- The critically-acclaimed triumph from visionary director Alex Proyas (I, Robot, The Crow) is back with a brand new directors cut featuring enhanced picture and sound, never-before-seen footage and three commentary tracks that take you deeper than ever before into the world of one of sci-fis most exciting and revered tales. When John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes with no memory at the scene of a gri
The critically-acclaimed triumph from visionary director Alex Proyas (I, Robot, The Crow) is back with a brand new directors cut featuring enhanced picture and sound, never-before-seen footage and three commentary tracks that take you deeper than ever before into the world of one of sci-fis most exciting and revered tales. When John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes with no memory at the scene of a grisly murder, he soon finds himself hunted by the police, a woman claiming to be his wife and a mysterious group of pale men who seem to control everything and everyone in the city. Starring Rufus Sewell (The Illusionist), Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind), William Hurt (A History of Violence) and Kiefer Sutherland (TVs 24).If you’re a fan of brooding comic-book antiheroes, got a nihilistic jolt from The Crow (1994), and share director Alex Proyas’s highly developed preoccupation for style over substance, you might be tempted to call Dark City an instant classic of visual imagination. It’s one of those films that exists in a world purely of its own making, setting its own rules and playing by them fairly, so that even its derivative elements (and there are quite a few) acquire their own specific uniqueness. Before long, however, the film becomes interesting only as a triumph of production design. And while that’s certainly enough to grab your attention (Blade Runner is considered a classic, after all), it’s painfully clear that Dark City has precious little heart and soul. One-dimensional characters are no match for the film’s abundance of retro-futuristic style, so it’s best to admire the latter on its own splendidly cinematic terms. Trivia buffs will be interested to know that the film’s 50-plus sets (partially inspired by German expressionism) were built at the Fox Film Studios in Sydney, Australia, home base of director Alex Proyas and producer Andrew Mason. The underground world depicted in the film required the largest indoor set ever built in Australia. –Jeff Shannon
Buy “Dark City “ For Only $9.97
January 7, 2006
#1
I’d add “meets 28 Days Later” to the title, but that would be an insult to 28 days.
Wow. I can’t believe this movie got so many rave reviews. Maybe it would be useful if the reviews included the reviewers age.
To even mention Blade Runner in context with this movie is a joke.
We both fell asleep, twice!
They don’t make movies like they used to, thats for sure.
I wish I too could fight evil by pointing my forehead and issuing a “shockwave”.
Look for my copy to turn up soon, cheap.
If you’re an adult, best to skip this excersize in stupidity.
January 7, 2006
#2
This movie is god awful. True, the production design is outstanding, so incredible in fact that it ultimately only serves to chide and mock the poor viewer who was hoping for actual entertainment. The director has so little idea of how to make a film (not a computer graphic) that, in this so called, “Film Nior”, there is not a single moment of silence through the entire thing. The soundtrack works continuously and in vain to tie the horribly rushed and underdeveloped scenes together; so much so that for the first time in my life I thought I was having an anxiety attack. A dear friend of mine put it best by describing it as a 100 minute recap of last week’s episode. Everything is rushed, everything is wasted.
I will say that my wonderful friend Jeanette played one of the baddies, and she should really do more films. She was also in the Cheech Marin vehicle, “Shrimp on the Barbie”, which I would rather watch a thousand times than another minute of Dark City. That should begin to give you some idea of how unpleasant it really, truly is.
AVOID
January 7, 2006
#3
I am a lifelong, avid Sci-fi fan. I read all these reviews saying that this was some sort of cult classic, not true. Sadly those reviews must be from those that never watch anything BUT Sci-fi.
The movie was horrible, the story was scattered.
Not well done in any shape or form.
January 7, 2006
#4
Could I please have that 2 hours of my life back? I am one of the world’s biggest SCI-FI fans, and I thought this was utter (insert profanity of your choice here). Dark (as in impossible to see), unintelligible, and frustrating as hell.
January 7, 2006
#5
Like The Cell, Dark City is one of those movies that *tries* to get by on its visual effects–but unlike The Cell, it fails miserably. (The Cell also had a better storyline.) Example of “outstanding visual effects”: A guy puts a fish in a sink…and we see it from the THE SINK’S POINT OF VIEW! Wow! [Note the heavy use of sarcasm.] When will these boneheads who direct music videos realize that such “style” doesn’t translate to film effectively? David Fincher understood that; why can’t you guys?
As far as the “plot” goes, the movie starts off like a bad 80s PC adventure/role-playing game. You know the type–your character wakes up in a bathtub in a small, stark bathroom lit by a single lightbulb descending from the ceiling on a cord. On the seat next to him is a pair of boots and a trenchcoat. Type ‘Look coat’ to find a matchbook, a phone number, blah blah blah. Hey look, it’s David Goyer showcasing his weak writing skills! (Side note: Goyer’s Blade script wasn’t too bad, but have you ever seen the original ending to that flick? They had to call in a script doctor to perform an emergency feces-ectomy.) And what was the deal with the “ACME Plot-Resolver” in the form of a syringe filled with a mystery chemical that instantly “educates” your protagonist (in this case, the wall-eyed Rufus Sewell) so he can adequately fight the “ba(l)d guys”? That wins the award for the Single Dumbest Idea in Modern Film.
On top of all that, the acting was below average. Rufus “I do a good ‘confused guy’” Sewell was ok, but I don’t know what kind of accent Kiefer Sutherland was using for his ambiguously-scarred “mad scientist” character. And I’m sorry to say, Jennifer Connelly is nothing great–in terms of looks or acting skills–so she can’t even offer a decent T&A Quotient to elevate this movie to an ‘F+’.
To sum up, the writing is amateurish, the direction is poor, and the acting mediocre (at best). Other than that, it’s a great movie. Thankfully Roger Ebert and his *keen* critical skills saw through the myriad layers of bad filmmaking and placed it in the highly-coveted “Best Films of 1998″ category. [More heavy use of...oh, forget it.]