MovieChat Forums > Dark City (1998) Discussion > One of the worstly aged movie in the his...

One of the worstly aged movie in the history of cinema?

posted 13 years ago by poisonborz
101 replies | jump to latest

I've just watched this based on the score, and... firstly I don't want to repeat Dark City's faults, the bad acting, laughable background, plot inconsistencies, and everything else is neatly detailed in other threads.

But still, it has a score of 8.7 from nearly 90.000 people, and with IMDB's reputation for trustworthy scoring this got me thinking. I clearly remember walking out from Titanic in '97 thinking this was my greatest cinematic experience ever. That thought changed pretty rapidly of course since then, not because of the plot, but because the film was so much a product of its age. Shortly after Dark City came Matrix, and the whole genre of part sci-fi part action-movie changed forever. I wonder what score I would have given it in '98.

[–] zoi_no_miko 13 years ago

Did we watch the same movie? I think it's aged very well, the acting was very good and appropriate to the characters (How do you play someone whose identity has just been created by some scientist the night before? Really?) and that the CGI updates to the directors cut were the perfect touch.

But then again, I thought the Titanic was a piece of contrived glitzy rubbish.

[–] ta2me92704 13 years ago

You are entitled to your incorrect ideas.

The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.

[–] Magovani 13 years ago

I, too, think the movie has aged well. And I love that it incorporates a mixture of several different time periods.

I hate to admit this, but I couldn't even make it all the way through Titanic.

[–] zoi_no_miko 13 years ago

Also, OP used the word "worstly"... which should explain everything.

[–] NovaIncognito 12 years ago

Another idiot who thinks grammar has any link whatsoever to intellect. Grammar is learned, therefore "knowledge," and knowledge and intellect are two ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS. I am sorry if your lack of knowledges is the reason you are unaware of this. Also, because correct grammar is accumulated knowledge, in order for you to use a person's grammar to try to establish their intellect, you would have to know what that person's native language is, and how much time that person has spent using their intellect to sharpen their skills of said language.

So, basically, the fact that you think someone making a grammatical error has any impact on their intellect or the insightfulness of their opinions or philosophies only really points out that YOU are no better than the poster as far as knowledge goes, only, the problem is, you don't know it and therefore going around thinking you are much smarter than you actually are. Pitiful.

Sorry, no animals in the discussion hall. You have to dismount your high horse to participate.

[–] xgruntlord6 12 years ago

Bahahaha YEAH! Let it all out, tell him why you mad oh white knight! Great job replying to an almost one year old post, you kids are just so sensitive and get toyed with so easily on here. I thank you for the good laugh though my dude. I hope you can pout out another essay or two about all your butthurt, offtopic frustrations towards mine and the other poster's "ignorance." hahaha, oh man, what a joke

[–] z_dude_here 11 years ago

This should win a Razzie for worst attempt at reason. lol

[–] jrcanary-1 11 years ago

Oh do shut up, you self righteous clown.

[–] Caractacus23 10 years ago

"Another idiot who thinks grammar has any link whatsoever to intellect. Grammar is learned, therefore "knowledge," and knowledge and intellect are two ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS."

Yes, yes, yes, this is all technically true (albeit quite boring and inane), but more importantly, it misses the HUGE correlation that does, in fact, exist between those who use proper grammar, and those of relatively high intelligence (as well as the corresponding correlation, between those who don't employ proper grammar, and who tend to be rather dull-witted). So if you're so smart, why would you want to sound like an idiot?

Here's a suggestion: Grow up, quit acting like a petulant child when one of your betters corrects you, and learn to speak & write properly. Don't sit at the adults' table unless you're ready to do so, kid.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 9 years ago

Grammar is learned, therefore "knowledge," and knowledge and intellect are two ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS.

And learning is a sign of intellect.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] parknourie 9 years ago

Hilarious!

Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down and a Wagging Finger of Shame

[–] brucedgo 9 years ago

Would you ever say "worstly"? If not, why not?

Timmie, if you don't bring that rocketship back this instant, you'll get the spanking of your life!

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago



[–] brainbuster888 8 years ago

Grammar and usage (or abusage) are two "ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS," as you put it.
And "worstly" falls under neither category. A made up word is not incorrect grammar--it's not grammar at all.
It's just not a word.
This is a vocabulary issue.

When someone invents a new word (as apparently I so cleverly did above with "abusage," since this is underlining it in red as I type), it either means the person is a genius with a remarkable facility with language (as in my case), or the person has a limited vocabulary and is too lazy to think of or google the right word (as in your case).

In short, it usually does reflect intellect, or character.
If you have a limited vocabulary, then you could have fixed it by reading the dictionary. Simple. If you did not do that, then you are lazy.
If you never read the dictionary, you cannot complain when others call you out on your failure to communicate.

And one more thing..
The thing I hate more than anything
on imdb is reading everyone's signature.

[–] StoneGriffin 12 years ago

ta2me92704 wrote: You are entitled to your incorrect ideas.

HAHAHA. LOL. So true.

The OP has it so wrong. This being a post modernist film noir of non-specific time and place, how can it age badly? The world that the strangers create is an artificial place stuck in the 1940s, by design! I wonder how old the OP is? Is he a kid? Does his only reference to films start with "The Matrix" and move forward to works like "Speed Racer"? ;)

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.

[–] zombies98 13 years ago

I agree this is just a terrible Matrix ripoff

[–] ta2me92704 13 years ago

Hey Einstein, Dark City was made before Matrix...

The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.

[–] gtfo-78-427994 13 years ago

ROFL! I always figured the matrix was around before 1999! It's all a lie I tell you!

[–] MightyMad 12 years ago

The Matrix came out in March of 1999.
Dark City, in February of 1998.

You, my friend, are an idiot.

[–] McDrinky 12 years ago

Not to nitpick, but just to prove a point, just because a movie is PUBLISHED in 1999 doesn't mean it wasn't written 5, 10, or even 20 years before. That gives people plenty of time to rip it off.

[–] JohnnyWrong 11 years ago

The Matrix was itself a ripoff of Ghost In The Shell. That was 1995.

And Dark City is FAR superior to The Matrix.

[–] kwgtoh 11 years ago

considering that the matrix borrowed sets from dark city for fliming instead of sueing the pants off dark city. i really doubt that there was any rip off

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Not to nitpick, but just to prove a point, just because a movie is PUBLISHED in 1999...

Sorry I have to nitpick. Movies are released not published. After seeing the OP's thread title, I just can't help myself.

[–] Soodinum 12 years ago

Your parents are siblings, eh?

Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.

[–] ridge-m-1 9 years ago

Dumb ass!

[–] ivs4 13 years ago

Totally agree with you! I barely made through the whole movie.

[–] dols 13 years ago

Wait until you go back and watch 12 Monkeys again..

[–] Semisonic 10 years ago

Now that got me thinking... Especially since the only time i saw 12 Monkeys i thought it was a very well made surreal piece of brilliance.

But honestly, 16 years from 1998, Dark City does look quite shabby. I can definitely see the potency of ideas the creators tried to put into this, but the overall implementation doesn't impress much, especially after what The Matrix did to the "reality vs illusions" concept.
These days, Dark City could even pass as an art house flick, but all the lame action scenes spoil that type of fun as well. Too bad.

[–] Orion775 10 years ago

12 Monkeys holds up very well...

[–] immanji 13 years ago

Just thinking about this movie makes me want to throw up. wait a minute....

I must be gone and live, or stay and die.

[–] patrick-413 13 years ago

No, quite the contrary it's gotten better on repeat viewings. The acting is wonderful except for Sutherland, and the cinematography and Art Direction are perhaps some of the best in the history of film.

[–] dunker56 13 years ago

How can it be a ripoff of the matrix when it preceded it?

I watched it when it came out thinking it was very average, i re-watched it today (directors cut, it had been so long i had forgotten most major plot points) and have to say i enjoyed it very much.
Main gripe today is it lacks the CGI we have today, but I appreciate what it was doing.
And enough with the comparisons with the matrix, yes matrix is awesum, ground breaking, but ffs just accept different films and the direction they take without comparing constantly zzzzz.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 12 years ago

I have to disagree with your criticism of Sutherland, I especially liked his character. He reminded me of a many gothic type of characters from the 1920s, for some reason the atmosphere also reminded me of The Cabinet of Dr. caligari.

OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

[–] ta2me92704 12 years ago

^^^That^^^

My ignore list is much too long for a sig line.

[–] tireless_crank 11 years ago

double ^^^^

[–] addison 12 years ago

Watched last night and i think it aged horrible.
The acting, the sets, the music.....horrible....the effects not so much, because they sucked the same way they did back in 98.