The struggles of the filmmakers in getting this movie made parallel those of Philip K. Dick, the author whose novel serves as source material for this film of the same name as the book. But like Philip K., they forged ahead, and have created a wonderful little film that, in spite of its noticeable budget limitations--particularly visible in the digital effects--is lovingly faithful to its novelistic source. Rather than action set-pieces, the film explores the ideas that frame the novel's plot, and crafts an atmosphere of increasing tension as the web of President Fremont's subversives-cleansing program closes around Philip K. Dick's (Shea Whigham) and Nicholas Brady's (Jonathan Scarfe) plans to insert transgressive messages subliminally in music recordings, all at the behest of a being in space named VALIS that communicates with Nicholas silently.
54 Reviews
Not all PKD adaptations are the built the same.
scottc-215-18921218 January 2015
I'm a huge fan of the works Philip K. Dick, his books and short story collections line my shelves while the DVDs, etc. based on his works, barely make a dent. I'm generally not a fan of the adaptations that take a core PKD concept and turn it into a poorly executed version of The Fugitive. Personally, "A Scanner Darkly" is by far my favorite, with the top five rounded out by Radio Free Albemuth, Blade Runner, Screamers, and the Total Recall 2070 television series (not a true adaption, but close enough.)
I enjoyed RFM enough to watch it twice, and would recommend it to anyone who skews toward A Scanner Darkly as far PKD adaptations, and would compare it tone to 1984 or THX-1138. It definitely feels like a product of the 70's. The highlight of RFM would have to be Shea Whigham's portrayal of "Phil" which comes of as a bizarre mix of a typical neo-noir dick and Jack Kerouac.
RFM is not without its issues. It occasionally falls into "tell don't show" mode, and there's missed opportunity to give us a few scenes depicting the antagonists carrying out their nefarious schemes instead of being told about them, possibly a result of the script following the novel a little too close. But all in all, if you're a fan of PKD, or science fiction with a slower pace and little to no explosions, Radio Free Albemuth is well worth your time.
I enjoyed RFM enough to watch it twice, and would recommend it to anyone who skews toward A Scanner Darkly as far PKD adaptations, and would compare it tone to 1984 or THX-1138. It definitely feels like a product of the 70's. The highlight of RFM would have to be Shea Whigham's portrayal of "Phil" which comes of as a bizarre mix of a typical neo-noir dick and Jack Kerouac.
RFM is not without its issues. It occasionally falls into "tell don't show" mode, and there's missed opportunity to give us a few scenes depicting the antagonists carrying out their nefarious schemes instead of being told about them, possibly a result of the script following the novel a little too close. But all in all, if you're a fan of PKD, or science fiction with a slower pace and little to no explosions, Radio Free Albemuth is well worth your time.
Simple yet effective production.
atothep2313 January 2015
It's not the flashiest production of a PKD work I've ever seen but it's the one that's stuck with me the most. The themes present here are relevant today as they were when the original novel was being written. There is a pervading sense of dread running through the film, as in the original work. Shea Whigham is brilliant as Philip (obviously based on PKD himself) and the rest of the cast is equally great. This film was stuck in post for a long time and I think it could have benefited from better effects/editing but that's only a small quibble. It's on Netflix so there's no reason for you not to watch it, especially if you're a fan of things like 1984 or V for Vendetta. It's not as showy or grim as those but similar in theme and tone.
Mediocre movie -- mostly only for hardcore PKD fans.
dewittambassador22 July 2014
Neither as good nor as bad as a lot of reviewers are saying. Flat acting, clumsy sound and cinematography--low levels of energy and interest. I never forgot I was watching a (mostly boring) movie. If you are a serious PKD fan you will want to watch it. If not, the first five minutes will tell you all you need to know--it does not get any better.
It's too talky. Dialogue and narrative seem to be recited pretty much straight from the novel, with little of visual interest on the screen most of the time.
Actors are not good at showing emotion. For instance, a main character is having an intense mystical vision, but in the reaction shots he could just as well be an American watching a cricket match.
It's too talky. Dialogue and narrative seem to be recited pretty much straight from the novel, with little of visual interest on the screen most of the time.
Actors are not good at showing emotion. For instance, a main character is having an intense mystical vision, but in the reaction shots he could just as well be an American watching a cricket match.
High Strangeness
hackermc29 May 2015
This small independent/low budget film is built on extremely effective uses of science fiction coupled with religion coupled with political resistance to totalitarian power and a weird species of multidimensional autobiography that coalesces to provide a very, very satisfying conclusion and a sharp emotional experience. Shea Whigham carries the film, he's great. Hanna Hall is a most excellent villain. The story reminded me of The Man in the High Castle, another PK Dick novel featuring alternative parallel universes. The story is inspired by real paranormal events that PK Dick and his wife Tessa experienced in Los Angeles in the 1980s. highly recommend this for lovers of cerebral film.
An honest and unattached review.
The_Monocled_Mutineer10 March 2015
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.
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.
Conspiracy Theory or Reality???
mark-mihalko4 December 2014
Let me start by saying that I have never read this book and cannot tell you how close the adaptation is to what was written. Although, in this case, I may decide to pick it up and read it, as the idea and storyline definitely felt real and reminded me of some of the weirdness we are experiencing in society today. This was an entertaining journey to watch with an intriguing and layered storyline, solid performances, outstanding characterizations, great visuals and a big budget feel. Sure, as a character and story driven movie, it does lack a tremendous amount of action, but that does nothing to bring the film down. In the end, this mixture of political and theological intrigue, conspiracy theories, and historical philosophical and subliminal messages plays out in an educational and entertaining manner, and is a must see for everyone. Check it out!
Faithful to its source material.
gregoryno616 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I saw RFA at the Revelation Film Festival here in Perth two nights ago. I haven't read the book, but Dick fans in the audience seemed well pleased. One said he was surprised at how much of the book had made it into the film. Translating any book to the screen is difficult, but a book by Philip K Dick would be doubly so. After seeing Blade Runner I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and found the detachment and lack of emotion very off-putting. For example, Roy Baty doesn't deliver a stirring monologue in his final moments. His death is reduced to one cold sentence - something like, "Deckard went into the room where Roy was standing, and retired him." On the basis of the Dick novels I have read, I would say that John Simon, the scriptwriter and director, added just the right degree of emotional tension. Ambiguity is another common feature in Dick's writing. In the book Do Androids etc, Deckard is left wondering whether one of his co-workers is a replicant. This is the question that Ridley Scott transferred to Deckard himself in the movie. Radio Free Albemuth left me wondering again and again, were these people really hearing divine voices? Or were they just a bunch of free-ranging nutters? 9 out of 10 for a well made and thought provoking film.
Not much here for any but hardcore PKD fans
dysamoria8 September 2016
I have to defend the actors against the bad reviews. As is often the case, flat and non-compelling acting has a lot more to do with the director and the script than the actor's abilities. In this case, the director and the scriptwriter are the same. Given to a different director, this might have been a compelling story (or not, since I don't find the scifi religious spiritualism remotely interesting, and I find it objectionable on an intellectual basis). I also hold the director responsible for the bad taste (IMO) in the visual effects. While the pink of the book was changed to purple, film student/amateur filmmaker purple glows and lighting (when called for and NOT called for by the scripted action) didn't help sell anything here. In fact, the visuals made the film look decidedly low budget and cheesy.
But is this even a compelling idea for a film? Not in my opinion. It's naive and quite telling of the state of mind Philip K. Dick was in at the point in his life when he wrote the texts this film is based on. In fact, he didn't actually publish this story. He rewrote it as a completely different book. The story this film is based on was published posthumously. Who knows if Dick would have approved.
Overall, the film doesn't deserve the brutal assassination given by some reviewers. It also doesn't deserve the praise other reviewers have given it. It's an amateur effort with poor choices made in direction and cinematography that sabotage the overall result. Even the choice of story to put to film was probably not the best. I respect the desire to honor a beloved author, but no one knows of Philip K. Dick would himself have approved of this. The film adaptation history of his works has been mostly poor. It's a shame. On top of that, unsophisticated reviewers use this film to demean the skills of the actors present in it.
Taste varies, and there's no universal standard, but this film didn't deliver for me. I like slow films. I like subtle acting. I like dialog-heavy content over action-heavy content. I even tolerate low budgets when the filmmakers don't try to sell unconvincing visuals. This film failed to pass my rather tolerant standards for intellectual and slow art movies.
It was not satisfying. It almost wasn't worth my time, if not for sheer curiosity satisfaction ("is this another bad PKD adaptation?"). It was another reminder that resources don't necessarily get divvied out to the best people or the best projects. It's sad and frustrating for a lover of the potential of cinema and storytelling.
If not for the weirdly bipolar reviews, I wouldn't bother to write one of my own. The film deserves a "meh"; not hate or praise.
But is this even a compelling idea for a film? Not in my opinion. It's naive and quite telling of the state of mind Philip K. Dick was in at the point in his life when he wrote the texts this film is based on. In fact, he didn't actually publish this story. He rewrote it as a completely different book. The story this film is based on was published posthumously. Who knows if Dick would have approved.
Overall, the film doesn't deserve the brutal assassination given by some reviewers. It also doesn't deserve the praise other reviewers have given it. It's an amateur effort with poor choices made in direction and cinematography that sabotage the overall result. Even the choice of story to put to film was probably not the best. I respect the desire to honor a beloved author, but no one knows of Philip K. Dick would himself have approved of this. The film adaptation history of his works has been mostly poor. It's a shame. On top of that, unsophisticated reviewers use this film to demean the skills of the actors present in it.
Taste varies, and there's no universal standard, but this film didn't deliver for me. I like slow films. I like subtle acting. I like dialog-heavy content over action-heavy content. I even tolerate low budgets when the filmmakers don't try to sell unconvincing visuals. This film failed to pass my rather tolerant standards for intellectual and slow art movies.
It was not satisfying. It almost wasn't worth my time, if not for sheer curiosity satisfaction ("is this another bad PKD adaptation?"). It was another reminder that resources don't necessarily get divvied out to the best people or the best projects. It's sad and frustrating for a lover of the potential of cinema and storytelling.
If not for the weirdly bipolar reviews, I wouldn't bother to write one of my own. The film deserves a "meh"; not hate or praise.
cult film in the making
r-luckhurst3 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This film remains on the festival circuit, which will possibly feed it's cult status. I caught up with a new cut at the London Sci-Fi film festival in May 2012. Those interested in the science fiction of Philip K. Dick should try to track it down. It is hardly an 'adaptation' of Dick's last novel, Radio Free Albemuth -- it's more a direct transcription of it. That's a pretty tall order, given that it features interstellar communications from an extraterrestrial god called VALIS, who beams down messages from an orbiting satellite, through visions and portentous dreams. This really happened to him in 1974, so Philip Dick claimed (after years of amphetamine abuse and mental anguish), and he spent the last ten years of his life writing about VALIS. Perhaps the only way to treat this material is to accept Dick's version of events and replay it with a straight face. This is what the film-makers do. Some of it is uneven, some of it is constrained by budget, but it remains an authentic Phildickian experience. Best is the way this druggy 70s Californian counter-cultural novel is slyly updated: the vision of America as a near fascist state, ruled by volunteer morality squads (and by mandatory punishment of those it perceives as 'subversives') has provocative things to say about Bush-era Republicanism and Tea Party moralising. Chase it down!
sci-fi channel quality...doesn't bode well for other two films
firma_ment23 November 2014
I found this to be a pretty amateurish and low-budget effort. OK, so maybe the director didn't have a forty million dollar budget, but still, this had very little artistic merit. There have been films made on the cheap that had artistic vision. Pi for instance. This has next to no artistic vision. The only interesting things about it were the ideas, and they were courtesy of PKD. The acting was pretty bad all around. The guy who played PKD wasn't too bad, but the others were terrible. Especially Alanis Morrisette. How did she end up in this? Does she know the director or something? OK, so maybe the director is a PKD fan. So am I. That doesn't mean I should bust out my camcorder and record my dog enacting a PKD novel in my backyard. If he can't do justice to the material he should just sell the rights to the other two books that he supposedly has. I'd hate to see them given such shoddy treatment as this.
The first film to really capture the work of Philip K. Dick
Milchman3 May 2012
While previous adaptations of the work of the late, great Philip K. Dick have often been enjoyable, none has really taken a great deal from the original source stories beyond the most perfunctory aspects of the plot.
Radio Free Albemuth, while not sticking slavishly to every letter of the original text, is the first adaptation to really capture the spirit and convey the substance of Dick's work. Although this film does not have the high tech sheen of the more celebrated films to be taken from Dick's writing, it is every bit as gripping and exciting as the best of them, but also retains the intelligence, and political thought that previously has tended to go missing in translating Dick from page to screen.
John Alan Simon has written an exemplary screenplay and matched it with strong direction. The acting performances are also fine throughout.
I saw this at the Sci-Fi London film festival and got the distinct impression that I was not alone in my enthusiasm for this movie.
Radio Free Albemuth, while not sticking slavishly to every letter of the original text, is the first adaptation to really capture the spirit and convey the substance of Dick's work. Although this film does not have the high tech sheen of the more celebrated films to be taken from Dick's writing, it is every bit as gripping and exciting as the best of them, but also retains the intelligence, and political thought that previously has tended to go missing in translating Dick from page to screen.
John Alan Simon has written an exemplary screenplay and matched it with strong direction. The acting performances are also fine throughout.
I saw this at the Sci-Fi London film festival and got the distinct impression that I was not alone in my enthusiasm for this movie.
A great film about ideas that deserves more attention
cgutierrezb198025 September 2012
I had the good fortune to watch this film surrounded by a big crowd of hardcore Philip K Dick fans at the second PKD festival that took place in San Francisco a few days ago.
The director and writer (John Alan Simon) was very respectful with the source material (a novel written by PKD in 1976 but not published until 1985) but also took great care in making the movie interesting for anybody who enjoys intelligent movies based on ideas and not on action.
Although I was familiar with the plot because I had read the novel recently, I found myself very engaged on the movie the whole time and that says a lot about of the construction and rhythm of the film.
To me this movies is up there with films like EXistenz, VideoDrome, Cube, Dark City just to mention a few ones. It is the kind of movie that throws a lot of ideas to the audience and that it can let you thinking about them for weeks.
The movie takes place on an alternative version of the United States where a president (Fremont) that has been on power for four consecutive terms is consolidating a highly authoritarian police state. In a national TV broadcast Fremont announces the existence of a subversion organization called Aramcheck which threat to the nation could "force" him to look for a fifth term in power.
A guy named of Nicholas Brady, who works as a clerk at a record store, has a metaphysical experience that he cannot explain: An unknown entity that present himself as VALIS (acronymous for Vast Active Live Intelligent System) starts broadcasting all kind of messages, visions and instructions directly to his brain. These visions end up changing his life completely and put it him and his friend Phil (and alter ego of Philip k Dick) in the middle of a battle of a secret organization to unmask the true intentions of president Fremont.
What it makes this movies timeless is that it deals with the universal theme of David Vs. Goliath: the small guy against the big power. This resonates with many recent events like the Arab spring or the Occupy movement but ultimately it relates to the struggles we all have to face at some points of our lives when we have to go against forces that are beyond our control and that cannot be reasoned with.
One think that I love about the movie (and the novel too) is how the character are questioning themselves all the time about what they are going through. This is not the kind of movie where there is a lot of exposition to make sure that all the audience get the same standard vision. In Radio Free Albemuth the characters are constantly creating and destroying theories about what is going on and that puts the audience at same level of the characters.
All the performance are very solid but I want to highlight two of them. The first one is Hanna Hall who plays Vivian Kaplan, an agent of a paramilitary organization serving president Fremont that has no boundaries when it comes to tracking down any potential threat for the regime. I loved how she managed to portray this cold, manipulative and lack of empathy character.
The other outstanding performance for me was Shea Whigham as Phil. I though that his kind of low key, cynical approach to the character was very appropriate. Although in this novel this is an alter ego of Philip K. Dick, they didn't try to do a direct characterization of him.
However, with all this said, not everything is perfect. Two me the movie has two main flaws. The fist one is with the character of Nick. The movie does not give the audience a real reason to care about this character because it jumps directly into his visions and it only gives a very brief glimpse of how his life was before having these experiences. I think the character would have gained a lot of depth by showing his life as a record store clerk.
Second problem is with president Freemont. His appearances in the movie are limited to the national broadcast he makes from the oval office which in my opinion doesn't help to establish the link between him and the oppression of the regime. His presence in the movie should be stronger.
All in all this a great movie and if you are looking for something different to the cliché-filled movies produced by Hollywood this is a great alternative. If you are a PKD fan you need to see this movie now.
The director and writer (John Alan Simon) was very respectful with the source material (a novel written by PKD in 1976 but not published until 1985) but also took great care in making the movie interesting for anybody who enjoys intelligent movies based on ideas and not on action.
Although I was familiar with the plot because I had read the novel recently, I found myself very engaged on the movie the whole time and that says a lot about of the construction and rhythm of the film.
To me this movies is up there with films like EXistenz, VideoDrome, Cube, Dark City just to mention a few ones. It is the kind of movie that throws a lot of ideas to the audience and that it can let you thinking about them for weeks.
The movie takes place on an alternative version of the United States where a president (Fremont) that has been on power for four consecutive terms is consolidating a highly authoritarian police state. In a national TV broadcast Fremont announces the existence of a subversion organization called Aramcheck which threat to the nation could "force" him to look for a fifth term in power.
A guy named of Nicholas Brady, who works as a clerk at a record store, has a metaphysical experience that he cannot explain: An unknown entity that present himself as VALIS (acronymous for Vast Active Live Intelligent System) starts broadcasting all kind of messages, visions and instructions directly to his brain. These visions end up changing his life completely and put it him and his friend Phil (and alter ego of Philip k Dick) in the middle of a battle of a secret organization to unmask the true intentions of president Fremont.
What it makes this movies timeless is that it deals with the universal theme of David Vs. Goliath: the small guy against the big power. This resonates with many recent events like the Arab spring or the Occupy movement but ultimately it relates to the struggles we all have to face at some points of our lives when we have to go against forces that are beyond our control and that cannot be reasoned with.
One think that I love about the movie (and the novel too) is how the character are questioning themselves all the time about what they are going through. This is not the kind of movie where there is a lot of exposition to make sure that all the audience get the same standard vision. In Radio Free Albemuth the characters are constantly creating and destroying theories about what is going on and that puts the audience at same level of the characters.
All the performance are very solid but I want to highlight two of them. The first one is Hanna Hall who plays Vivian Kaplan, an agent of a paramilitary organization serving president Fremont that has no boundaries when it comes to tracking down any potential threat for the regime. I loved how she managed to portray this cold, manipulative and lack of empathy character.
The other outstanding performance for me was Shea Whigham as Phil. I though that his kind of low key, cynical approach to the character was very appropriate. Although in this novel this is an alter ego of Philip K. Dick, they didn't try to do a direct characterization of him.
However, with all this said, not everything is perfect. Two me the movie has two main flaws. The fist one is with the character of Nick. The movie does not give the audience a real reason to care about this character because it jumps directly into his visions and it only gives a very brief glimpse of how his life was before having these experiences. I think the character would have gained a lot of depth by showing his life as a record store clerk.
Second problem is with president Freemont. His appearances in the movie are limited to the national broadcast he makes from the oval office which in my opinion doesn't help to establish the link between him and the oppression of the regime. His presence in the movie should be stronger.
All in all this a great movie and if you are looking for something different to the cliché-filled movies produced by Hollywood this is a great alternative. If you are a PKD fan you need to see this movie now.
What Who Huh?
LiamBlackburn22 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
What is this? Is this a movie? I don't know. I see people moving on screen, and some dialog that is muffled and incomprehensible. THen fast-forwarded to 10 minute mark and there's some utterance about the 1 st amendment, this is bizarre and surprising, since up until then it looked like a bad Dawson's Creek episode. Now, again there is some muffled dialog between two dull actors. OK, now we're in a music recording studio...and..hmmm....huh? More muffled dialog between two actors who look like they are from 1995. What is this? I just can't even begin to understand? Is this a movie? A made-for-TV-movie? A bad episode of some lost pilot from 1993? Did someone dig out a dusty reel of 9021...3...and repackage it and sell it as a movie from the year 2014? Oh my. Where is the stop button....OK....ahhhhh. click close that window.
Metafiction is the ultimate narcissism
ginger-11129 August 2020
A Vali(s)ant Effort
nineteenthly24 July 2016
What lets this film down most is the poor acting. If you can see past this, and you don't get hung up on the idea that special effects are not the be-all and end-all of science fiction movies, you'll see a pretty faithful version of the book. I couldn't say I liked it enormously but it has sadness and political savviness on its side. It left me wondering how much of this was based on PKD's life itself and even made me curious about his real-life death. The brownness and dirtiness of the scenery and sets definitely work well, something lacking in many adaptations of Dick's stories. I do wish it was a little slicker and more commercial but that's probably because I've been spoilt by Hollywood production values. In the end, that's not what science fiction is about. The quality of the acting is a bigger stumbling block for me though.
Good story poor execution
mfloerke22 April 2018
Only a cult fan of author Dick could possibly find enjoyment in this. Set aside the cheesy low budget production quality, and the acting is still too weak to try and carry the poor direction. It is like some Highschool kids from the late 80s put this together as a school project. The director attempts to use character narration like Blade Runner, and fails miserably to try and hold the film together by the thinnest of threads. Unless you are a died in the wool cult-like fan of Dick, you'll be bored to sleep. It is unfortunate, as there is an interesting story underneath, just very poorly told.
Awful
Green-Irish-Eyes7 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Wow! Reviewers and film crew must be on Grass From Aramchek!
CelluloidDog11 January 2019
Like a few others here, I found this film to be amateurishly impoverished. Dick's book isn't considered to be among his better works so one needs to be addicted to him if the review is least a 7 or higher. So director Simon had little material to work with. Or fascists will rate a pro-fascist film high marks. Here's why it's an awful waste of nearly two hours (did I just do that?): awful acting where the best acting was by the young female FAPer and the incarcerated former preacher at the end. Actors couldn't display any emotions but kept robotic faces through the film. Horrible script which seemed silly at times. Terrible sets on a budget. Amateur special effects. This film, in fact, was stopped in mid-production since it ran out of its low budget and finally took another 3 years to finish after getting more to pull it through. Unfortunately, that should have never happened. In the end, one of the worst sci-fi's to be made that takes itself seriously. That is, B sci-fi classics don't seem to have that same sober feeling, rather we rejoice how bad they are. There is no joy in Mudville here. For this film, it's more about burying a dead rock. Lifeless film.
Loved this movie at the Sedona Film Fest
slisak26 February 2010
Wow! I just saw this movie (Radio Free Albemuth) at the Sedona Film Fest and it blew my socks off! I've been going to the Sedona Film Fest for years, and this movie by far was the best independent film I've seen there. This movie is based on a book by Philip K. Dick, who was a sci-fi writer famous for Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly, and other great novels. In this story, he actually writes himself as one of the lead characters in it. It is intellectual, spiritual, political, and reflects many present day situations and controversies. I have not read the book, so am not sure how closely it relates to the movie, but I'm definitely going to read the book now. Hope this movie will be available on DVD so I can purchase for myself and friends. Great Job!
Paranoid ramblings in a boring unrealistic film.
soup_cans21 August 2016
This movie is like the love child of Scientology and the Left Behind novels. PKD was slowly losing his mind when he wrote this story and analogizes his experience of VALIS sending bizarre messages into his brain via a pink beam. The story is weak and uncompelling unlike his brilliant works of the past. The movies is about other dimensional beings trying to start a revolution by sending messages into the mind of a record producer so that he could put vague lyrics into one song of one band's album. Yeah, real Rebel Alliance stuff here. Why didn't VALIS just send the signal into everyone's mind and start a war? Who knows? The film sure didn't cover that subject. Anyway, the movie itself is poorly directed but the bad story just kills it.
A master class in how to take incredibly imaginative material and make it boring
ellelldee28 July 2017
I love Philip K. Dick, the author of the novel from which this film is derived, and have followed all the various film adaptations with interest for many years. Some have been very good, some less so, some faithful to at least the spirit of the source material, some less so. I was thrilled to find this on Netflix, since it is one of his major works, in my opinion. I really wanted to like it. I wanted it to be good. It was not. I honor the intention to be faithful to the book, and it was, much more so than, say, Blade Runner, although BR is by far the superior movie. But this was poorly paced, flat, plodding, monotonous, and unrealistic. I realize this last may seem odd given the plot and theme, but lots of movies are about fantastical concepts and still manage to be realistic, in the sense that they create a coherent, consistent reality around those concepts and play out the story with verve and imagination, qualities this adaption lacked. The dream sequences were cheesy. Although Alanis Morissette brought some star power to the proceedings, and she was very good, the acting was poor. The direction left weird gaps in the sequences. The seams showed in this production. One pet peeve: I realize their budget was probably small, but could they not afford a few establishing shots of Berkeley? They kept saying they were in Berkeley, and then showing shots of a city clearly not Berkeley. It's a pretty iconic location, all you need is a few shots of the campus, the campanile, and the bay. This is indicative of the lapses and lack of imagination in this adaptation of a work of supreme imagination.
If you are a major fan of Phillip K Dick...
sfinancing27 April 2017
...then you may like this adaptation, or at least that seems to be the general consensus. Personally while I have read most of his work, this one left me cold.
A fairly slow moving alternate history drama with mediocre acting.
Cinematography was dark(fitting for the story) and done fairly well.
Special effects were obviously low budget and not in a good way.
Production values were low.
Story was potentially good but not well presented.
Overall, I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on this one.
A fairly slow moving alternate history drama with mediocre acting.
Cinematography was dark(fitting for the story) and done fairly well.
Special effects were obviously low budget and not in a good way.
Production values were low.
Story was potentially good but not well presented.
Overall, I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on this one.
Not a great adaptation, but at least it was watchable
Agent1025 May 2021
One of the dangers of adapting an unfinished book is the probability of making an incoherent movie. While dramatic license might allow for some hole filing, can you really call something an adaptation if you do most of the writing.
Radio Free Albemuth the book was never supposed to be read, and ironically if not for the help of a Kickstarter campaign, the movie might have never been seen either. RFA toes that weird line between the good Phillip K. Dick adaptations (Total Recall 1990, Bladerunner, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, The Man in the High Castle) and the truly awful ones (Next, Paycheck, Total Recall 2012). It has all of the tension and ideas and density of a PKD novel, but the production value is seriously wavering. With poor editing and a production mired in bad luck, it's something of a miracle this thing got finished. But should it have been made in the first place?
The story is sound. A group of friends are entangled in a world where a fascist government has taken over, and subliminal messages in music might be the only saving grace. Yes you heard that right. Imagine your favorite bland pop star trying to create world changing music rather than something that will be forgotten in a year. There is also some other side plots that were smashed into the movie but who cares. I don't know if PKD even cared. The most interesting part of the story is Valis, the cosmic entity pouring random information into random human avatars. For those that know what PKD's real life was like, you can easily see this was an autobiographical tale of sorts.
There is a lot of ins and outs, and I don't want to mess it up for you, but just remember this is not a very well made movie. But they tried, and finished with a somewhat decent film to watch when the beer starts kicking in. Enjoy.
Radio Free Albemuth the book was never supposed to be read, and ironically if not for the help of a Kickstarter campaign, the movie might have never been seen either. RFA toes that weird line between the good Phillip K. Dick adaptations (Total Recall 1990, Bladerunner, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, The Man in the High Castle) and the truly awful ones (Next, Paycheck, Total Recall 2012). It has all of the tension and ideas and density of a PKD novel, but the production value is seriously wavering. With poor editing and a production mired in bad luck, it's something of a miracle this thing got finished. But should it have been made in the first place?
The story is sound. A group of friends are entangled in a world where a fascist government has taken over, and subliminal messages in music might be the only saving grace. Yes you heard that right. Imagine your favorite bland pop star trying to create world changing music rather than something that will be forgotten in a year. There is also some other side plots that were smashed into the movie but who cares. I don't know if PKD even cared. The most interesting part of the story is Valis, the cosmic entity pouring random information into random human avatars. For those that know what PKD's real life was like, you can easily see this was an autobiographical tale of sorts.
There is a lot of ins and outs, and I don't want to mess it up for you, but just remember this is not a very well made movie. But they tried, and finished with a somewhat decent film to watch when the beer starts kicking in. Enjoy.
It's embarrassing
tomn-9083330 November 2020
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
