5 Responses to “Dark City”

• By A book reader on Mar 13, 2010

  I’d add “meets 28 Days Later” to the title, but that would be an insult to 28 days.

  Wow. I can’t believe this movie got so many rave reviews. Maybe it would be useful if the reviews included the reviewers age.

  To even mention Blade Runner in context with this movie is a joke.

  We both fell asleep, twice!

  They don’t make movies like they used to, thats for sure.

  I wish I too could fight evil by pointing my forehead and issuing a “shockwave”.

  Look for my copy to turn up soon, cheap.

  If you’re an adult, best to skip this excersize in stupidity.

  Rating: 1 / 5
• By Anonymous on Mar 13, 2010

  This movie is god awful. True, the production design is outstanding, so incredible in fact that it ultimately only serves to chide and mock the poor viewer who was hoping for actual entertainment. The director has so little idea of how to make a film (not a computer graphic) that, in this so called, “Film Nior”, there is not a single moment of silence through the entire thing. The soundtrack works continuously and in vain to tie the horribly rushed and underdeveloped scenes together; so much so that for the first time in my life I thought I was having an anxiety attack. A dear friend of mine put it best by describing it as a 100 minute recap of last week’s episode. Everything is rushed, everything is wasted.

  I will say that my wonderful friend Jeanette played one of the baddies, and she should really do more films. She was also in the Cheech Marin vehicle, “Shrimp on the Barbie”, which I would rather watch a thousand times than another minute of Dark City. That should begin to give you some idea of how unpleasant it really, truly is.

  AVOID
  Rating: 1 / 5
• By M. Lesko on Mar 13, 2010

  I am a lifelong, avid Sci-fi fan. I read all these reviews saying that this was some sort of cult classic, not true. Sadly those reviews must be from those that never watch anything BUT Sci-fi.
  
  The movie was horrible, the story was scattered.
  
  Not well done in any shape or form.
  Rating: 1 / 5
• By Anonymous on Mar 13, 2010

  Could I please have that 2 hours of my life back? I am one of the world’s biggest SCI-FI fans, and I thought this was utter (insert profanity of your choice here). Dark (as in impossible to see), unintelligible, and frustrating as hell.
  Rating: 1 / 5
• By Mike W on Mar 13, 2010

  Like The Cell, Dark City is one of those movies that *tries* to get by on its visual effects–but unlike The Cell, it fails miserably. (The Cell also had a better storyline.) Example of “outstanding visual effects”: A guy puts a fish in a sink…and we see it from the THE SINK’S POINT OF VIEW! Wow! [Note the heavy use of sarcasm.] When will these boneheads who direct music videos realize that such “style” doesn’t translate to film effectively? David Fincher understood that; why can’t you guys?

  As far as the “plot” goes, the movie starts off like a bad 80s PC adventure/role-playing game. You know the type–your character wakes up in a bathtub in a small, stark bathroom lit by a single lightbulb descending from the ceiling on a cord. On the seat next to him is a pair of boots and a trenchcoat. Type ‘Look coat’ to find a matchbook, a phone number, blah blah blah. Hey look, it’s David Goyer showcasing his weak writing skills! (Side note: Goyer’s Blade script wasn’t too bad, but have you ever seen the original ending to that flick? They had to call in a script doctor to perform an emergency feces-ectomy.) And what was the deal with the “ACME Plot-Resolver” in the form of a syringe filled with a mystery chemical that instantly “educates” your protagonist (in this case, the wall-eyed Rufus Sewell) so he can adequately fight the “ba(l)d guys”? That wins the award for the Single Dumbest Idea in Modern Film.

  On top of all that, the acting was below average. Rufus “I do a good ‘confused guy’” Sewell was ok, but I don’t know what kind of accent Kiefer Sutherland was using for his ambiguously-scarred “mad scientist” character. And I’m sorry to say, Jennifer Connelly is nothing great–in terms of looks or acting skills–so she can’t even offer a decent T&A Quotient to elevate this movie to an ‘F+’.

  To sum up, the writing is amateurish, the direction is poor, and the acting mediocre (at best). Other than that, it’s a great movie. Thankfully Roger Ebert and his *keen* critical skills saw through the myriad layers of bad filmmaking and placed it in the highly-coveted “Best Films of 1998″ category. [More heavy use of...oh, forget it.]
  Rating: 1 / 5

Name (*)

E-mail (*)

Url

CAPTCHA Code *

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Message