Review of Dark City

Introduction

How long is reasonable to wait for a studio to give a film a worthwhile release, a year, two years, five? It took Warners seven years to release a definitive version of Blade Runner, but that is a flagship title, one that is part of film history. What about a more obscure cult film from the back catalogues, that some would consider a classic? You would think that time is an infinite resource, and that eventually all good things come to those who wait, but the advent of new high definition formats has scuppered all that. With studios concentrating their efforts on promoting these new formats, it feels now that back catalogues will remain un-plundered, and that flawed releases won`t be corrected, unless it`s for a Hi-Def release. I`ve sat on my fundament for seven years now, twiddling my thumbs, hoping that Entertainment In Video will finally deign to give Dark City the treatment it deserves. Time`s up! I`ve given in and imported the Region 1 disc instead, which itself is seven years old now.

An amnesiac, John Murdock wakes up in a bath in a hotel room, totally disoriented with blood dripping from his forehead. He searches his belongings for some clue to his identity, but all he finds is a postcard from Shell Beach. To his horror, he finds the mutilated body of a girl in the bedroom. He then receives a phone call from a stranger, warning him to leave as he is being pursued. He escapes from a mysterious group of strangers, and from there he begins to sort out the details of his life. His problems are only just beginning, as he learns that he is wanted for a series of murders in the vein of the dead girl he had left behind. He is estranged from a wife, Emma who may have triggered this series of violent attacks by cheating on him. But as he learns more of his past and the city in which he dwells, more and more mysteries confront him. Just who are the Strangers who pursue him? Why can`t anyone leave the city, or recall leaving the city? Why is it always dark? And what happens at midnight?

Video

A 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer that is beginning to show its age. Well actually it`s a 2.35:1 and a 4:3 transfer. I haven`t seen one of these in donkey`s years, a DVD 10, with full frame on one side and widescreen on the other. I stuck with the widescreen version of course. The image is clear and sharp for the most part, and the lower NTSC resolution is hardly felt. There is a slight grain to the film, and the odd compression artefact. Given that the film takes place mostly at nighttime, lack of clarity is rarely a problem, but I did notice the occasional judder, aliasing, a bit of occasional softness and some uneven flesh tones.

And it`s all infinitely better than the letterbox transfer that we got in the UK. This is a visually lush film, with excellent set and costume design, and I was seeing detail that I hadn`t seen since I saw the film in the cinema 9 years ago. For once I was actually able to make out the end credits.

Audio

As opposed to the meagre 2.0 offering of the region 2 disc, region 1 gets a choice between DD 5.1 English and French, along with English, French and Spanish subtitles. The surround tracks make all the difference, as the world of Dark City is an enveloping experience with plenty going on around the soundstage. It`s a robust and effective surround track with decent placement of effects and action, while the dialogue remains clear throughout.

Features

The disc really shows its age when it comes to the extras, with only the commentaries still holding water after all this time. First Roger Ebert offers a critic`s eye view of the film, although he does come off a little patronising and opinionated. No surprise really, he is a critic, but I could have done with less analysis of shots and psychological meaning and more about the actual film itself.

Fortunately there is a Filmmaker`s commentary with director Alex Proyas, writers Lem Dobbs and David Goyer, director of photography Dariusz Wolski, and production designer Patrick Tatopolous. There`s no intro to this track, and the speakers dive straight in. Fortunately Ebert pops up from time to time to announce who is speaking. It`s not the best of commentaries, cut and pasted together from separate tracks, and it is a fairly dry experience. I preferred it to the Ebert commentary though.

The rest of the extras are just text-based stuff, with cast and crew biographies, a gallery of set design images, a comparison to Metropolis, with an interesting review of that film by H. G. Wells, and an essay on the film by Neil Gaiman. The theatrical trailer is on here, as well as a couple of film clips hidden away in the biographies for Kiefer Sutherland and William Hurt.

Finally there is an Easter egg to be hunted down. Follow the clues and you will be led to a Flash animation style offering. It may have been exciting in 2001, but today it`s the sort of thing that makes you wonder why you wasted your time on the damned thing.

Conclusion

It`s a facet of Sod`s law that each year should see two films released that follow the same concept, and one will hit the big time, become part of the Zeitgeist, while the other will become a footnote in cinema history. Of late we`ve had The Prestige and The Illusionist released in the same year. And just as we`ll remember Philip Seymour Hoffman`s portrayal of Capote, 1492, The Conquest of Paradise, and God help us all Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves, we`ve forgotten the rival films that covered the same subject. In 1999, a film called the Matrix was released. Which is why Dark City is my favourite footnote of all time.

Both films had similar concepts, a reality that wasn`t quite real, a puzzle that had to be cracked, and a central character that stood to gain most by unravelling that puzzle. The Matrix had the edge in production values, groundbreaking special effects, and the deft way it presented its world. It also came on the cusp of the proliferation of the Internet, one of the last such films where a twist wouldn`t be spoiled by the ravings of a fanboy posting on the Web before the end credits even roll. The world of the Matrix was recognisably ours, if slightly skewed, and the red pill moment, when it came was probably the last time I went OMG in a cinema. The Matrix also had kung fu.

Dark City didn`t. Also, with its retro world, clad in eternal darkness, grinding to a halt when the clock struck midnight, it was an immediate tip off that all wasn`t well in this place. The bizarre strangers just underlined that this wasn`t our world. Still, given all that, the twist in this film certainly wasn`t signposted for me when I first saw it, and it still has an amazing visual impact where the red pill of the Matrix has become cliché. But what Dark City has is an utterly compelling story, a sense of intelligence that goes beyond cod philosophy, and outstanding characterisations and performances. It`s damnably smart and stylish too, with a serial murder mystery set in a film noir milieu that is instantly recognisable, an amnesiac everyman central character, and Jennifer Connelly looking devilishly seductive, and a Teutonic mad scientist to boot. We have an immediate familiarity with this world, however unsettling it may seem and the way the story unfolds keeps the attention. In my mind, Dark City is by far the better film of the two, and while the Matrix offers a quick hit of visual cocaine, Dark City is more cerebral and ultimately more rewarding.

My love for it has diminished over time though. I first saw it in my twenties, and the comic book styling was instantly recognisable to me, and certainly a big draw. Looking at it with older eyes, those allusions to graphic novels stand out more than they should, and even overwhelm the narrative at times. It`s still an awesome film, but that sheen of ineffable perfection has worn off. Dark City is merely a brilliant movie now.

After years of suffering the UK Region 2 travesty, this Region 1 release is a godsend in comparison. The anamorphic image offers much needed clarity and the soundtrack is a big improvement. But seven years is practically geriatric in a disc, and even this disc is showing its age. The picture is good, but can be much better, and the extras are really quite lamentable. Maybe one day on HD…