Dark City

Honestly, the only reason I was originally interested in this movie was because Kiefer Sutherland was in it. Sutherland, as you know, is in 24 and is one of my favorite actors. (you may not know that but... oh well...) I soon realized that Kiefer is more of a supporting character in this film and suddenly the film became less interesting. But it was also an interesting concept and I'm in a sci-fi mood so I think it was time I finally went and watched this movie. 

Now, the unfortunate thing I think about watching this movie is that I think I saw the end of this movie. There's a big reveal in the end and I believe I saw this ending a long time ago when flipped to the movie while channel surfing. 

I also don't think I totally understood the genre of the film. I thought that it was just a science fiction movie when really it was a neo-noir sci-fi film. With a better understanding of noir from a class I took since the last time I saw the film, I think I can appreciate it a little bit more, but there's a lot to talk about with this film. 

Dark City starts with a man waking up in the bathtub, not able to remember who he is. In the

apartment he lives in he finds the body of a woman and soon is being pursued by the police, and a group of strange men.

The man figures out that his name is actually John Murdoch (played by Rufus Sewell). He finds himself realizing that he has psychic abilities and something is very wrong with the world he lives in. With the help of his apparent wife (played by Jennifer Connolly) Murdoch must avoid the police, a crack detective, (played by William Hurt) and the assassination attempts by the mysterious men in order to figure out who he is, what he can do, and what is the mystery behind the city he lives in that is perpetually in darkness.

The number one thing to mention is that this film was made in the 90's... and you can definitely tell. I'm not saying that good movies can't come out of the 90s, but the 90s were definitely an awkward time, especially for sci fi, especially if you weren't the Matrix or Terminator. Again, there were a lot of good movies, just a lot of bad and awkward ones as well.

The unfortunate thing is that there is a lot of good things with this movie... and at the same time there are a lot of kind of dumb things about this movie.

To me, its an interesting take on the neo-noir genre. But a lot of the times its feels very lazy and makes the character incredibly boring as they try to fit into that dark world that Noir always tried to do. I've seen noir done right, Dark City does not do Noir right.

And furthermore, the atmosphere and mood of the film makes it hard to watch.

The film is set in a city where it is always night. While this is never fully explained exactly how that is suppose to work and how nobody seems to figure it out, its not that bad of a setup. However, the visuals and overall feel of the film is inhibited by how freaking dark it is. There were times where I had a hard time figuring out what the hell I was looking at because the landscape and sets are so dark. When you see the effects, they look good. The film did a good job at utilizing technology at the time and I really enjoyed what I could see.

Rufus Sewell plays John Murdoch in the film. This is quite possibly the only thing I have seen Sewell in, and I'm really not impressed. He was boring and really delivered his lines in a very awkward way.

And to top it all off, Sewell is just strange in this film. I'm not sure if they're trying to make him into a Neo complex or what but his character wasn't exactly likable or interesting.

This movie really doesn't focus as much on character development as it does the plot and the twists. While I have some complaints about the plot itself, its an interesting concept and I think if it was done differently, it could have been a really good movie.

But when story can't hold you up, the best thing to fall back on is the performances of the main characters and they just don't hold water in this film.

Jennifer Connolly looks like she's going to fall asleep in the film and that's when she's actually doing things. Honestly, Connolly really just is a plot device for Sewell's character. She's there to be to move the plot along and there's really no connection between the two.

Then there's William Hurt. Now I think a long time ago I think I enjoyed William Hurt... but honestly I can't remember a single thing he's been in. I've seen a lot of film reviews that point him out to be bland, monotone, and more than likely just give a not so great performance. This movie kind of makes me agree with that. William Hurt isn't bad in the movie, but he also is far from good in this film. Its been a couple days since I've seen the movie and honestly I can't really remember exactly what Hurt did. He kind of is going through the same thing Murdoch is going through and there's something to dow with another cop that has gone crazy trying to figure out the secret behind the city.

This isn't me conceding and saying that William Hurt is a horrible actor... I'm just saying he's not that great in this film. He's just bland.

And then there's Kiefer Sutherland as Doctor Schreber. Now again, I don't wanna sound bias because honestly this was the only reason I wanted to watch this movie back in the day. Kiefer Sutherland to this day is one of my favorite actors. So call it bias or not, but I truly believe that Sutherland was the greatest part, though not a great part to begin with, of the film.

Schreber is a complex character. He is working with the Strangers to fulfill their evil plan and yet throughout the movie there's a sense that he is trying to help. You're not quite sure, until the end, who his allegiances truly lie with and he's very crafty throughout the film because he knows the truth about the city.

Sutherland plays this complexity well because on one hand he wants to free humanity but at the same time he wants to keep his bases covered so in case things don't go according to plan, he'll still be alive. Schreber is very much a coward in this film and Sutherland plays that coward role well, a huge diversion from his gruff and tough role as Jack Bauer.

That being said, the guy has his problems as well. I'm not sure why he had to have some kind of breathing problem and make his speech all weird. His character is not fully developed and even though he probably gives the best performance out of anybody, not even his performance can save this movie.

The whole movie is really glued together by the performance of Sutherland and the Strangers in the film... but its really the Elmer's Glue of a Science Fiction story.

The Strangers in theory are a really cool race of aliens and they are on a list of villains that are one of the most interesting villains I've seen in a sci fi film. They remind me of The Gentlmen from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or the Slenderman. Just manipulative and hidden from the real world. In theory, these guys are really, really cool. But of course in practice, they're just kind of weird.

First off there is their names. They've got these random nouns for names like, Mr. Book, Mr. Hand. Mr. Penguin, Mr. Microwave.

And then there's a demon kid? I don't know there wasn't much explanation as to who these people were, they were just evil aliens bent on manipulation and serving their own purposes. Again, the concept and plot of these guys are really, really interesting, but they're just not that great of villains. They seem weird and not exactly intimidating... except for the demon kid. And they're resolve isn't really that clear. Also their weaknesses are really strange. Like there's a part that Sutherland is like, they don't like Water... or sun... I guess... so you would think they would use that to fight these guys... Nope!

Now I was going to say that these guys basically ripped off Mr. Smith and the Agents from the Matrix... but the weird thing is this movie came out in 1998, The Matrix came out in 1999.

Now I really think/hope that the Matrix, one of the most original Sci Fi films of all time didn't take something as awesome as the Agents and someone as Awesome as Mr. Smith and rip it off from this pile of garbage like Dark City, but maybe there's a part of the Wachowskis that did just that. I don't know. But suddenly my argument of this movie changes a little bit with this knowledge of chronology.

The movie is still god awful, but I think there is a little bit of method and a lot of originality to the film that kind of set the stage for a lot of science fiction to come out in the future. Did it inspire the Matrix? Probably not. But Dark City is a strange film that probably deserves a little more credit than its given, but it has nothing to do with the characters, or the way that original story is executed.

The last thing I'll talk about is the effects... they're bad... it was the 90s, what do you expect? That's all.

So overall, I think Dark City is a complicated movie. The story is original and on paper, sounds really cool. I think I can understand why the film has a cult following. Again, I like the concept of the film and some parts of the story are done pretty well. But overall, the execution of that story was handled horribly, with horrible effects that don't stand up, horrible characters, and a lack luster reveal at the end that doesn't really make that much re-watch value, especially if the film building up that reveal isn't that great. Also the neo-noir style, while different and a step away from your run of the mill science fiction, is not executed properly and doesn't really pay that much omage to the style. I feel like I want to like Dark City, but there are too many elements that make it kind of a mess of a film.

But those are my thoughts on the film. Is there anybody that thinks this movie is an underrated masterpiece? I would like to hear a defense for this film. I've been trying to give it as much of a defense as I can but its very hard. Let me know. Comment and Discuss below.

I'll leave you with this. This movie doesn't really connect to Dark City... but I like this Cracked video... Its a Crack video, what do you expect? Enjoy!