Was That Film Really That Bad??? Johnny Mnemonic

Ah, the early 1990's. That time when the Net/Information Superhighway was the bright new future of communication, learning and even society itself, instead of just porn. Hollywood wasn't slow to pick up on this (the society bit, not the porn!) what with such cinematic gems as "The Net", "Lawnmower Man", "Virtuosity" and "Hackers", all of which tried to show the public their own vision of a cyber future. If you've not heard of any of those, check them out (but beware that the 90's was a different country, they did things differently there...), and there will be a future post on Hackers when I get round to watching it. But whilst cinema was catching up, some authors had already forged names for themselves in the sub-genre of cyber-fiction. First and foremost of these is William Gibson, whose debut novel "Neuromancer" remains a seminal work of fiction, science or otherwise. It is one of his short stories that we're going to be looking at today, one that Gibson himself expanded into a cinematic release: Johnny Memenic... Memomic... Memenenenic... Mahna Mahna do do do do do, Mahna Mahna do do do do...

Apologies, enough of that earworm.

It's Johnny Mnemonic.

This makes it look far better than it is.

Released in 1995, Johnny Mnemonic stars a young Keanu Reeves as the titular character, an underground data courier tasked with moving illegally obtained data from Beijing to Newark (That’s the place in New Jersey, not the one on Trent with the National Civil War Centre and the Air Museum – the film’s first fatal flaw!). This data, concerning a life threatening condition that affects users of the virtual reality based internet (which is pretty much everyone), is property of a large corporation that will stop at nothing to get it back (it’s the only copy left after the people who stole the data deleted the original). Chased by the Yakuza and a bible-thumping mercenary (Dolph Lundgren), Mnemonic must survive their efforts and download the data in his head before he suffers brain damage and death. That’s pretty much the plot. Oh, and if you need background to all of this, there is a handy explainer at the very beginning of the film. Outside of Star Wars (and even that’s on dodgy ground), any movie that has to have a scrolling exposition at the start to tell audiences what they’re watching has storytelling issues. It’s also extremely po-faced.

Someone's aiming for a GCSE in exposition...

With a budget of $26 million ($43m in 2020), this was initially supposed to be a low budget art-house film that film exec’s hyped up (and suitably budgeted) into a mid-range release. Given its final box office score of $52m ($86m in 2020), the film was not a terrible box office disappointment though it didn’t review well at the time, hence the poor reputation today. I quite liked it back then (when getting online was limited to the computers in college – no home access for me), so thought a re-watch was in order. And yes, it has dated badly…

I can guarantee this will not be the Internet in 2021

Oh boy! Dated? Ok, the idea of using your brain to transport 80GB of data is not that silly. In fact, as a secure storage medium, the idea has legs (so to speak). No, what comes across as silly is the amount of data concerned. With a limit of 80GB, doubled to 160GB (remember when you could get RAM and hard drive storage doublers???) then stretched to 320GB, Reeves’ head holds less than a mid-range laptop. Hell, a 512GB SD card can be had for less than £40 these days. Okay, this is an easy target, as almost every depiction of the future gets it wrong, though I will give Johnny Mnemonic kudos for portraying city wide riots by masked civilians in 2021 (just a year out but hey, things ain’t changing...). The film’s depiction of online access is, of course, suitably twee and CGI overload, also totally ignoring any kind of user friendly interface or even plain user experience planning. OK, that’s a bit of a professional opinion here, but it’s a bugbear of mine when I see people navigate overly complex interfaces or take multiple button presses to complete simple tasks (I’m looking at you, SeaQuest – poor Ted Raimi must had had callouses just to turn on a screen!). Keep It Simple, Stupid is a very worthy principle.

Very... 90's...

Anyhoo, the film, and it is your standard chase flick with a slightly different setting. A grey setting, to be sure. You see, whilst it goes for dark and moody, the lighting is all over the place. Scenes that should be dark are well-lit, and others that should be well lit are submerged in grey. What you can see, when it’s visible, is very obviously a mid 90’s take on what the future should look like, which in this case is pretty much just like the mid 90’s. The direction is also poor, with action scenes lacking any kinetic energy (or sense of place - Keanu has a fight in a bathroom whilst another fight happens in the next room yet the two are totally disconnected), and the special effects, outside of that twee online stuff are suitably bad (including the projection work). The less said about the CGI fight/experience/brain melting mess at the climax of the film, the better. Things are not improved by Gibson’s woeful script, trying to sound like an edgier action movie from the late 80’s/early 90’s but failing badly at it. Lines that should have sparkled just limp out of the actors mouths. Expanding a novella in to a feature film hasn’t helped things here either and you end up watching the credits thinking that, although it was supposed to be a tale of the future, it’s all just complete bobbins, mother AI and all. But surely, you say, fine acting can save any film from these issues?

Still not the Internet in 2021 but with added VR gloves

Look, it’s easy to criticise Reeves for his acting career – aside from a few big (and I mean hugely successful) roles, he doesn’t get to show much range – and even then, you’re limited to Bill and Ted, Speed, Point Break, The Matrix and the John Wick series. Outside of those movies, well, it’s not good. True, his portrayal of Mnemonic isn’t as bad as his turn in Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (say that quickly five times!), but it’s not far off. The issue here is that Reeves doesn’t have any real character to play with. That’s the writing and the directing but still, he doesn’t come off great here. Personally, I think he was miscast but if we’re going for positives, maybe the best that can be said is that he’s at good playing a blank slate…

As for the rest of the cast, Dina Meyer gives it some welly as Jane, Henry Rollins is ok as Spider whilst both Takeshi Kitano and Denis Akiyama are suitably solemn as the bad guys. But there are a trio of cast members who define this film and how bad it is.

Ice-T gets the first mention – he’s terrible. I know that I said Reeves doesn’t show much range, but at least he has one. Ice-T plays only one character, and that’s Ice-T. His delivery is stilted and lines crash into every scene he’s in. Even when he’s trying to act hard, he comes across just like next door’s toddler would when trying to trash talk you.

Hey, man! Did you just drop one?

Then we have Udo Kier, a prolific German actor who for several years between 1993 and 2019 managed to get up to seven (7!) film credits per year! Now I have no problem with the guy working hard, but that does mean he’s starred in some absolute shite, and it’s no different here. The thing is, he’s not that bad in the actual film, just that his presence on a cast list pretty much tells you what to expect. As an aside, he’s in 2001’s “All the Queen’s Men” a WW2 action comedy where four male Allied agents infiltrate an all-women factory that produces Enigma machines. I never knew this existed and now I wish to see it just for the premise alone. His stand out performance, for me, remains Yuri in Command and Conquer Red Alert 2.

All the Queen's Men - not JM related but hey, it's LeBlanc!

Finally, we have Dolph Lundgren. Yes, he of Universal Soldier fame (and a Masters in Chemical Engineering, which I never knew before now!). He plays a religious zealot hitman and by God, it’s over the top. Think of the most ludicrous Panto dame you have ever seen, coke that lady up to the hilt and then start feeding her acid, and you might just approach what can only be described as an extraordinary piece of acting. It’s gloriously bad but also, at the same time, a marvellous performance. Not good for the film, but it sure makes watching it all the more enjoyable. Sad to say, this was Lundgren’s last cinema release until 2010’s The Expendables – all other efforts were direct to video efforts aside from a cameo in 2004’s Fat Slags. Yes, those Fat Slags. Yeah…

"Jesus" wept...

... and still weeping.

Is there anything else to criticise this film for? Erm, yeah – a dolphin. They have a tanked up crypto-enabled dolphin that neatly fits into the plot like I do in a Wilkinson-Sword advert. Plus it’s another on-screen dolphin that just annoys the crap out of me (think Flipper and bloody Darwin!). The last good TV dolphin said so long and thanks for all the fish way back in 1981.

So, Johnny Mnemonic, good film or bad? Well, it’s certainly not good, though if you watched this as a teenager, you might have a certain nostalgia for the look and style. Not for me though, as there are too many casting, production and stylistic flaws for that. It’s definitely worth a re-watch but more as a curio in the genre of “Internet” films of the period. In no way, however, does that make it a good film.