Protraph Lack of good storyline.

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Linda Leeb 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.

dysamoria 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.

nineteenthly 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.

kdelarue Radio Free Albemuth is a very authentic look into the mind of Philip K. Dick. The mood is sombre and reflective - even noir - and the story has clear Orwellian overtones. The story and character development is strong. The movie is full of echoes of his work, including other movie portrayals of his books - the darkness of Blade Runner emerges as the story unfolds.I was also intrigued by the parallel with Total Recall: Rachel echoes Lori, and Sylvia recalls Melina. (Dare I also mention the similarity between Katheryn Winnick and Sharon Stone?) There is a world to be saved, but the saviors are flawed or compromised - or are remote in time or space.Although set in an alternative world of the 1970s, this is a movie for our time, reflecting today's politics. But in typical Dick tradition, there is more than one way to view it. There are the usual Dickian motifs here - which is the reality, and which is the illusion?The making of this movie was definitely a labor of love, and the attention to detail shines through. It is a fitting tribute to Dick, including the thoughtful and measured portrayal of the man himself by Shea Whigham.It's not space opera - but then Dick was never a space opera author. Expect to be intrigued, and possibly challenged.