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.

[–] joel-connelly 12 years ago

I remember walking out from Titanic thinking "Man, my arse is sore"

[–] tobba_lobba 12 years ago

I just watched it and thought to myself, "movies don't look this good nowadays".

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jockey-1 11 years ago

I've noticed this in a couple of movies I've watched from '97/'98 in the last few days ("Contact" being the other one). Three words: "dot com bubble".

Also, the way the 2000 crash went from 9/11 through Iraq/ Afghanistan to the global credit crisis means a certain style of film from the period in question with those spectacularly extravagant effects looks lavish and confident, today.

Despite the predominance of CGI, now, it's different: the bulk of it is safe and formulaic with none of the experimentalism and originality of the late millennial work.

[–] sydnee_man 12 years ago

Hmm, I don't get your logic. Dark City aged very well because it is set in a fictional time in outer-space. I showed this to my 19 year old niece about two years ago and she really enjoyed it.

Also the acting was great. All of the main actors are still well known, working and have all been critically acclaimed. Not that I always agree with the critics but sometimes they are right.

[–] omenous21 12 years ago

I would disagree with you poisonborz.

I'm sorry it didn't hold up for you.

I for one continue to enjoy the movie. I know it won't win awards or be a movie that stands the test of time, but to me, it resonates.

[–] Iridescent_Phantom 12 years ago

I rented this blind, watched it twice in one day, then went out and bought the dvd.

It's a science fiction classic. A mind bending Rubik's Cube of a movie.

As for Sutherland, he based his vocal patterns on Peter Lorre in M and was superb.

The problem with so many modern viewers is that they refuse to see old movies and understand that over the hundred + years of the moving picture art form, there have been many styles of acting and they are appropriate if they complement the artistic format of the film.

DARK CITY is classic noir with a thirties feel, even if it takes place in a Nowhere Land, and Sutherland's choice of interpretation is spot on perfect for the character.

To God There Is No Zero. I Still Exist.

[–] mrvegas61 12 years ago

Yep, it's a classic. Dark City is one of the best sci-fi films ever made. IMO it has aged very well.

[–] Captain_Wesker 12 years ago

.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] McDrinky 12 years ago

I'm not so sure about this "Rubik's Cube" comparison you've got going here.

Dark City isn't all that complex. I think people try to make it seem like it's some complex film, but it isn't. That's not to say it's MESSAGE doesn't have depth, but the movie itself was very linear and obvious.

The film gives you everything you need to create closure.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 11 years ago

I also loved Sutherland in this which is why I'm surprised people detest him in the film. It's like they've never seen films out of the 21st century. I found his Dr. Schreiber refreshing, the entire look, bleached blond, limping, whispered awkwardly pausing utterances reminded me of the weird psychotic doctors of german expressionist films from the 20-30s. Even the entire look of the buildings, structures, costumes, & coloring is very reminiscent of it.

[–] robi1138-1 12 years ago

Honestly, anyone who doesn't like or appreciate this film doesn't know squat about movies. Easily one of the best films of the last 20 years.

[–] sploiter 12 years ago

"Easily one of the best films of the last 20 years."

I don't think I'd go _that_ far. It's a cool movie, I like it a lot, but it's not one of the _great_ movies. There's some distractingly bad acting by many of the supporting players who are mostly Aussies doing terrible American accents. (Remember the crazy cop? He sounded like a cartoon parody of a stereotypical New Yorker. And he was by no means alone in that.)

But the story is good and the visuals are great and I love them. Guys like William Hurt cannot be fauilted and I give it high marks just for him alone. Oh yeah, and for Connelly!

[–] mooville 12 years ago

I disagree

[–] Koalamanboy 12 years ago

Saw it for the first time today and I was very impressed. The CGI was really good, acting was good and the story was awesome!