Johnny Mnemonic

Why does everyone hate that movie so much!?! All the reviews I have read called it "confusing". How could it be confusing?

1. Takes place in a world created in William Gibson's many works of fiction. 2. Man has data in head. 3. Others REALLY want data. 4. Man tries to get data out of head before it kills him -- or the people chasing him do.

Along the way there are some colorful characters, cool gadgets and cityscapes from Gibson's 2021, and even a smidgen of romance (but not enough to bother anyone). I mean what's the problem!?! The movie is very faithful to Gibson's vision and even asks the main character to wrestle with an ethical dilemma or two while all the action is going on...

Johnny Mnemonic could have been a wonderful movie, had William Gibson not strayed so far from his original story when writing the screenplay. Having painter Robert Longo direct the movie, the first and to this date only full length feature he has directed, was probably not the best idea either. While Longo may present the occasional intriguing image, his inexperience shows in other areas. The acting is terrible for the most part, with Henry Rollins taking the cake for worst performance. Reeves, contrary to popular opinion, is alright and has a few great scenes, most notably his angry breakdown on the pile of garbage under the bridge.

Having read Johnny Mnemonic several times the character of Jane is one of the most annoying factors of the movie. In the story the character is Molly Millions, a confident, tough as nails mercenary who sports several augmentations, most important being retractable blades under her fingernails. However, they had to change the character since Molly Millions is also a main character in Gibson's book Neuromancer, and another company owed the film production rights for that book, including the character of Molly. But they could have made Jane more like Molly. Instead, she's as insecure as Johnny, and he spends more time protecting her than she does him, which is supposed to be her job.

There are other little inaccuracies in the movie, such as the Magnetic Dog Sisters. In the story they are the door guards at the club and Johnny claims that they are "bad news in a tussle." In the movie they are Ralfi's bodyguards and portrayed as pathetic and outdated rather than dangerous. The story doesn't have anything about NAS, that's all a fabrication to fill space for the movie.

Gibson seems to try to shoehorn several of his concepts into the Johnny Mnemonic movie. Instead of living in the rafters high above the streets, as they do in the story, the Lo Teks live on an old bridge. Gibson has people living on the Golden Gate Bridge in his books Virtual Light and All Tomorrow's Parties. The bartender Hooky, at the club where Johnny meets Ralfi, is an approximation of Ratz, a bartender from the book Neuromancer. Johnny never accesses the matrix (the internet) in the story, but he does in the movie, for no apparent reason other than allowing director Longo to show off some CGI special effects.

Longo also chooses to mimic Blade Runner in the opening scenes, and later on one character tells another that it's "time to die", a famous line from BR. I thought this was unnecessary, and cheapens the movie, as blatantly ripping of Blade Runner, whether it's for the purpose of homage or not, is the signature of several B-Movies, which is sadly what Johnny Mnemonic ends up being anyway.

I still like the movie. It does have some good elements to it, and if you're a fan of Gibson, you should see it. It's better than Abel Ferrera's terrible adaptation of New Rose Hotel, because it at least portrays Gibsons technological world. I hope that Johnny Mnemonic is remade one day because it is a great story. I'd ask Reeves to play Johnny again, because I like him in the role. Gibson's writing is so descriptive, that a screenplay should follow the story as literally as possible. Ideally, I think that Johnny Mnemonic would work out as a short film, something no longer than an hour. It is a short story after all, and adding filler to extend the time certainly didn't work the first time.

Usually when you watch a sci-fi film, the first half usually piques your interest only to sink into a confusing and badly written second half ("Star Trek V" comes to mind.). "Johnny Mnemonic" has the unique distinction of having a rather bad first half being saved by the second half. There were moments of badly delivered lines and situations, which I fully blame the director for. There were cuts where the demeanor of Keanu Reeves changed confusingly. Again I blame the director and continuity supervisor. There was, IMHO, more gore than necessary. But that's a matter of taste. And, to make matters worse, I wasn't sure of what I was watching.

There was a LOT of good things about the movie. It told a sci-fi story about a dark and bleak future....somewhat similar to "Blade Runner". And it did it well. There were an amazing amount of sets, extras, and really well done computer effects. There was even one really well filmed shot in a hospital that reminded me of the long scene from "Gone With The Wind" showing the dead and dying in the Atlanta train yard. Many of the secondary actors (especially Henry Rollins as "Spider" and Ice-T as "J-Bone") were surprisingly good and helped to raise my rating of the film from an initial 4.0 to an overall 7.0 rating.

If you aren't into a lot of foul language and/or gore, I'd steer clear of this film. But if you want to see a surprisingly well made piece of dark sci-fi, this is a film worth giving a chance to watch.

This is not a terrible film as claimed, but it had faults: poor pacing; weak atmosphere (visuals were there, but insufficient music track to back them up); and its largely unexplained universe.

Ideally, you need to have read Gibson's short stories and "Neuromancer" first, and then all the props - cyberspace, 'black ice', grubby streets, brand-name hardware, Yakuza assassins, muscle grafts, etc - make sense. The "Blade Runner" style information dump was no substitute. Incidentally, many of these props appear cliched, but remember that Gibson more or less invented them; it's merely that this film appeared long after they had become standard movie fixtures.

Gibson's written work has fairly sparse dialogue, and makes heavy use of precise and rather introspective visual description to convey character. Perhaps this just doesn't translate well to film.

Heavens, why is everybody bragging about this movie? Maybe because they compare it to "Matrix? Probably, I wouldn't know another reason.

Nobody says that this is a real block-buster, but it is definetely not as bad as everyone here wants to make it.

It's a nice movie to enjoy (especially on DVD) and forget afterwards. Not because it was bad but just because it was good and entertaining for a short while. Nothing more, nothing less.

And it DID have its benefits: that crazy preacher was so hilarious to behold. A nice and funny mirror to the numerous fundamentalistic Christians in the American society. And, of course, some nice fighting scenes, cool hi-tech equipment, and a gorgeous Dina Meyer, all packed in a futuristic ambience. What else could I ask for for an action movie that you can enjoy and forget about afterwards?