All of Philip K. Dick's writings pre-date cyberpunk as a genre but were very influential in the creation of cyberpunk. So he represents a proto-cyberpunk period in time. Also, most of his books are about drug use and questioning reality.
When his books are only used as the foundation of a movie, amazing things can happen (Blade Runner, Minority Report, Total Recall). But when you create a faithful adaptation of his works it always ends up... kinda weird. A Scanner Darkly follows its source material very closely. So even though the movie was made in 2006, it really represents a proto-cyberpunk point in time. And it's all about taking drugs and questioning reality.
The movie has big-name actors (Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr, Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder) but the majority of the movie is just a bunch of junkies sitting around their house being weird. The rotoscoping animation style is really cool (and used to great effect here) but it isn't enough to get me to care about the story. I don't know, I guess I'd call this movie interesting but I'm not sure if it's good.
Here's a trailer. I don't think it's streaming anywhere though.
I understand this novel is practically a diary, but that doesn't mean it has to be a good movie.
I've read a lot of PKD's books and while i won't stop anyone from enjoying them, I personally felt like he had great ideas/worlds but struggled with telling a story in that world. So I'm not confusing the films made from his work with the actual work, I'm specifically only referring to the films. I think when films use his novels as a template for world-building, it turns out great. But attempting to accurately portray his novels on film tends to fall flat.
It's perfectly fine if you to disagree with me, but I wasn't making any comment about the novels or his writing style. I was only making broad generalizations of the film adaptations.
I'm specifically talking about the difference in time between when he wrote the story and when that film was made.
That is, one is pre- the conception of cyberpunk as a formal genre and the other is very much post- it.
I wasn't attacking anything you said, and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.
Also, I'm not saying anything about the quality of the films made of his work. I sort of agree with you. They make fine books, but film is a different form and requites different ways of exploring narrative. If anything his work acts as a good launching point to explore ideas in film, rather than acting as templates for a movie.