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.

[–] mjr1114 10 years ago

I have always liked this movie, and don't feel it has aged badly, if at all.
I did have some confusion regarding some complaints regarding the 'slipped' accents. I may have missed it, but I don't recall it ever being specifically stated the 'faux' city is a city in the United States that would require the characters to have native US accents. I'm not even sure if you have one memory one day and another the next, it would actually effect your accent. I think this is just the viewer's interpretation that everyone was supposed to have the same accent. These people were kidnapped from somewhere else, doesn't actually mean they were all kidnapped from one city in the US. I just never got the sense that this was a film about Americans, but about people from wherever that were being used as lab rats by parasitic beings in outer space, without any real 'time' associated with it.
Even in real life, though, in the US, you'll find people that live here with foreign accents. I know, shocking.

Credo ergo sum

[–] sploiter 10 years ago

The accents thing to me is this : if the DC world is not specifically a US city why make the Aussie actors / characters use American accents? The actors couldn't do realistic accents at all. I hate being reminded I'm watching a movie when I'm watching a movie, that's that's why the bogus accent thing irritates me so much.

[–] DaveHedgehog 10 years ago

I think it's aged very well. As a frame of reference, I first saw it in 2003 when I was 12 and have seen it numerous times since then (last viewing just a couple of minutes ago) and it hasn't lost any of its spark. I find most recent sci-fi is very slick and nice to look at, but lacks a lot of depth and Dark City far outweighs most sci-fi that gets churned out these days. I don't think Dark City is perfect and I love a lot of new sci-fi as well, but I don't feel Dark City feels its age and will be one of the few sci-fi films that will be ageless.

Aristotle versus Mashy Spike Plate!

[–] sploiter 10 years ago

Agree it is one of the last movies like it that put a good story 1st. It was crud like Matrix that kicked off the trend to weak a$$ story as an excuse for flashy.

[–] Symarip 10 years ago

Oh please... What a bunch of crap.

[–] ace_m 10 years ago

I think both films have aged nicely, and in particular - in context - Dark City had excellent sfx for the time and it's budget. Dark City is one of my favorite film from childhood, and I disagree with anyone who disparages it - on principle!

[–] Xcalat3 10 years ago

I respectfully disagree, i think it has ages just fine.

Liberate tu temet ex inferis.
pro ego sum diabolus, pro ego sum nex.

[–] dinosajur 10 years ago

I watched this movie in 2000. but forgot it completely and watched it again in January 2015. (few days ago). My first thought was that it has been 17 years since the movie came out and still, it didn't age at all unlike movies like Back to the Future or other movies where they predicted technology that never came out or it's already outdated. Dark City has a plot that doesn't age. They didn't put a focus on technology but just on idea that aliens can take human's memories to build their owns. It's just my opinion ;)

[–] [email protected] 9 years ago

I agree with you, dinosajur. I am watching it _again_ right now...for the 14th? 15th time? And I was just remarking how well it has held up, and how unique the plot is! It has remained in my top 20 favorites for years and no movie is close to bumping it out. I would like to see more people discover this gem of a movie! :-)

[–] georgegates 10 years ago

"IMDB's reputation for trustworthy scoring" hahaha. Jokes on you.

[–] judsonkr 10 years ago

"Lolly lolly lolly get your adverbs here"

"Nobody wants to admit they ate nine cans of ravioli."

[–] tgovostis 10 years ago

You just made an old man laugh ;)

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

I would not say Titanic was a product of "it's age". There is nothing much different from 1997 than vs 2007 that would make the movie any different. The same movie could be made now and would have similar success. It was a good story and it didn't hurt that it was a true story, albeit the movie was a little over the top in sentimentality.

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

The same movie could be made now and would have similar success.

Nope. A big part of the success was the Cameronish excess of building a ship and letting it sink. There is no way one could convince anybody to do this today when the movie done with digital effects could be created for less than half that much money. In 3d.
The story was... nice. There was nothing earth shattering but at least it wasn't dumb (unlike about 98% of all romantic movies), which is probably the reasons why people bothered to watch a romantic movie to see the ship sink. But it is not clever enough to watch it for the story.
While I could see a movie about the Titanic still being made, it would be tailored for the Twilight crowd, and work there very well, but it is absolutely impossible that this movie would be done the same way in a time when AAA budgets are almost limited to franchises and grown-ups don't go to cinemas anymore.

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

Neither I - and I believe nobody else - were referring to the aspects of staging the movie - whether that be physical or cgi. It would be the same movie regardless (whether it be cgi or physically staged).
The story is what made the movie. If you went in to see ship go down i think you are definitely in the minority.
That being said don't make the assumption I myself liked the movie. That's just not my cup of tea. But the people who liked it liked it not because of a stupid ship going down.

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

Yes? When did the last love story get into the box office top ten of the year?

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

This was a real story. get it?
they found the drawing he had made of her decades after and found she was still alive. if it were fiction it would not quite work.
there's only so many stories like this you can use.

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

It was a fictionalized story, just like all movies with historical background get their story spiced up. But that isn't really the point. The question is: is there still a market for a film like that. And it there isn't. This is the case for many classics, which would still be made but under such different circumstances that they would be entirely different movies.

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

Oh i guess you right. Well I never liked that movie nor did I really check facts.
He did portray it as if it were a real story...But i think the bottom line is most people that didn't spend time to check this thought it was a real story. I think that may be the reason why it did so well.

[–] gerbilstunts 9 years ago

tb-sch is absolutely right, I distinctly remember a significant amount of marketing for the film targeted it's production and expense, much like Avatar. This in turn gave it a huge amount of exposure on mainstream media outlets at the time long before release, and in turn had a knock on effect at the box office that it most likely wouldn't have enjoyed today.