I just watched the Director's Cut a little while ago, and I love it. All the added bits and extended scenes peppered throughout were great, and I thought the audio soundtrack and video seemed even better than it was before. I even noticed some slight differences in the scoring, as well as dialogue (alternate takes maybe?) here and there too, not to mention the different vocal tracks used for Emma's two singing gigs. I didn't really notice any new fx, other than one shot when Murdoch is hanging from the building and there's an overhead shot and you see the street far below. Reminded me of the simliar shot in Blade Runner. And it goes without saying that Jennifer Connelly looked grrreat in this movie and has never looked better IMO. There were also a couple of additional shots of Melissa George, which were welcome. Overall, a great scifi movie has become even better.
My thoughts as well.....although she was quite stunning in Career Opportunities. Check that out if you have never seen it.
Hey, now. It's not Blade Runner. The voice over, although put in despite the wishes of Proyas, is pretty good. It's done by Kiefer Sutherland in the same Peter Lorre-ish way of speaking he uses for the entire movie, and is suitably dramatic sounding. It's also fairly short, and is nowhere near the film's principal problem - that's probably the rather goofy lengths that the final fight scene goes to. The problem with the voiceover is that it spoils the game too early - Dark City was meant to be a film where you didn't realise that it was a science fiction movie up until a certain point. Anyway, how are the effects? Honestly, the only thing I could see them redoing is to tone down the climatic battle. Dark City's effects in general have held up very well.
Over the weekend I finally watched Dark City (the original DVD release) for the first time. Wow! I loved it.
Good to know. To be fair, the critique of the voice over I've heard hasn't been that it's redundant and poorly written (like Blade Runner's voice over), but that it gives away the film's game before it even has a chance to do anything. But perhaps this isn't as dramatically mistaken a move as I'd been lead to believe.
No, it really was a terrible move. It's another classic case of the studios not giving the audience enough credit. I honestly don't think there's anything in Dark City that the average person wouldn't be able to comprehend on their own without someone holding their hand through the whole thing. The director's cut could have just removed the voiceover and it still would have been a vast improvement.
Awesome flick. I might have to pick this up. I discovered it about 4 years ago while channel surfing one night and had never even heard of it. It's one of the rare moments where my movie viewing was completely spoiler free, just like when I saw the Matrix for the first time.
There's a couple of big differences from The Matrix, which help give more appeal than that movie I think. Jennifer Connelly is much better than Carrie-Anne Moss. Shell Beach appeals to nostalgia instead of weltschmerz like The Matrix. But in the end, like Neo just coming back to life in The Matrix, Rufus Sewell just acquires superpowers. But in a sense the real heroes (The Oracle and Kiefer Sutherland's character) are someone else, who is ignored in the climax. It's kind of bizarre actually. I wonder if Dark City was less successful than The Matrix because the leads' identities were blurred. It was part of the premise of course, but did it make it hard for audiences to identify with anyone?
I like Dark City a great deal. I rate if far higher than the Matrix. I suspect, however, the reason the Matrix did so well is the Matrix had some of the best, and at that point in time, most inventive and fresh action set pieces ever put on screen. I'm not comfortable with the word "cool", but the movie was just plain cool.