← Back to Reviews
in
Dark City
WHY'D I WATCH IT?
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN DARK CITY,
STOP READING AND GO WATCH IT.
I have very complicated feelings on Dark City. Mainly because it seems like an accident.
Collectively written by David S. Goyer (Dark Knight, yay! Dark Knight Rises, boo!), Alex Proyas (The Crow, yay! Knowing, boo!), and Lem Dobbs (Kafka... I need to see Kafka...), Dark City is awash in uncertainty.
It was even heavily cut down from it's original version because "people wouldn't get it".
I'm really not sure who those people would be because there's little to get. It's a Sci-Fi Fantasy Neo-Noir Paranoia Thriller, OBVIOUSLY I MEAN COME ON WE'RE NOT MAKING THINGS TOO COMPLICATED HERE.
Unlike say... an arthouse movie, Dark City's intentions are pretty transparent: It's there to put you in a mood, that tingly feeling you get when you read one of those cheap Orwellian sci-fi paperbacks with the bittersweet ending that's pleasant in the moment, but staggering in the scope of it's implication.
Dark City feels like The Matrix taken in a different direction. Where The Matrix dwells on the action and general ideas of skepticism, Dark City toys with themes of memory, individualism, and paranoia.
The theme of paranoia is a particularly strong aspect of the movie because every narrative thread seeks to tug at the corners of reality and unravel the mass deceit the protagonist finds himself in. He finds the walls of his cage and he's stalked by the supernatural "Strangers" who echo X-Files-style g-men in every sense.
The theme of individualism is explored in how the Strangers themselves act like a hivemind and even routinely shifted everyone's memories around to present them with a new reality. Are who we are purely a product of our own history? Yes and no. History shapes our relationships and interpretations, but it only tempers our personality.
The theme of memory is the capstone of this movie and it's presented in contrast to the development of our protagonist with the regression the city and it's occupants around him. There's a nostalgia for things as they once were, but it's established that what once was wasn't always what it might have been and what it might have been may not have ever even been true.
It's a daunting feeling, to emotionally cling to something that never will be or may have never been. It really isn't a happy ending. Just as John's happy memories remain unrequited, the feeling of freedom is crushed and left to fester in the knowledge that the Dark City is was and only ever will be a spot in the void. A carving of life amidst nothing, strangled, and left to stagnate.
It sounds really ****ing depressing when you think about it and perhaps that will be a lot of peoples' takeaway from this movie, but I loved the ideas this movie played with. I remember the first time I watched it it really didn't leave much of an impression on me beyond, "it's okay", but watching it now really makes me think and gives me a huge rush of nostalgia for that brand of sci-fi that TRULY explored these ideas, that fed you imagination, that pulled those emotional chords, and made you think.
The overaching themes, the grim style, the subtle music, the solid editing, and even a couple hammy performances made for a very engaging movie.
So engaging that's it was honestly challenging to step back and assess it critically.
One thing's for the sure: the plot is certainly flawed.
Why would a kid who witnessed her mother's murder stay in the room and just sit around drawing the crime?
When and how did John's wife ever get the address of the prostitute he visited in the first place?
How did she and the detective EVER manage to find John, let alone with the awareness of people who understand the significance of midnight and the Strangers?
That's just too damn convenient. WAY too damn convenient for the plot. I don't buy it. The romance glommed onto the side of the movie is naturally off-kilter too with a particularly cheesy scene in which John breaks the glass wall of a visitor booth to kiss his not-really-wife which she doesn't react to at all.
At the end of the movie I was just WAITING for John to point at his heart and go, "You should have looked here". Fortunately he doesn't, but it's implied, and that's bad enough.
Narratively, Dark City is, shall we say... flimsy, but it's strong points shine through even if the end of the movie does get a bit carried away with itself with a goofy telepathy fight. Up until then it's a fantastic example of reticent CGI. The effects are hugely important in selling the concept.
Minus points for the goldfish and mice, bonus points for the spirals. I like spirals.
All in all it looks to me like a modern classic. Made by some extremely unreliable filmmakers.
Final Verdict: [Friggen' Awesome]
REWATCH UPDATE 7/22/2021:
So I've decided to rewatch Dark City. Reason being that I've always been skeptical of my own perspective on it, and as you can read above, I've oscillated pretty heavily on my opinion, and this serves to reiterate that fact.
Prior to rewatching this movie I rewatched Titanic, a movie I've always had reservations about and I got the same experience watching that as I do every other time I watch it: It's ****ing great and it makes me cry.
But unfailingly, that's the result of a deeply interwoven combination of very different elements; music, setting, characters, acting, tension, payoff, direction. James Cameron's movies click with me harder than most any other director I watch (up until they make Avatar). Alex Proyas is much less consistent and in a movie like Dark City where they need to assemble far more elements to deliver a provocative story, or "film experience" than in say, The Crow, it's clear to see that James Cameron's movies just deliver that narrative flow so much better.
Rewatching Dark City, I do not at all share the same blown-away feeling as I did when I first reviewed this, and I'm leaning more towards the "it's okay" feeling I had prior. I think the reason is that I can infer a sense of deprivation from my review wherein the semi-surreal ultra-cosmic-dread feeling was oft overlooked in sci-fi movies.
Not that it is any better represented now, arguably it's worse, but I feel like I was able to isolate those elements which I may be granting a free "good movie" review and assessing the overall experience excepting the particular flair I'm biased towards.
What I'm left with is a little neo-noir fantasy thriller that really only ever presents me an enjoyable performance when Mr. Hand is on screen to chew scenery. It seems too quick and liberal with it's showing of the antagonists plotting behind the scenes and overall I was pretty unimpressed with the sets which far too often were just darkly lit dank industrial areas. The movie even makes a point to say that the environment is all randomized based on memories of different time periods, but I honestly didn't notice this anachronism at all and the environment could have been heavily exploited to reflect that, adding even more to the off-kilter world and the strangeness of it's inhabitants not noticing it's inconsistencies.
Something that's also not made clear, but central to the movie is the main character's ability to "chune". Why did he get this ability? How did he awaken to it? It's implied that it's like an evolutionary quirk, but the movie also says he's been imprinted and reimprinted with new memories countless times.
If the Strangers only cared about discovering the product of HIS soul, this would be much more like The Truman Show, and much less Planet of the Apes.
Anyway, I've had this movie set aside separately for a while with the intention to rewatch it and revise my opinion on it, and my opinion is now to drop it a rating and remove it from my favorites. Fine movie, but it is not the quality of psychological thriller I prefer.
Final Verdict: [Good]
Dark City
Sci-Fi Psychological Thriller / English / 1998
WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Originally Posted by Thursday Next
Dark City > Logan's Run
Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Dark City seems like the kind of movie Omnizoa would like.
WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN DARK CITY,
STOP READING AND GO WATCH IT.
I have very complicated feelings on Dark City. Mainly because it seems like an accident.
Collectively written by David S. Goyer (Dark Knight, yay! Dark Knight Rises, boo!), Alex Proyas (The Crow, yay! Knowing, boo!), and Lem Dobbs (Kafka... I need to see Kafka...), Dark City is awash in uncertainty.
It was even heavily cut down from it's original version because "people wouldn't get it".
I'm really not sure who those people would be because there's little to get. It's a Sci-Fi Fantasy Neo-Noir Paranoia Thriller, OBVIOUSLY I MEAN COME ON WE'RE NOT MAKING THINGS TOO COMPLICATED HERE.
Unlike say... an arthouse movie, Dark City's intentions are pretty transparent: It's there to put you in a mood, that tingly feeling you get when you read one of those cheap Orwellian sci-fi paperbacks with the bittersweet ending that's pleasant in the moment, but staggering in the scope of it's implication.
Dark City feels like The Matrix taken in a different direction. Where The Matrix dwells on the action and general ideas of skepticism, Dark City toys with themes of memory, individualism, and paranoia.
The theme of paranoia is a particularly strong aspect of the movie because every narrative thread seeks to tug at the corners of reality and unravel the mass deceit the protagonist finds himself in. He finds the walls of his cage and he's stalked by the supernatural "Strangers" who echo X-Files-style g-men in every sense.
The theme of individualism is explored in how the Strangers themselves act like a hivemind and even routinely shifted everyone's memories around to present them with a new reality. Are who we are purely a product of our own history? Yes and no. History shapes our relationships and interpretations, but it only tempers our personality.
The theme of memory is the capstone of this movie and it's presented in contrast to the development of our protagonist with the regression the city and it's occupants around him. There's a nostalgia for things as they once were, but it's established that what once was wasn't always what it might have been and what it might have been may not have ever even been true.
It's a daunting feeling, to emotionally cling to something that never will be or may have never been. It really isn't a happy ending. Just as John's happy memories remain unrequited, the feeling of freedom is crushed and left to fester in the knowledge that the Dark City is was and only ever will be a spot in the void. A carving of life amidst nothing, strangled, and left to stagnate.
It sounds really ****ing depressing when you think about it and perhaps that will be a lot of peoples' takeaway from this movie, but I loved the ideas this movie played with. I remember the first time I watched it it really didn't leave much of an impression on me beyond, "it's okay", but watching it now really makes me think and gives me a huge rush of nostalgia for that brand of sci-fi that TRULY explored these ideas, that fed you imagination, that pulled those emotional chords, and made you think.
The overaching themes, the grim style, the subtle music, the solid editing, and even a couple hammy performances made for a very engaging movie.
So engaging that's it was honestly challenging to step back and assess it critically.
One thing's for the sure: the plot is certainly flawed.
Why would a kid who witnessed her mother's murder stay in the room and just sit around drawing the crime?
When and how did John's wife ever get the address of the prostitute he visited in the first place?
How did she and the detective EVER manage to find John, let alone with the awareness of people who understand the significance of midnight and the Strangers?
That's just too damn convenient. WAY too damn convenient for the plot. I don't buy it. The romance glommed onto the side of the movie is naturally off-kilter too with a particularly cheesy scene in which John breaks the glass wall of a visitor booth to kiss his not-really-wife which she doesn't react to at all.
At the end of the movie I was just WAITING for John to point at his heart and go, "You should have looked here". Fortunately he doesn't, but it's implied, and that's bad enough.
Narratively, Dark City is, shall we say... flimsy, but it's strong points shine through even if the end of the movie does get a bit carried away with itself with a goofy telepathy fight. Up until then it's a fantastic example of reticent CGI. The effects are hugely important in selling the concept.
Minus points for the goldfish and mice, bonus points for the spirals. I like spirals.
All in all it looks to me like a modern classic. Made by some extremely unreliable filmmakers.
REWATCH UPDATE 7/22/2021:
So I've decided to rewatch Dark City. Reason being that I've always been skeptical of my own perspective on it, and as you can read above, I've oscillated pretty heavily on my opinion, and this serves to reiterate that fact.
Prior to rewatching this movie I rewatched Titanic, a movie I've always had reservations about and I got the same experience watching that as I do every other time I watch it: It's ****ing great and it makes me cry.
But unfailingly, that's the result of a deeply interwoven combination of very different elements; music, setting, characters, acting, tension, payoff, direction. James Cameron's movies click with me harder than most any other director I watch (up until they make Avatar). Alex Proyas is much less consistent and in a movie like Dark City where they need to assemble far more elements to deliver a provocative story, or "film experience" than in say, The Crow, it's clear to see that James Cameron's movies just deliver that narrative flow so much better.
Rewatching Dark City, I do not at all share the same blown-away feeling as I did when I first reviewed this, and I'm leaning more towards the "it's okay" feeling I had prior. I think the reason is that I can infer a sense of deprivation from my review wherein the semi-surreal ultra-cosmic-dread feeling was oft overlooked in sci-fi movies.
Not that it is any better represented now, arguably it's worse, but I feel like I was able to isolate those elements which I may be granting a free "good movie" review and assessing the overall experience excepting the particular flair I'm biased towards.
What I'm left with is a little neo-noir fantasy thriller that really only ever presents me an enjoyable performance when Mr. Hand is on screen to chew scenery. It seems too quick and liberal with it's showing of the antagonists plotting behind the scenes and overall I was pretty unimpressed with the sets which far too often were just darkly lit dank industrial areas. The movie even makes a point to say that the environment is all randomized based on memories of different time periods, but I honestly didn't notice this anachronism at all and the environment could have been heavily exploited to reflect that, adding even more to the off-kilter world and the strangeness of it's inhabitants not noticing it's inconsistencies.
Something that's also not made clear, but central to the movie is the main character's ability to "chune". Why did he get this ability? How did he awaken to it? It's implied that it's like an evolutionary quirk, but the movie also says he's been imprinted and reimprinted with new memories countless times.
If the Strangers only cared about discovering the product of HIS soul, this would be much more like The Truman Show, and much less Planet of the Apes.
Anyway, I've had this movie set aside separately for a while with the intention to rewatch it and revise my opinion on it, and my opinion is now to drop it a rating and remove it from my favorites. Fine movie, but it is not the quality of psychological thriller I prefer.
Final Verdict: [Good]