Johnny Mnemonic

What is it with Keanu Reeves and big budget cyberpunk science fiction movies? Oh well.

Considering it was based on the short story of the same name by cyberpunk godfather William Gibson, the movie is a minor disappointment. It's not that bad, but it could have been so much better.

However, a lot of Gibson's ideas are still there, making it a solid cyberpunk movie. There aren't too many of those around.

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.

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?

Oh man! Why so many bad reviews... if you wanted acting, WHY WERE YOU WATCHING A KEANU REEVES MOVIE?! If you wanted a thick plot with many twists and turns, you shouldn't have even went "Oh, lets go see a low budget b-film from '95!"!!! The movie didn't call for acting, they just needed a brief plot outline and charismatic actors to play the leads. When I saw this movie way back in '98 when it was on TV, I heard so many horrid reviews that were too over-analystic. When watching a film like "Dude Where's My Car?", are you going to look for the same quality you saw in a film like "The Usual Suspects"? Keanu Reeves did his role only good enough to support the movie... That's fine!!! The plot was a cliche cyber-thriller and you must have known that even just buy the back of the box or the trailer. It delivered a plot that was kind of cool, an star that does some one-liners, and action. If these three things were not what you wanted from this film then you shouldn't have went. It just delivers an action/adventure movie, nothing short of what promised. Don't be critical on films that are obviously intended as sheer dumb fun from start to finish... if these scripts even tried to be thinker, they'd be boring... AND YOU KNOW IT!

One Friday night in early 1994, I was one of the hundreds of extras who was hired to be moving scenery for this film. Basically, they convincingly turned Toronto's fabled Union Station into some post-apocalyptic hospice, in which we were all supposed to be shuffling around, getting food and suffering from some neurological disease. It's always amusing to see what filmmakers do to disguise Toronto as something else, to make it look like it takes place anywhere else other than (gasp) Canada. Still, whenever I go to Union Station, I am impressed with the makeover this location got.

I was anxious to see whether I made in the final cut or not, but the film's release kept on getting pushed back and pushed back. That is a sure sign that the movie is going to be a turkey. Well, it isn't terrible. William Gibson expanded his own short story-- so much so that the film is actually a mess. A beautiful looking one, however. Longo and DOP Francois Protat do a serviceable job in capturing the "plastic noir" of the future. But ultimately the movie suffers from having too many ideas-- some of them ludicrous, many of them poorly developed. It doesn't help either that the drama of the piece relies on the thespian abilities of Keanu Reeves or Dolph Lundgren. Yikes! Even so, Henry Rollins is pretty cool.

But for me, the great suspense was seeing whether or not I ended up on the cutting room floor. So for about two seconds, you get to see my face in a crowd shot. See? See? Wait! Damn!