Impostor - 01/04/02

He is, by far, one of the (if not the) most prolific science fiction writer. Is. Was. Heinlein, Asimov, Harlan Ellison... I think the list stops there.

Dick died just short of seeing Blade Runner come to fruition, in 1982. Taken from his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the novel and the film are two completely different beings. This is something that has happen with every Dick adaptation. Screamers (from his short story Second Variety), Total Recall (We Can Remember It For You Wholesale), Confessions d'un Barjo (taken from his novel Confessions of a Crap Artist)... there is an adaptation of his novel Ubik (he wrote a screenplay for this, and it is only found as a very limited hardcover book), and in 2002 Spielberg will give us Minority Report. Explosions, Hollywood personalities, ridiculous editing techniques... all of them taking away from the everyman novelty of these stories.

For me, Total Recall was the best of them all, and even then, Dick's story was just an inspiration. His stories do that. They inspire.

I don't think enough people would 'get' his stories, were they to be faithfully handled on film. His short stories were, in my eyes, created to show slices of life, situations and circumstances that anyone could fall prey to. These movies create a larger universe that are meaningless to the plot. And that's only because now we have the money to create lavish sets, get big names to star in the films... I guess maybe I'm just bitter, because I've never seen anyone faithfully adapt one of his stories. They all turn to Hollywood crap, and this film is no exception.

I'll start off with this. Anyone who's ever read his short stories, or even some of his novels... the film is too predictable. There are some slight spoilers here, so please keep that in mind. I won't give away plot, but my vagueness might spill something important.

The acting is fine... but I think the usage of camera techniques and editing takes away from a lot of the core acting... trying to displace the viewer, throwing him/her into the schizophrenic atmosphere that the plot is trying to create. It doesn't work. In fact, my eyes were hurting after a little while. And you don't want to hurt the viewers eyes...

I like Gary Sinise's work. I've liked his work since Of Mice and Men, in 1992. From there, he went on to do a few other really well done films. Forrest Gump, The Stand (mini-tv series), The Quick and the Dead, Apollo 13, Ransom, Snake Eyes, The Green Mile, Reindeer Games, Mission to Mars... I think his performances are constant. He's got some characters down pat, and even though his range isn't enormous, his work stands on its own, quite well.

One of the things that happens in films (and being a screenwriter (aspiring), it's easy to notice these things), is that, more and more, the set-ups are apparent. This was the case with this film.

This was certainly the case with Madeleine Stowe's character, who played Sinise's wife. She had a very bit part, in retrospect, and it threw the film's plot out into the open, making it predictable. She was fine, for what she was... but screenwriters need to be more careful when they are trying to get viewers to pay attention to something other than the true answer. In this film, the screenwriters failed miserably.

I've enjoyed Vincent D'Onofrio's performances over the years. I loved him in Full Metal Jacket and, most recently, in The Cell. The Cell isn't a great film, but his portrayal of the serial killer in that film was fantastic. I also enjoyed him, completely, in Men in Black. His other films, like The Blood of Heroes, The Player, Ed Wood, Strange Days, The Thirteenth Floor... his range isn't superb, but he gets around to different films, different roles (many more than I've mentioned here)... I enjoy his work.

In this film, however, he was very dry and boring. He played, almost to a T, the character Michael Ironside played in Total Recall. That got on my nerves a little, because these characters are not carbon copies of other Dick stories... which is what seemed to happen here, with D'Onofrio's character.

Tony Shalhoub is a fantastic actor. I think his work with the Coen Brothers (Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There), along with other films like Men in Black, The Siege, A Civil Action, Galaxy Quest, Spy Kids... he's got a great personality. In this film, his character was on screen for, perhaps, four minutes. What's the point of casting someone like him in a role like this? Bad casting.

Mekhi Phifer. Another wasted casting decision. His personality is almost nil... he's used as the kung-fu fighting 'mystery' guy that helps Sinise's character. There was nothing to this character that hasn't been seen in every other futuristic movie over the past ten years.

Scott Rosenberg. He's the writer who adapted this film from the story, but not responsible for the screenplay. I'm trying to figure out exactly how important his role in this whole film is. He adapted the short story? So that it could be a Hollywood film? Doesn't make much sense to me, and I will say I do not know his complete role in this film... but it doesn't make much sense, and doesn't deserve much credit.

His other work is only ok. Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead, Beautiful GIrls, Con Air, Disturbing Behavior... those were all 'written by' credits... so I suppose he's responsible for the story. He wrote the scripts for High Fidelity and Gone in Sixty Seconds, both of which were based on other materials. So, I don't have much to say about his work, except his stories are ok, but his scripts are terrible.

The script was written by three people. That, right there, makes no sense. This is a very straight forward story. The dialog is all circumstantial, which means that there are no heavy handed speeches, no emotional outcries that need superb writing. Plus, it had someone for the adaptation. Four writers. Sheesh.

Caroline Case. Her only other writing credit is for some television show called The Army Show. I have no idea what that is. She was also an assistant to Mr. Fleder (the director of Impostor) on his last film Kiss the Girls (a terrible movie). So, you can see how she got this job.

Ehren Kruger, who won the Nicholl Fellowship for Arlington Road in 1999. Also responsible for New World Disorder, Scream 3, Reindeer Games and the remake of the japanese film Ring, to come out in 2002.

And the 'talent'. David Twohy, who has written a few decent films. Warlock, Grand Tour (which he directed), The Fugitive, Terminal Velocity, Waterworld, The Arrival, G.I. Jane, Pitch Black (directed, too)... and two films that are to be released in the next two years. Below (which was also written by Darren Aronofsky) and The Chronicles of Riddick, a sequel to Pitch Black, both of which he is directing.

Twohy made a real name for himself with Pitch Black, so I'm sure he has some steam to drive on for the next few years... but I cannot see where he helped this film, at all.

My biggest problem with a film like this is that once it begins production, there are so many second guesses and backwards decisions, that the film turns into a black hole. Writers are brought in to soften scenes, or make them more action packed... when the initial scripts are (sometimes, mind you) better formulated and true to the story. I have not read the script for Impostor, so I might be wrong... but this film feels like it went into a dozen directions at once and settled into the can, haphazardly.

Gary Fleder is not a good director. He might be good with actors, he might have some technical skills that make him a competent director, but his films are conglomerates of other peoples visions. None of the look, or feel, of his films (starting with Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead, Kiss the Girls and Don't Say A Word) have any originality to them. The camera work, the editing, the feel, the atmosphere... it's almost as if the producers and the distribution company hire him and say "We want this film to look and feel like Blade Runner. Or Total Recall. Or The Fifth Element. We'll give you the money to make the film, but you do as we say."

It's sad, too... because that is definitely a plausible description.

When I first sat down here to write this, one of the first things I was going to complain about was the cinematography. I figured that it was a person with a little experience, but not too much. Well... I was wrong.

Robert Elswit has been a DP for over 20 years, working on both television and film. His work steadily built up from the 80's, working on Return of the Living Dead Part II, Bad Influence, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, Paris Trout, A Dangerous Woman, The River Wild... and then, in 1996, he hooked up with P.T. Anderson and filmed Hard Eight. He went on to Boogie Nights, Tomorrow Never Dies, 8mm, Magnolia, Bounce, Heist... and is in the process of filming the next P.T. Anderson film, Punchdrunk Knuckle Love.

So, what happened here? Well, for one, it's safe to assume that Elswit does not know how to work with special effects that well. His films are mainly straight laced, and there isn't much that was done, effects wise, that wasn't handled outside of the editing room. That's for one. Two, I think that Fleder didn't have any idea how to shoot this film. The sets are one thing, and they're nice sets. But the effects, and the camera filters and the cgi... it all came together very badly.

Bob Ducsay and Armen Minasian were the editors, and they used flashy techniques and music video tricks to try and keep the audience interested, when all they did was hurt my eyes. I'm not even interested to find out what other films they have worked on, because with editing, you're only as good as your last movie. You can say that about a lot of things (but not being a DP), but with editing... that is always the case. You might have skill... but your vision of how a film should come together stays the same.

If you're a Philip K. Dick fan, you'll dig this film for what it is. If you're not... and you're reasonably intelligent, you'll see the plot coming a mile away.

I'd give this film a five, out of ten... if I did that kind of thing.