DARK CITY war!!!

[RobertScorpio]

Six of us got together last night and watched the Director's BLURAY release of this movie...

I suggest the directors cut if you want to show this movie to someone who hasn't seen it. GONE is the narration at the start, where Sutherland explains (and gives away) the plot of the movie...

As for this movie? I LOVE this movie and find it far more entertaining than its cousin THE MATRIX. The Matrix is a good movie, but Dark City has style, and substance, and meaning, all over the Matrix. All six of us debated the DARK CITY vs MATRIX battle, with only two of us siding with Dark City as the better movie...oh well.

I also started another debate when I told them that Dark City was also better than last week's sleep inducing BLADE RUNNER...you know me..love to start a battle.

And as always, when we get together, there are side debates (its like BIG BANG THEORY). Last nights battle? Whether or not the Hisenberg Theory applies when discussing Transporters and Cancer. I just sat back and watched this battle, after asking the question. It was a JPL employee vs a Stanford graduate and the battle was exciting, and both did very good.

Anyway, I highly suggest you see this new directors cut of DARK CITY. Watch it with a fresh mind, and then watch Matrix (which we will do next week). And since we will be watching MATRIX next week, you gotta know the war will be re-ignited!!! I CANT WAIT!


Rob

 

[Kegg]

All six of us debated the DARK CITY vs MATRIX battle, with only two of us siding with Dark City as the better movie...oh well.

I also started another debate when I told them that Dark City was also better than last week's sleep inducing BLADE RUNNER...

I'd pretty much agree with both of those. I like Dark City better than Blade Runner, and also moreso than the Matrix. Dark City is a more obviously noir than Blade Runner with its appropriation of various (inconsistent) period details, and with a sci-fi plot whose premise seems to be constructed around the notions of noir - here, the sun literally never comes up - but that I think is a big part of the appeal. At least for me.

And I'd also recommend the director's cut, I rather liked that.

 

[T'Baio]

I think Blade Runner is better than Dark City, but Dark City is better than The Matrix. Dark City is one of my favourite science fiction films, though.

Trivia - did you know that some of the sets from Dark City were re-used in The Matrix?

 

[MyCylon]

I liked "Dark City" a lot when I saw it a few years ago. I certainly preferred it to "The Matrix" since I feel it simply makes better use of its premise or, to put it another way, there's more to it. However, I do prefer "Blade Runner" to both of those ones, largely thanks to the IMHO amazing atmosphere, imagery and music as well as Hauer's stellar performance.

I've been wanting to check out the "Dark City" director's cut for quite some time now. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. But it's definitely on my list of must-see movies.

 

[RobertScorpio]

We just BLADE RUNNER last firday, and I just think it doesn't age well. And some of the acting, IMO, is just okay. I think the atmosphere of Dark City trumps Blade runner's..

Rob

 

[Kegg]

It is a very eighties future (which has become something of Blade Runner's charm to me, really), and the acting quality varies, I'd agree.

 

[stonester1]

Blade Runner is my all time fav film. For me, it would then be Dark City, then The Matrix.

But I love all three films.

 

[Harvey]

I'd say the acting in Dark City and Blade Runner is at about the same level--there are some great performances, and some performances that are rather one note. I do like both films quite a bit, although Blade Runner has the edge. I think the conclusion of Dark City, basically a fight scene between superheroes (though it is well-executed and more complex than such a description gives it credit for), is a little less interesting than the film as a whole.

The Director's Cut is easily the better film, though. I've never seen the entirety of the Theatrical Version, but the pandering narration at the beginning is just stupid. Or, rather, it thinks the audience is just stupid.

The Matrix is at a place quite below either of these two films, though, at least in my estimation.

 

[auntiehill]

I think Blade Runner is better than Dark City, but Dark City is better than The Matrix. Dark City is one of my favourite science fiction films, though.

^This. I love Dark City and think it's terribly underrated.

 

[Too Much Fun]

We just BLADE RUNNER last firday, and I just think it doesn't age well. And some of the acting, IMO, is just okay. I think the atmosphere of Dark City trumps Blade runner's..

Rob

Bless you, Rob. I've been arguing with geeks on the Internet about "Blade Runner" for YEARS. Your comment makes me feel validated. I saw that movie in a science fiction film class in university. I love sci-fi, so I was incredibly excited to see it for the first time as I knew it was considered a classic. It ended up being one of the biggest movie disappointments of my life.

I thought the production design, make-up, and special effects were awesome but hated everything else about it. The acting, the story, and the narration all bored the hell out of me. I know there's a version without narration, but even without it, I would still find that movie an overrated bore.

As for "Dark City", I think it is brilliant and definitely more intelligent than "The Matrix", but I wouldn't call it entertaining. I thought it was more admirable just for being so original, moving, and powerful. What Kiefer Sutherland is forced to do with his memories is one of the most heart-wrenchingly disturbing things I've ever seen in a movie. It's a movie I deeply appreciate, but not one I would want to watch repeatedly for entertainment value. One viewing shook me up enough!

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

What does the director's cut of Dark City have over the initial release (which I quite enjoyed).

Does it flesh things out a little more or are there some startling revelations?

 

[Harvey]

From the director (and co-screenwriter) himself:

The general pace of the movie is quite different. The director’s cut more or less is the version I had originally sent out when I was first testing the movie. We had problems in testing and it’s why the studio had us add in the voice overs, which I thought was rubbish really! My instinct then was when something wasn’t playing right to speed it up and I’ve never been happy with that, so this version is back to a more leisurely and thoughtful pace it was meant to be. The voice over from the beginning is gone of course. There is also a few scenes added back that were ditched that I think are perfectly good scenes and I have no idea why we dropped them then.

I’m really happy with it! You’re allowed into the world more and you have more time with its characters. Literally almost every scene has another line of dialogue or stuff at the beginning or end. Some people may not notice a difference, but I think you should still feel a difference. I like it a lot more than the theatrical cut.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I like 'Dark City' over 'Blade Runner'....but equally to 'The Matrix.'

 

[MyCylon]

We just BLADE RUNNER last firday, and I just think it doesn't age well. And some of the acting, IMO, is just okay. I think the atmosphere of Dark City trumps Blade runner's..

Rob

I think probably one of the amazing things to me about Blade Runner's atmosphere is that I'll sometimes wander the streets of London, for example, taking in the sights and sounds, the people, feel the rain, and suddenly it's almost like being in the world of Blade Runner. In my mind, that movie capture incredibly well the feeling, the overwhelming power of a metropolis, a modern-day metropolis, with all the advancements as well as drawbacks our civilization has produced, condensed in urban form.

The movie's atmosphere feels very immersive to me. When I watch the movie, it just draws me right in, and I'm right there, in that fascinating and terrifying world (something I think it shares with today's big cities and which is something that draws me to them, I guess).

Interestingly, the first time I saw Blade Runner (I think it was the Director's Cut) I was very, very disappointed. I found it quite uneventful and boring. IIRC I saw it on video or on TV. It wasn't until I gave it another try when it was shown at a cinema close to where I lived that it simply clicked. I've been a fan of the film ever since then.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yeah, Dark City! One of my fav sci-fi movies. And it's certainly aged better than The Matrix. Dark City always wins the Dark City War.

 

[Reverend]

From the director (and co-screenwriter) himself:

The general pace of the movie is quite different. The director’s cut more or less is the version I had originally sent out when I was first testing the movie. We had problems in testing and it’s why the studio had us add in the voice overs, which I thought was rubbish really! My instinct then was when something wasn’t playing right to speed it up and I’ve never been happy with that, so this version is back to a more leisurely and thoughtful pace it was meant to be. The voice over from the beginning is gone of course. There is also a few scenes added back that were ditched that I think are perfectly good scenes and I have no idea why we dropped them then.

I’m really happy with it! You’re allowed into the world more and you have more time with its characters. Literally almost every scene has another line of dialogue or stuff at the beginning or end. Some people may not notice a difference, but I think you should still feel a difference. I like it a lot more than the theatrical cut.

You know it's strange, a lot of that could also apply to the Final Cut of Blade Runner too...

Though I REALLY like Dark City (much more than The Matrix) I have to say Blade Runner is still better IMO, partly by virtue of having gotten there first, way ahead of everyone else and partly because I felt that the story of Blade Runner had more of a soul than Dark City.

I suppose the endings to both films sum up their respective positions quite well. Dark City had the triumph of the human spirit over control and oppression while Blade Runner had a machine with more of a soul than most of the humans trying to kill him. Though both were executed very well, I find the latter somewhat more interesting.

 

[RobertScorpio]

From the director (and co-screenwriter) himself:

The general pace of the movie is quite different. The director’s cut more or less is the version I had originally sent out when I was first testing the movie. We had problems in testing and it’s why the studio had us add in the voice overs, which I thought was rubbish really! My instinct then was when something wasn’t playing right to speed it up and I’ve never been happy with that, so this version is back to a more leisurely and thoughtful pace it was meant to be. The voice over from the beginning is gone of course. There is also a few scenes added back that were ditched that I think are perfectly good scenes and I have no idea why we dropped them then.

I’m really happy with it! You’re allowed into the world more and you have more time with its characters. Literally almost every scene has another line of dialogue or stuff at the beginning or end. Some people may not notice a difference, but I think you should still feel a difference. I like it a lot more than the theatrical cut.

You know it's strange, a lot of that could also apply to the Final Cut of Blade Runner too...

Though I REALLY like Dark City (much more than The Matrix) I have to say Blade Runner is still better IMO, partly by virtue of having gotten there first, way ahead of everyone else and partly because I felt that the story of Blade Runner had more of a soul than Dark City.

I suppose the endings to both films sum up their respective positions quite well. Dark City had the triumph of the human spirit over control and oppression while Blade Runner had a machine with more of a soul than most of the humans trying to kill him. Though both were executed very well, I find the latter somewhat more interesting.

Umm..I don't get the love for Blade Runner's story about androids. What was it doing that Asimov, or heck TREK TOS, hadn't skirted around yet?

DARK CITY, with its message about the uniqueness of each of us, is far more compelling to me because I am not an android, I'm a human, like Dark City's John Murdock.

Harrison Ford's Deckard just isn't compelling, to me, and Rutger Hauer is just, IMO, grossly miscast in this role.

Rob

 

[T'Baio]

[
Umm..I don't get the love for Blade Runner's story about androids. What was it doing that Asimov, or heck TREK TOS, hadn't skirted around yet?

Doesn't that question answer itself? It had skirted around. You've never seen a movie that touched on a topic real quick and you thought to yourself; "I really wish they had pursued that in more depth?" Heck, I get that thought every five minutes in the Matrix sequels, so much was hinted at then left behind. Blade Runner took some of those skirted ideas and focused on them, all the while presenting them in a cinematic package that was for the most part unlike anything ever seen at the time.

 

[Kegg]

Harrison Ford's Deckard just isn't compelling, to me, and Rutger Hauer is just, IMO, grossly miscast in this role.

Well, Ford plays Deckard as confused and bored in a lot of scenes (I'm not even sure 'plays' is the right word) and Rutger Hauer mostly camps it up as Roy.

I'm tempted to compare him to a far more hilariously camp performance - "I will kill you!" - but I'd rather not, he's not that over-the-top. I suppose the intent is that Roy is still emotionally a child - a four year old, really - and he has a child's imtemperance and vulernabilities.

Comparing the souls, I'd say Dark City has a little more of one, though both films benefit enormously from their atmosphere and style, and sense of place, often overriding the particulars of the plot.

 

[MyCylon]

Harrison Ford's Deckard just isn't compelling, to me, and Rutger Hauer is just, IMO, grossly miscast in this role.

Well, Ford plays Deckard as confused and bored in a lot of scenes (I'm not even sure 'plays' is the right word) and Rutger Hauer mostly camps it up as Roy.

I'm tempted to compare him to a far more hilariously camp performance - "I will kill you!" - but I'd rather not, he's not that over-the-top. I suppose the intent is that Roy is still emotionally a child - a four year old, really - and he has a child's imtemperance and vulernabilities.

Comparing the souls, I'd say Dark City has a little more of one, though both films benefit enormously from their atmosphere and style, and sense of place, often overriding the particulars of the plot.

Miscast? 'Camp'? Seriously?

Suffice it to say I'm absolutely baffled. IMHO Hauer's is perfect for the part, and absolutely nails it. His performance is absolutely amazing and far from anything I'd want to refer to as 'camp' or 'campy'.
One of the most amazing things about his performance in my opinion is the way he manages to portray this highly-capable leader figure that is, at the same time (and as you point out, Kegg) emotionally underdeveloped or as developed as a child. He's incredibly strong yet amazingly vulnerable at the same time. Add to that the fact that he has the heart of a poet (on some level), and I personally don't see how one would not consider Hauer's performance amazing.