Responses to this message:
I loved Dark City when I first saw it, and it occurs to me that it is quite similar to Blade Runner.
Both movies fit into the sci-fi/noir genre, and the main appeal of both films are their visual style. Many people fault Dark City for having to simple of a plot, but Blade Runner's plot is no more complex: it can be summed up in a few sentences and is a futuristic version of an old theme.
I'm sure that a few years from now, Dark City will gain a large audience, as Blade Runner has, and it will be remembered for far longer than many of this year's other films: Godzilla, Armageddon, Deep Impact, etc.
Furthurmore, I find it personally annoying that people can't appreciate a movie solely based on it's visual style. Dark City is superbly detailed, I recently purchased it on DVD and have seen it numerous times. The care and precision of each shot makes it a movie that never gets boring to watch. (Ebert recently conducted a FIVE DAY seminar discussing the movie shot-by-shot)
Also, I happened to like Dark City's other aspects, sound, acting, characters, and plot. Trevor Jones' score fit perfectly to create mood, and is his best work to date. Although some of the acting seemed subdued, it was appropriate for this movie because the characters were literally never allowed to develop, they were constantly imprinted by the Stangers. I also thought that Keifer Sutherland did a great job, unfortunately when many people write him off when they hear his name.
Did anyone read this far down? If you did, thanks.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread