I walked in late at the theater and missed Keifer's monologue, I loved the film so much I bought a ticket to the next showing. When I saw that intro, I was dumbfounded.
Saw it four times in the theater in 1998, and I went to the last showing the last day it was in theaters with no one else in the theater. I appreciated how good it was.
..RIP william hurt, altered states, body heat, the big chill, childern of a lesser god, dark city, lost in space, A.I., the village, a history of violence, into the wild, the incredible hulk, captain america civil war, avengers endgame, vantage point..
wasn't always a fan of his wooden acting but he had plenty of outstanding performances just as you mentioned. i specifically liked his portrayal in mr brooks with kevin costner.
No its not. The matrix literally influenced all action movies after it. The effects and characters are more memorable in the matrix. The only ppl who prefer dark city are dark city dang its who wants the film to get more attention
@@mania4270 Dark City was bold enough not to hold your hand. The characters are average people in search of the truth just like many people who feel empty in big cities. Appreciating it is more of a challenge than Matrix. As for influence, Matrix maybe more Influential but that doesn't mean it's better and it's obvious it cribbed it's concept from Dark City. As for special effects, both films are great in that regard.
@@ricardocantoral7672 the matrix didnt get its concept for dark city, idiot. It was inspired by many other brain in the vat concepts that had been done way before dark city. Look at the making of matrix, they were filming it since 1997. The cast had to learn literally kung Fu. Even will smith was supposed to be neo but didnt like the script which means that script was written before dark city was even a thing. And yea matrix is better because its not just a drama. What are we just gonna ignore the action scenes and special effects and act like that was nothing? No those helped ppl get into the film more. Yes matrix is an action film while dark city is a drama
@@mania4270 Alex Proyas conceived the concept of Dark City back in 1994 and the film was released a year before The Matrix. As a matter of fact, some of sets used in The Matrix were previously used in Dark City. I am not saying The Matrix is a bad film because it isn't. I am merely stating that Dark City is more fascinating because of despite how fantastic it is, it recalls real life struggle of finding meaning a world that appears to have none. The Matrix is fine escapist entertainment but it's not as provocative in my book
I went to see this based on Roger’s enthusiastic review which influenced my best friend across the state to see and then he convinced me. I was the only one in the theater, but I thought it was a genius movie.
Not true they did actually hold things like the crying game (or tried to.). And we're fairly angry when someone spoiled it. Alien part was just I guess to put the genre because it's kind of hard to know whether you should just say Noir or not besides. They do reviews you should have already watched the film before you start looking at something like that.
In their defense the original theatrical cut spoils the "alien race from another world" concept immediately in the opening narration, so it probably didn't seem like something you can spoil. Later the director's cut removed the narration and kept it a mystery for longer, as originally intended.
They took much more than one piece of the dark city puzzle, once dark city finished filming the matrix production people ending up using a couple of the same sets and some props and I think they also took some ideas from dark city as well
The more I dive into cinema, the more Ebert seems like a hack to me. I liked the movie, it was fine, and visually it was amazing, I cannot deny the team did an amazing job bringing the world to life. But, for one, the CGI really drags everything down, such an overreliance on it throughout the film. And the story was droll "external foreign force comes in to abuse humanity because they're Very Evil 😈 and they like doing evil things because nobody does anything for a reason, some things are Just Bad" nonsense popular in US media, as well as a lead hero with the personality of a brick that I did not feel invested in. Unfortunately a good chunk of the movie focuses on his internal drama, and I hardly felt a moment to appreciate the world he was trying to save. I mean, you couldn't anyways! Everything was fake and prebuilt as an illusion by the aliens. Not a bad film, a good 6/10, but Ebert gives me pea-brain vibes. He's easily enamored by the most mindless films.
Also I will give him this, it's amazing how he, in a sense, predicted the Dark Knight trilogy here. While not by the same director, Batman films pretty much adopted this imagery for a little while. And it definitely worked!
if you watched the director's cut version, they did state that those aliens machines are studying and experimenting with humans to master the ability of controlling time. Like humans using rats to develop vaccines . We mean no evil to the rats , we don't think that they even have feelings ( I mean until recently when animal cruelty became a thing ) To the rat , we will just sound and feel and look evil , the rat wouldn't have a clear idea of the purpose of the experiment or even a remote understanding to why we do that. Take rats out and use monkeys , we use them for a variety of behavior experiments , sometimes we sound friendly and nice and we give them their favorite food and check on their health. Until we dissecte their brain and slice it and study it. To us , that's not evil , that's science , and I assume a security guard wouldn't be happy if a monkeys runs away from a lab . Same idea with a much developed race to use us for their experiments. And I agree with you on the internal drama , there is not much to save at this point in the movie , again same with the rats in the lab, even if they riots , not much they can do other than creating inconvenience , that's why the movie focuses on the main character's internal suffrage ,on the human experience faced with such atrocities .he's helpless . That's what makes it dystopian and yet more realistic , nothing heroic other than standing up and knowing your sacrifice wouldn't change a damn thing ! 1984 hello?
Man, your take on this film terrible. Dark City a noir first and science fiction film second. Not one but multiple parties trapped in a world that isn't too far removed from a major city like a New York, lost souls wondering lonely streets, trying to figure out what is going on in a vast maze that people don't question and never finding real happiness. Dark City, the director's cut, is a film that is crafted with a great deal of real world awareness.
Roger Ebert didn't just like this movie; he named it the best film of 1998, he would use it to teach cinema for several years at the University of Illinois (today dozens of film schools do this), and it's one of only 6 movies for which he recorded a commentary track (one of the other six movies is Casablanca). Roger Ebert *loved* this movie. So while you're welcome to disagree with him, no, he doesn't get "easily enamored". Just ask Roland Emmerich. Also, from your comments, it's clear you just didn't get the point of the movie and watched it only very superficially. The movie isn't about the plot or the characters, the movie is told through symbols to explore the existence and nature of the human soul. The sunrise at the end of the movie isn't just about "oh he must like sunshine". The kiss through shattered glass isn't just about a mere jailbird kiss. And John's room number at the very beginning, 614, isn't a random number, open the Bible to John 6:14. This movie is told symbolically and visually, not by character and plot. If you don't get this, that's fine, but no Roger Ebert isn't a "hack". And yeah, I've watched this movie over 100 times, sometimes back to back... it is a masterpiece. Maybe this one commercial failure of a movie just isn't for you.
Bro no offense but I'm wondering if you really understood the movie. You criticize the hero for having "the personality of a brick" but that is not a real criticism, as that's acknowledged in the film itself and is the central struggle in the movie's narrative. The hero doesn't have a real personality because he was never allowed to develop one; he has had dozens of manufactured personalities in his past but the aliens keep erasing them and giving him new ones. The hero's central struggle is him trying to develop a real, human personality and history free from alien mind control. As for the aliens themselves it is clearly shown that they aren't really "evil". They do not torture or kill people for fun. Rather, they take good care of them in their own alien way. The relationship here is like the one we have with our pets. The only reason they built the city was because they were dying out and thought people could help them because they had qualities that would help them survive.
I agree. I wanted to like this one, but it was dull, the sound was awful, the actors all seemed bland or in over their head, and Kiefer Sutherland was just TERRIBLE! His wheezing of every line was beyond obnoxious. The dialog in this movie was just awful too. It just couldn't hold my interests and the points I was able to follow annoyed me.
Roger Ebert would later go on to contribute a commentary track to this film
I like how Siskel showed respect to comic books here, "good enough to be adapted into a comic book series".
I recommend to everyone to get the Blu Ray and listen to Ebert's audio commentary, It Is one amazing masterclass on film making analysis
Well now I have to do it.
Do NOT watch the theatrical cut, it ruins the whole twist at the beginning.
Watch the directors cut instead.
I walked in late at the theater and missed Keifer's monologue, I loved the film so much I bought a ticket to the next showing. When I saw that intro, I was dumbfounded.
Or if you do watch the theatrical cut, mute the beginning and unmute at the pocket watch.
@@gfpbaneable me too, haha
I used to mute the sound at the start when showing the film to friends on DVD. SO relived when the director's cut arrived.
Doesn't ruin anything. I am not saying that it needs it but it doesn't ruin it.
Gene was winding down here. Heartbreaking.
Saw it four times in the theater in 1998, and I went to the last showing the last day it was in theaters with no one else in the theater.
I appreciated how good it was.
The director cut is a masterpiece
..RIP william hurt, altered states, body heat, the big chill, childern of a lesser god, dark city, lost in space, A.I., the village, a history of violence, into the wild, the incredible hulk, captain america civil war, avengers endgame, vantage point..
wasn't always a fan of his wooden acting but he had plenty of outstanding performances just as you mentioned. i specifically liked his portrayal in mr brooks with kevin costner.
Dark City is one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made and gets better with age.
One of my he greatest movies ever
The day I watched this review I waited patiently for it to come to vhs and needless to say it blew me away with how amazing it was.
I’ve been looking for this review for a long time, thanks for posting this. My favorite movie of all time.
Ebert loves this film, yes.
suggesting alex proyas to direct a batman film would be fighting words in today's time!
Truly visionary I miss Ebert he loved Synecdoche new York watch his review of that it was very personal to him.
It's never been truer.
Alex Proyas is truly a genuine visionary and very underrated at that, the thing is, he is not a pos sellout
Thank you for posting this.
These guys reviews were insane
Dark City is The Matrix except that it's vastly superior.
Correct.
No its not. The matrix literally influenced all action movies after it. The effects and characters are more memorable in the matrix. The only ppl who prefer dark city are dark city dang its who wants the film to get more attention
@@mania4270 Dark City was bold enough not to hold your hand. The characters are average people in search of the truth just like many people who feel empty in big cities. Appreciating it is more of a challenge than Matrix. As for influence, Matrix maybe more Influential but that doesn't mean it's better and it's obvious it cribbed it's concept from Dark City. As for special effects, both films are great in that regard.
@@ricardocantoral7672 the matrix didnt get its concept for dark city, idiot. It was inspired by many other brain in the vat concepts that had been done way before dark city. Look at the making of matrix, they were filming it since 1997. The cast had to learn literally kung Fu. Even will smith was supposed to be neo but didnt like the script which means that script was written before dark city was even a thing. And yea matrix is better because its not just a drama. What are we just gonna ignore the action scenes and special effects and act like that was nothing? No those helped ppl get into the film more. Yes matrix is an action film while dark city is a drama
@@mania4270 Alex Proyas conceived the concept of Dark City back in 1994 and the film was released a year before The Matrix. As a matter of fact, some of sets used in The Matrix were previously used in Dark City. I am not saying The Matrix is a bad film because it isn't. I am merely stating that Dark City is more fascinating because of despite how fantastic it is, it recalls real life struggle of finding meaning a world that appears to have none. The Matrix is fine escapist entertainment but it's not as provocative in my book
Both put it number one of the 10 best movies of the year, Siskel died soon after and this was the final season of the Siskel and Ebert show.
Only Ebert put it at #1. Siskel had Babe: Pig in the City at #1
best film of 98 is correct.
whats my name?..john...john murdock...
Murdoch
I went to see this based on Roger’s enthusiastic review which influenced my best friend across the state to see and then he convinced me. I was the only one in the theater, but I thought it was a genius movie.
Excellent movie
just watched it last night. so good!
I would like to see Alex make an old Batman movie
1:46 exactly
Siskel and ebert really didn't worry about spoilers and I'm not just talking about this video
Not true they did actually hold things like the crying game (or tried to.). And we're fairly angry when someone spoiled it. Alien part was just I guess to put the genre because it's kind of hard to know whether you should just say Noir or not besides. They do reviews you should have already watched the film before you start looking at something like that.
In their defense the original theatrical cut spoils the "alien race from another world" concept immediately in the opening narration, so it probably didn't seem like something you can spoil. Later the director's cut removed the narration and kept it a mystery for longer, as originally intended.
When panning the 5th Friday the 13th Movie, Siskel said he was thinking about spilling the twist during their review
Interesting... !!! The Batman (2022) has The Crow all over it!!
dark city the prototype of the matrix
This.
They both owe a lot to Megazone 23 though.
Well, they gave Batman to Dark City scribe David Goyer...and he did indeed help save the film franchise.
0:55 They could have cut the clip here instead of having that spoiler. geez.
A year later the Matrix came out.
you can imagine the Waltchoskirts watching this and say..''Wow..calabanga, the final piece to the puzzle..''
They took much more than one piece of the dark city puzzle, once dark city finished filming the matrix production people ending up using a couple of the same sets and some props and I think they also took some ideas from dark city as well
I really wanted to like this, but Sutherland's annoying Peter Lorre impression sank it.
Proyas went from this to "Gods of Egypt". No wonder he resides in the "Where Is He Now" file.
Lmao in a time where Batman was a dead series
It really was. Chris Nolan was right around the corner.
Still is...
😇
well duhh lol i mean batman and robin destroyed batman.. than nolan came along
Well... They should have given Batman to Proyas...
The more I dive into cinema, the more Ebert seems like a hack to me. I liked the movie, it was fine, and visually it was amazing, I cannot deny the team did an amazing job bringing the world to life. But, for one, the CGI really drags everything down, such an overreliance on it throughout the film. And the story was droll "external foreign force comes in to abuse humanity because they're Very Evil 😈 and they like doing evil things because nobody does anything for a reason, some things are Just Bad" nonsense popular in US media, as well as a lead hero with the personality of a brick that I did not feel invested in. Unfortunately a good chunk of the movie focuses on his internal drama, and I hardly felt a moment to appreciate the world he was trying to save. I mean, you couldn't anyways! Everything was fake and prebuilt as an illusion by the aliens. Not a bad film, a good 6/10, but Ebert gives me pea-brain vibes. He's easily enamored by the most mindless films.
Also I will give him this, it's amazing how he, in a sense, predicted the Dark Knight trilogy here. While not by the same director, Batman films pretty much adopted this imagery for a little while. And it definitely worked!
if you watched the director's cut version, they did state that those aliens machines are studying and experimenting with humans to master the ability of controlling time. Like humans using rats to develop vaccines . We mean no evil to the rats , we don't think that they even have feelings ( I mean until recently when animal cruelty became a thing ) To the rat , we will just sound and feel and look evil , the rat wouldn't have a clear idea of the purpose of the experiment or even a remote understanding to why we do that. Take rats out and use monkeys , we use them for a variety of behavior experiments , sometimes we sound friendly and nice and we give them their favorite food and check on their health. Until we dissecte their brain and slice it and study it. To us , that's not evil , that's science , and I assume a security guard wouldn't be happy if a monkeys runs away from a lab . Same idea with a much developed race to use us for their experiments. And I agree with you on the internal drama , there is not much to save at this point in the movie , again same with the rats in the lab, even if they riots , not much they can do other than creating inconvenience , that's why the movie focuses on the main character's internal suffrage ,on the human experience faced with such atrocities .he's helpless . That's what makes it dystopian and yet more realistic , nothing heroic other than standing up and knowing your sacrifice wouldn't change a damn thing ! 1984 hello?
Man, your take on this film terrible. Dark City a noir first and science fiction film second. Not one but multiple parties trapped in a world that isn't too far removed from a major city like a New York, lost souls wondering lonely streets, trying to figure out what is going on in a vast maze that people don't question and never finding real happiness. Dark City, the director's cut, is a film that is crafted with a great deal of real world awareness.
Roger Ebert didn't just like this movie; he named it the best film of 1998, he would use it to teach cinema for several years at the University of Illinois (today dozens of film schools do this), and it's one of only 6 movies for which he recorded a commentary track (one of the other six movies is Casablanca). Roger Ebert *loved* this movie.
So while you're welcome to disagree with him, no, he doesn't get "easily enamored". Just ask Roland Emmerich.
Also, from your comments, it's clear you just didn't get the point of the movie and watched it only very superficially. The movie isn't about the plot or the characters, the movie is told through symbols to explore the existence and nature of the human soul. The sunrise at the end of the movie isn't just about "oh he must like sunshine". The kiss through shattered glass isn't just about a mere jailbird kiss. And John's room number at the very beginning, 614, isn't a random number, open the Bible to John 6:14. This movie is told symbolically and visually, not by character and plot.
If you don't get this, that's fine, but no Roger Ebert isn't a "hack". And yeah, I've watched this movie over 100 times, sometimes back to back... it is a masterpiece. Maybe this one commercial failure of a movie just isn't for you.
Bro no offense but I'm wondering if you really understood the movie. You criticize the hero for having "the personality of a brick" but that is not a real criticism, as that's acknowledged in the film itself and is the central struggle in the movie's narrative. The hero doesn't have a real personality because he was never allowed to develop one; he has had dozens of manufactured personalities in his past but the aliens keep erasing them and giving him new ones. The hero's central struggle is him trying to develop a real, human personality and history free from alien mind control.
As for the aliens themselves it is clearly shown that they aren't really "evil". They do not torture or kill people for fun. Rather, they take good care of them in their own alien way. The relationship here is like the one we have with our pets. The only reason they built the city was because they were dying out and thought people could help them because they had qualities that would help them survive.
This movie blows
You blow. This movie was amazing
@@tjlawrence7358 Hahahahaha
It's for this kind of superficial viewer that the studios decided to create the opening narration
Movie was a POS
@Cynthia May gotta catch em all 💦
Than what does that make the Matrix series? Both have similar stories, and used the same film sets in Australia.
All the trash films out nowadays and you bash this one? Hardly at the top of the list
I'm with Roger Ebert: best film of 1998, hands down.
I agree. I wanted to like this one, but it was dull, the sound was awful, the actors all seemed bland or in over their head, and Kiefer Sutherland was just TERRIBLE! His wheezing of every line was beyond obnoxious. The dialog in this movie was just awful too. It just couldn't hold my interests and the points I was able to follow annoyed me.
William Hurt really was the most talented actor ever.
Gary Oldman could probably play William Hurt in a movie and you wouldn't know it
@@Swoll826 Only you wouldn’t. Anybody else with half a brain would for sure tell.
@@Swoll826 5’7 shorty ass with a British accent plays 6’3 muscular American noble? Hell no. You don’t even know what class is, son.