The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[LOLtron]

Dark City (1998)
Directed by Alex Proyas, Starring Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, and Jennifer Connelly

I hadn’t watched Dark City in many years, when I decided to pop it in this week, and I wondered first of all if I would still in enjoy it as much as I once did. The film has had a devoted following amongst science fiction and fantasy fans since its release, though it wasn’t a box office success at the time (in spite of generally positive reviews). I had picked it up on VHS, but never upgraded my copy to DVD or Blu-ray (I rented a DVD copy).

The opening narration spills all the secrets: the Strangers are a dying race and studying us because they believe we may hold the key to their continued existence. John Murdoch wakes up in a hotel bath tub to find out he has no memories and that there is the body of a dead, carved up prostitute on the floor beside the bed. Fleeing the scene he is stopped by the clerk who tells him that the automat has called. He’s left his wallet there. The wallet leads him to his home, a wife who’s cheated on him, and a psychiatrist who’s been helping him deal with the breakdown of his marriage. If he’s off to a bad start, it only gets worse as he discovers strange powers and encounters the Strangers themselves, all while trying to figure out who he is and how to elude the police.

It’s at these times that the movie is strongest. Proyas has assembled a strong cast and the story works best when puzzling over koans like, how do you get to Shell Beach? But in the second half of the movie story development is given over to a series of chase and fight scenes (which largely translates into people staring really hard at each other) and it just isn’t as interesting. It rests on atmosphere and set design, which become somewhat repetitive after a while. I mean, how many noir-ishly lit streets does one need? In the end Sutherland’s character comes up with an impressive way to save the day, but it’s used to generate a conventional comic book ending (read: principle characters hitting one another).

A good movie if you’re looking for something different, or want to entertain a SF fan (though they’ve probably already seen it); but it’s an uneven film.

NOTE: This film shares with The Matrix the ideas that the world isn’t what it seems and that we’re being controlled by malevolent forces. Dark City was released first, thirteen months before the Wachowski Brothers film.

Originally Pubished at: David Bird



http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/blogs/david-birds-blog/16865-dark-city.html/

[Zechs]

You should see the Director's Cut. Removes the opening that spoils everything. And the Matrix just doesn't share the same "ideals" they used the same sets. That opening rooftop chase in the Matrix? That was the same set from Dark City.

[habitual]

I agree with Zechs, the Directors cut is the one that should really be reviewed.

I believe it was Ebert's favorite movie of 1998.

Hab

[doombug]

It's a really good movie. Definitely a favorite of mine.

[Doc Jon]

Very good film and definitely shares a lot with the Matrix, as does the Crow.

[Cat-Scratch]

I always liked the editing of the film. The constant perspective change every few seconds gave the film a very nervous and energetic feel. Also, made it damn creepy and that more surreal.

[Benderbrau]

Always loved this movie. Great to see more people have discovered it.

[David Bird]

I agree with Zechs, the Directors cut is the one that should really be reviewed.

I believe it was Ebert's favorite movie of 1998.

Hab

I think director's cuts are interesting, but the theatrical release is the primary version of a film. DVD is changing that, but for the most part I think its still true.

[LobsterJ]

good movie, havent seen it in years.

[Benderbrau]

I think director's cuts are interesting, but the theatrical release is the primary version of a film. DVD is changing that, but for the most part I think its still true.

I disagree. Quite often the theatrical version is simply the version that the financiers either bullied the director into releasing or changed behind the director's back.

[Cernunnos]

I'm a fan of Dark City as well. I need to get off my butt and buy the Director's Cut sometime.

[David Bird]

I disagree. Quite often the theatrical version is simply the version that the financiers either bullied the director into releasing or changed behind the director's back.

I appreciate that there are two sides to this debate, so I am happy to agree to disagree on this one*, but for decades we got one version of a movie and it was the movie, period--a common point for all viewers and discussion. Most director's cuts don't really make any substantial differences (though removing the opening narration to this one could only help).

*That sounds a little out of place here, doesn't it?

[Cat-Scratch]

I disagree. Quite often the theatrical version is simply the version that the financiers either bullied the director into releasing or changed behind the director's back.

That and timing issues. The cinemas don't always like long running films because they cut into the profits with fewer playing times. Hence the 1 and half hour lengths plus the two hour limits.

[Zechs]

One of the few movies I'd double dip because it's just so great. I'm kind of peeved missing it in the theaters but the moment it came out on VHS I nabbed it.

[Greg]

I always see this movie in portions and pieces and think I've seen most of it like that. I've yet to ever catch and watch this in one complete setting.