Future Imperfect explores the eight feature-length films based on the work of science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, particularly how the themes of his writing are translated for the cinema, “exposing how the transition from page to screen requires inevitable changes that make each adaptation a unique (although not always successful) work of art” (xvii). The chapters work well as case studies of the decisions made by filmmakers in the production of commercially viable film texts. Vest understands these films as dramatizations of the thematic and philosophical questions of the original texts, judging them on their fidelity to the concerns in Dick's writing and not their mimetic reproduction of events on the page.

Using Dick as an overarching interpretative frame presents a methodological conundrum. Rather than show that cultural texts emerging from specific historical moments and in different textual forms engender a variety of possible interpretations, Future Imperfect anchors the films' meanings in Dick's preoccupations, not the societies or industries that produced them. It becomes difficult to see these films as about anything other than America's slide towards authoritarianism, how identities and human nature are challenged by social and technological change, and the slipperiness of one's experience of reality, as illustrated by many of these films' ambiguous narratives. Vest calls these films “unique” (xvii) but through his interpretations they start to resemble each other uncannily.

Discussing Minority Report (2002), Vest suggests that academic criticism must grasp this film's subtleties as a “work of art” (118). In this vein, Vest frequently weighs up how successfully these eight films operate as art objects. Regardless of the desirability of this critical practice, proving that these films are “art” is very difficult. Vest gestures towards appealing performances, towards the question of how “honorable” an adaptation is (96), and towards the effectiveness of cinematographic technique. However, without offering an adequate definition of what “art” is, final judgement on the artistic status of these films remains deferred. Consequently, the promotion of these films' canonical value is unconvincing, but Vest's personal investment in these texts makes his book a pleasurable read. He invites one to return to these texts with renewed appreciation of the skills involved in their construction. On these terms Future Imperfect is a valuable addition to the field of adaptation studies.