Having jus watched Dark City I must admit that I feel pretty conflicted. The film definitely has some excellent elements but in many ways leaves a feeling of disappointment at the unfulfilled possibilities.
-Story-
This story is good. Not fantastically orignal overall but containing enough unique elements that a formulaic interpretation can’t apply. John Murdoch awakes in a hotel room with no memory and a complex series of problems, most stemming from the very creepy cult of bald, albino, telepaths clad in black trenchcoats and bowler hats that are desperately chasing him for the secret knowledge he posesses. Sound complicated yet? Throw in an ever changing city that seems to grow buildings overnight, where a man is your cabbie one day and a posh aristocrat the next. Add that to the fact that the sun never seems to rise and no one can quite remember their childhood and you begin to get a taste of Dark City. A very surreal and intricate story that borrows elements from cinematic disutopia and horror genres.
It may sound overly confusing but is for the most part played to the punch fairly early, and concisely. In fact if the story should be faulted, it is for the pandering expletives. The story also looses its steam at the end. Whether this is from the somewhat disapointing anti-climax or the languid denumont is unclear.
It’s also possible that things fall a bit flat due to the fact that unlike other disutopian efforts where at least the protagonist often finds a freedom of sorts this feels a bit, not Hollywood, but just not quite right. We should have been left with a bittertsweet taste as opposed to the saccarine finale we received.
2/5
-Look-
Dark City, just as many disutopian films manage to do, looks amazing. The tones are very dark, wet, and disturbing. The slices of horror elements lend an appropriately frightening quality; especially in the case of the antagonizing cultists, known as The Strangers. The dark 1950s psudo-tech, cars, clothing, and architecture aptly maintain a consistantly errie complicated chaos. The story and characters too are presented in this shaded manner. The city, like the story, is reflected in layers. Each darker and more ominous than the last. The film’s title is quite appropriate in that even the darkness itself is palpable.
4/5
-Acting/Direction-
The four main actors in this piece all played extremly well. Rufus Swell plays the bewildered protagonist, Jenifer Connely his concerned wife, William Hurt the resolute police inspector, and Kiefer Sutherland the overly informed doctor. All fine actors, they did the best they could with what was at times, very weak dialogue. Most of the poor writing falls unfortunately to Kiefer Sutherland's rather unlikable character. A good actor dealing with a complicated script that relies too heavily on the macinations of a secondary character. He ranges from sort of belivable to totally incredulous in this sometimes all-knowing do-gooder sometimes crazy mad-scientist character. Although especially in comparison to the as always top notch performance by William Hurt and the empassioned fragility of Rufus Swell, it might be easy to blame Sutherland for his character's inconsistancy. But the fault lies truly in the poor scripting and direction that meanders here and there, never settling down in terms of character development.
That said, some of the moments in this film are simply spectaclular. Connely, Hurt and Swell particularly are all actors that simply exude their characters. Tragedy reads in their faces and eyes with such completeness that watching even simple scenes can be very powerful. What really made this film good overall wasn't the big budget effects, although they were definitely there, or some truth revealed and accepted or rejected, as it is with most disutopian cinema. What made this film really worthwile was the quiet moments shared between these potent actors.
3.5/5
-Overall-
A good film, with flaws. Worth the time if you're in the mood.
