Rating: 
Summary: Defies Categorization
Review: I must admit, when this movie came out, I was not that interested in seeing it, as I imagined it was just a trendy, hipster, empty, neo-gothic "dark" movie, with about the same level of emotional and intellectual range as a Nine Inch Nails song. Wow, was I wrong. There's so many great, humanistic themes running through this movie, and despite it's darkness, it's incredibly optimistic about the positive potential of the human soul. Maybe this is best symbolized not in the hero, but in Keifer Sutherland's character--a weak, weasally man who sold out his own people--but who still spent years and risked his own safety to plot against the Strangers. I found Ebert's commentary to be very good, and especially agreed with his main theme that the effects in this film are in service to the story and the characters, not vice-versa as in most "FX" movies. Even though I'm a big Hong Kong movie fan, I found The Matrix to be too self-consciously hip, and I found Dark City to be a MUCH more satisfying version of a somewhat similar story.
Rating: 
Summary: Dark City owes a HUGE debt to Blade Runner
Review: Dark City, like most films, was not the best film ever, nor was it the worst film ever.I found much about the film appealing, such as the realization of the underlying concepts and ideas through crisp, clever scripting and snappy direction, the Oscar™-caliber cinematography and the skillful production design (including brilliant sets and gorgeous costumes). Likewise, I sincerely enjoyed watching William Hurt and Jennifer Connelly act in a film that played into their respective strengths as thespians (plus, it was highly agreeable to see Richard O'Brien appear in something other than Rocky Horror). Dark City also contained much that I disliked, the bulk of which I can sum up in five words: Keifer Sutherland's overly obvious "performance." Mr. Sutherland's blatant attempt to channel Peter Lorre was, in my opinion both fascinating and horrifying, an experience somewhat akin to picking a freshly healed scab. In no way, however, did Dark City ever come close to involving me even the tiniest fraction of the degree that a film like Blade Runner--VERY clearly a major inspiration for Dark City--has: truly, Blade Runner has engaged both my heart and my mind for almost 20 years. I believe Dark City owes a HUGE debt to Blade Runner for its noir look, its themes of identity and what it means to be human.
Rating:
Summary: very cool flick, but more for the die-hard sci fi fan
Review: Movie on its own is very good, well worth the purchase. It's science fiction meeting hard-boiled mystery ??? Not very common, and quite compelling. The so-called "bonuses" are quite disappointing. C'mon... 2 audion commentaries? One by Roger (can you say kickback?) Ebert? Yuck. I couldn't get the "find shell beach" game to work on my player or on my dvd-rom. Defective? False advertisement? Buy this dvd for the movie itself -- I deducted a star because of the poor/missing bonuses.
Rating:
Summary: A Film Definitely Worth Owning
Review: This stunningly visual film pays homage to "Blade Runner" and foreshadows aspects of "The Matrix." It tells it's story vividly, innovatively and with style. Those who say it's plot is derivative are right to a degree (elements of the storyline echo an early Twilight Zone episode among others), but the look and feel of the movie, coupled with superb performances, makes it all fresh. Some movies are worth renting ... this one is definitely worth owning.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting but somewhat muddled
Review: Dark City inevitably draws comparisons with The Matrix. Both films deal with a group of humans who do not realize they are being controlled by outside forces and both films feature a messianic figure who has the potential to free humanity from its enslavement. In the case of Dark City, a group of beings called the Strangers puts the human inhabitants of the city they have constructed to sleep every night and changes their memories and their surroundings in order to study them. Keifer Sutherland's character explains that the Strangers are dying and that they hope that by understanding what makes humans tick that they can somehow save themselves. However, I still fail to see what tangible benefits the Strangers derive from this and how it will save them. That is why I give Dark City 3 stars instead of 4. In The Matrix, the explanation for what was going on was a lot more convincing and practical. Rufus Sewell was good as John Murdoch, who has developed the Strangers ability to "tune" and slowly discovers what is happening in the city, but I could not help but notice that his left eye is bigger than his right eye, which makes his appearance somwhat disconcerting. Dark City's appeal is not as broad as that of The Matrix, though a segment of Dark City's fans will consider it to be superior to The Matrix. Some viewers of Dark City may be confused during the first half hour or so of the film, as it is not clear what is going on, as well as being turned off by the dark Gothic imagery, but it is worth sticking with to the end, when Murdoch realizes who he is and what he is capable of. The "creation" scene is visually stunning and contains a beautiful background score. Dark City borrows heavily from other sources (the Gothic imagery, the fim noir atmosphere) but manages to repackage it into something fresh and new. It is definitely worth seeing, particularly for sci-fi fans, though for me personally it is not the classic that it seems to be for some people.
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent, if misunderstood, noir masterpiece
Review: One of the problems I often encounter when reading reviews, and even writing them, are the inevitable comparisons. Many people, including professional critics, compared Dark City to such classic and modern masterpieces as Metropolis and Blade Runner, to name two of many. Rightly so, since Proyas used cinematographic quotation several times in this tale of a man caught up in a world run by mysterious alien beings, known as Strangers, who lurk beneath the city surface and have the ability to shape their laboratory maze any way they please. The story revolves around this man, John Murdoch (Rufus Sewel), as he learns the truth not only of the city but of his own existence. So, do we sound trite yet? Good. It should. As another reviewer pointed out, the story is less than original. What IS original, and what sets this movie apart from many others is the direction and the acting. In reality, Dark City is a noir movie set in a science fiction world and not the other way around. This is a problem that many science fiction fans encounter and immediately write the movie off. The director, Alex Proyas (The Crow), does an excellent job of keeping this movie walking the fine line between familiarity and originality. There is simply not one single frame or scene in the movie that doesn't reflect the meticulous attention to detail that Proyas once again demonstrates he is willing, even determined, not to overlook. Let me debunk here a moment. Some people I've talked with complained about the acting. I thought it was unbelievably well acted. Heres why. In this world, the denizens of the city fall asleep every midnight and the Strangers come through and reinvent most of their identity using an elaborate technology that is, thankfully, not explained in full detail in the movie. So what are we? Are humans the sum of our memories? As an individual, our personalities are determined by many of the events that helped shape our lives. They are a part of us, our memories, and we have had a lifetime to consider them. The denizens of Dark City do not have this luxury. They wake up one night and all their memories are new (even if they don't know it consciously). The acting reflects this complexity in its muted portrayal of characters. You get the sense that, as the movie progresses, the characters are still getting used to their own identity, and it really isn't until they've had the same identity for several nights in a row and can build up their own "real" memories that they seem to take on their own life and personality. Another complaint was the opening half hour or so. People were confused, they didn't know what was happening. Precisely Proyas's point. He used static camera angles that he switched between very rapidly, leaving no time for exposition throughout the first half hour of the film. This creates a sort of unnerving, confusing atmosphere for the viewer. What this does is help put the viewer into the frame of mind of the characters. In essence, they are experiencing the same dilemma. They woke up and suddenly they have memories and they see things they didn't know existed a moment before. As the movie progresses and we learn more of what is happening, the cameras slow down. We see some pans as we really come to understand, along with the characters, the full scope of the world in which they live. This movie will really draw a viewer in, and for many people that can be uncomfortable. I gave it four starts because the direction simply shines, and the attention to every tiny detail should be rewarded. But be warned. This is a noir movie in a scifi world. There will not be any chases, no super villains with pointless motivations. The Strangers are almost sympathetic villains. They are doing what they do because they are dying, not because of some type of sadistic morbid curiosity. The world is dark and slow and, like any great noir film, we are thrown into the middle of it side by side with the "normal guy" protaganist. Give this movie a shot, especially the DVD with its commentaries. If you open your mind, let yourself get into the mood of the movie, you won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing aesthetic overload!
Review: This movie is a treat visually, aurally and emotionally. The sets, makeup and special effects are incredible; the background music (which plays nearly non-stop) sets the mood and complements the action very well; and the story is captivating. I'm not a huge sci-fi fan, but Roger Ebert hit the nail on the head when he proclaimed this the best movie of 1998. And the DVD's extra features make this a must-own!
Rating: 
Summary: It's highly overrated.
Review: It appears that I am in the minority when it comes to DARK CITY because I was entirely underwhelmed. I recall that Siskel and Ebert raved about this movie when it was first released (in fact, Ebert charitably compared DARK CITY to BLADE RUNNER and named the flik as his top pick for that year), but I won't echo their sentiments. I agree with the ...review... style superseded substance, making this movie less a story than a showcase for special effects technology. If that's what you're looking for in your movies, then, by all means, don't miss DARK CITY. It was obviously made for F/X mavens and anyone who is into modern comic books. In fact, it looks like a comic book. Just think of Tim Burton's BATMAN movies or Warren Beatty's DICK TRACY. DARK CITY is full of computer-generated backdrops and pools of light surrounded by shadowy murk. However, if you're looking for great sci-fi story with respectable acting, you should probably just pop your copy of BLADE RUNNER in the VCR and give it another viewing. Among its many faults, DARK CITY, a pale pretender, lacks the organic lushness that made BLADE RUNNER cold, creepy and the best of its kind. DARK CITY's biggest flaw is that it takes a too long to develop a emotional connection between the audience and the hero, John Murdoch. For easily the first 45 minutes, the audience is left hanging, watching the story unfold as more characters join the party, puzzling over the strange events, and waiting for the movie to give us some hint as to what's going on. Then, by the time the movie finally gets around to filling you in on the joke, it's only to find out that the punch line of DARK CITY is a variation on the theme thousands of college freshman, at one time or another, have probably imagined in a moment of what they thought was profundity: What if we aren't really here? What if we're just the creations of the imagination of some crazy guy in a straitjacket, sitting in a padded cell somewhere?? Sure, I'll admit that idea was profound to me, too, when I first heard it as a young man, stoned on homegrown. But, at this point, it's just an overwrought kegger anecdote that doesn't do so much as raise an eyebrow among those who have read stories and watched movies that explored this theme much better. The acting also left much to be desired. In one of the worst miscastings I've ever seen, Kiefer Sutherland affects an unbelievable limp and a ridiculous breathless stammer that might have worked on a man over twice his age. In him, though, it came off like Igor in James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN. I was embarrassed for him. The Strangers (a/k/a scores of the emotionless alien clone character we've seen a bazillion times now) never gave me the shivers because they didn't do much other than stop clocks, rearrange furniture and make people fall asleep. Hell, I could say the same things about my ugly, old Aunt Judy. I'm giving the film two stars for the two (not necessarily worthy) reasons I didn't stop watching it or throw a brick at the TV: 1. I was introduced to Rufus Sewell. Handsome, intense and as sexy as they come, he would have been enjoyable even with the sound off. 2. Proyas, Dobbs and Goyer (responsible for writing the screenplay) stopped just short of inducing instant nausea at the end of the film when Murdoch admonishes Mr. Book (or Mr. Hand or Mr. Quick or whatever the hell his name was) for mistakenly looking in the human mind for the soul. For a moment filled with dread, I was certain that Murdoch was going to point to his heart and say what Proyas and his team ultimately, mercifully left inferred: "You should have looked in our hearts." Even the inference was sappy, but at least Murdoch didn't say the actual words. I think I would have vomited.<...
Rating:
Summary: A Matrix before The Matrix
Review: Seeing this masterful and imaginative dark odyssey on DVD has reminded me how completely the makers of THE MATRIX are indebted to Alex Proyas's earlier vision: in both films, the hero an unaware messiah figure who needs the help of outsiders to awaken him to his own true powers; the human race is held captive by hidden aliens who seek to control our very sense of reality; the telekinetic rebel is seeking a lost (perhaps imaginary) human paradise ("Zion" or "Shell Beach"), etc. etc. DARK CITY was there first, and the film is a small masterpiece of completely self-contained noir fantasy, brilliantly done.
Rating:
Summary: ! THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER !
Review: THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! SORRY SPIELBERG SORRY HITCHCOCK SORRY KUBRICK THIS IS, HANDS DOWN, THE WINNER.
|
