Johnny Mnemonic (1995) ⭐ 5.6 | Action, Drama, Sci-Fi

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!

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.

All things considered, this film probably does exactly what it sets out to do. Unfortunately the people behind it set their sights too low. There is so much movie-making potential in Gibsons writing, that this film could very easily have been both entertaining AND carried the depth of his literature. I was left with the feeling that Gibson thought: -"Well, this is going to be my one chance at getting my work on the big screen. So I'd better stick a little bit of everything I've made in it." Too many of the characters taken from his fiction get mistreated by the script: Ralfi, Molly Millions, the-guy-with-the-monowire-thumb, Johnny. Whereas the new ones, like Spider and the Street Preacher are much more entertaining. For example: One of the central ideas in the short story was that Johnny is "a very technical boy" - totally reliant on technology - and therefore actually needs Molly's muscle-power to protect him. Aside from one initial rescue, Johnny actually saves his own bodyguard more times than she helps him (with anything!) Maybe Keanu has a "Heroism Clause" of his own, like Kevin Kostner... :) A pleasant surprise though, was the appearance of Takeshi Kitano (even if it was a small part.)

My favourite scene is Johnnys rant on the rubbish heap. I know it is contrary to the intent of the scene, but I sympathise completely with his feelings. He had sacrificed something that most people hold sacred, in order to live a certain lifestyle, and it gets taken away from him completely undeservedly - no wonder he feels cheated.

If you really want Gibsonesque cyberpunk, go for _New Rose Hotel (1998) _ instead.

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?

Perhaps back in 1995 the year 2021 did seem like it was an aeon away, but now that we are all actually here, this film really does struggle to resonate on just about every level. Keanu Reeves is a good looking star, but that's about the height of it. The scenario is nothing new - mankind is dependent on technology and about to be subject to a criminally backed corporation's attempts to dominate us. This time, it falls to our hero and his semi-luddite pals to access a micro-chip embedded in his brain to save humanity from oblivion. It's quickly paced, to be fair, and the star does an adequate job trying to keep one step ahead of his deadly, if not terribly effective, Yakuza pursuers but the dialogue is flat (and not terribly audible) and the supporting cast - drawn from a collection of B-listers, musicians and featuring the discobolus-like Dolph Lundgren as baddie-in-chief just follows a join the dots pattern. Maybe it's unfair to look back on it after 25 years with today's eyes - but sadly, like so many of these films, neither the talent not the visuals really stand the test of time at all well. It wasn't great then, it certainly isn't now.