 2007)

The Wanderer said:


> In what must constitute something of a new low even for cynical action-movie types, he decides to forego that chore and chat up Jessica Biel instead. (It doesn't make his decision easier to stomach that the scene with Biel -- easily the wittiest in the movie -- is ripped straight from "Groundhog Day.")


 
Havn't seen the movie, but I tought I would say.


Chase Nuclear Bomb or Chat up Jessica Biel  ??

I know which on i'd rather do


----------



## Steve Jordan (Apr 30, 2007)

pyan said:


> Force-fed? No-one _*makes*_ me go and see a bad film!



So, you've never gone to a film that looked good and reviewed well, only to find out it sucked eggs?  

And yes, I question that 20% figure as well.  5%, tops.


----------



## Pyan (Apr 30, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> And yes, I question that 20% figure as well.  5%, tops.



Now you come to mention it...........yes, perhaps I was being a bit optimistic there!


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 1, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> That's easy: Very few people with original ideas in Hollywood.



I don't really think it's that.  There are people in Hollywood with original ideas...it's just that the bean counters won't green-light productions, for the most part, that aren't "high-concept", in other words that can't be summed up in one short sentence.  Very few original ideas can be shorthanded in that way, unlike the things that get made, that have been made and remade and remade to within an inch of their celluloid lives.

It was different when filmmaking was an art, to a certain extent.  Now that the CEOs and their accountants run the industry, we get remakes of remakes and series ad infinitum.  Because if it made money once, it'll make money again.  Right?

Yeah, right. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Dave (May 1, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> ...we get remakes of remakes and series ad infinitum.  Because if it made money once, it'll make money again.  Right?


Well it must work, otherwise they would stop doing it, wouldn't they?

I mean, *Doom* will probably rake in box-office receipts because it does appeal to a certain audience. I think we get what we deserve. The kind of films that are being called for here - they just aren't blockbusters. I'd much rather see a *Gattaca* than an *Independence Day* but you know which one has more chance of being made.


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 1, 2007)

Like I said earlier,don't expect risk-taking from an INDUSTRY.We have e.g.Donnie Darko,as an example of an intelligent,moving,creative movie,that can be made with a reasonable budget.Personally,I am looking forward to
Pirates of the Caribbean 14:the curse of the dead parrot.,with Tim Matheson,Sean Young,and Connie Selleca 
Seriously,all we can expect is a good Darren Aronofski ,Sam Raimi,or Tim Burton movie once in a while.


----------



## The Wanderer (May 1, 2007)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> That theory works only if there were 20% of SF movies thats worth seeing.
> 
> I would say the true % is like there is 1% of SF movies worth seeing.
> 
> I mean there are movies like Doom coming out.....



Based on a computer game, of course

those fascinated with Satanism and Pentagrams, Demons etc will love it


----------



## The Wanderer (May 1, 2007)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Yeah for once it would be nice to see a true sci fi without all the so called action.
> 
> 
> *2001: A Space Odyssey* i have never actually seen.  I know the hype of it but havent seen it anyway.



You've Never seen it  

I can't believe it

I don't think it's a film that today's audiences would warm to

People generally prefer action within the frame or rapid fire editing to activate the brain's alpha crystals

anyway, not only a key science Fiction film, but a cornerstone of cinema along with Citizen Kane, Battleship Potemkin and a few others

It's a landmark film in cinema in general in it's use of music, the internal & External rytham of the filmmaking the thoughtful application of it's ideas


As I said though, people are so used to films with quick editing and the story whizzing forward at every available oppotunity - it's not likely to connect with people raised on these other types of narrative films due to built up pre-conceived notions


Having said that I think you would enjoy it, it might take a few viewings, I've seen the film over 40 times since 1982


----------



## williamjm (May 2, 2007)

Dave said:


> I mean, *Doom* will probably rake in box-office receipts because it does appeal to a certain audience. I think we get what we deserve.



Incidentally, "Doom" apparently made $55 Million worldwide, having cost $60 Million to make (see Box Office Mojo - Movie Index, maybe the studio wishes they had made something a bit more imaginative now


----------



## Dave (May 2, 2007)

williamjm said:


> Incidentally, "Doom" apparently made $55 Million worldwide, having cost $60 Million to make (see Box Office Mojo - Movie Index...


Only makes the whole process more intelligible!

(You are forgetting the DVD sales, TV rights, the spin-off game, T shirts stickers and badges....) They will make even in the end, but your final point is still a valid one...





williamjm said:


> ...maybe the studio wishes they had made something a bit more imaginative now


----------



## Connavar (May 2, 2007)

williamjm said:


> Incidentally, "Doom" apparently made $55 Million worldwide, having cost $60 Million to make (see Box Office Mojo - Movie Index, maybe the studio wishes they had made something a bit more imaginative now




Thats awesome. 

I have more hope now for people's taste to avoid crap like that.


My sister and her friend took it home from her friends house thinking it cant be too bad.  Heh we were laughing all through the movie at how cheesy and sucky it was


----------

