The Matrix ripped off Dark City and Dark City is way better

Hmm. It's interesting to know that you can talk about things besides cannibalism. Ah, Well. Here we go. We'll start off with some undeniable facts. Dark City was released on February 27, 1998. The Matrix was released on March 31, 1999. Both have similar plots and characters. Can this be coincidence? I highly doubt it. A more reasonable conclusion is that the fellows behind The Matrix watched Dark City and thought they could steal it and change the plot just enough so that nobody would sue them. And their ruse worked. Which is sad, Because Dark City is superior in almost all aspects. The Matrix won four Oscars. How many Oscars did Dark City win? None. It's criminal, Is what it is. Let me give some reasons why Dark City is better. 1. The noir atmosphere is much more interesting and unique than the 90s setting at the beginning of The Matrix. It also looks incredibly realistic. This movie has a Dick Tracy vibe to it, Not a 90s vibe. The Matrix is set in the decade that it was made. Such a choice is bland and uninspired. 2. A happier ending and plot. At the end of Dark City, John Murdoch has restored free will to his fellow humans, Created a better world to live in, And he gets his wife back. The end of the Matrix is vague, Because from the very beginning the Wachowskis had two sequels planned. The Matrix was made for money. Dark City was made with an interesting idea in mind- and has more integrity. In addition, The Matrix is depressing because we know that the entire world has been destroyed and the lives of humans will never be the same once the conflict is resolved. In contrast, Dark City is not set on Earth, And never even mentions Earth, So the ending is not depressing. Dark City does not involve technology. Dark City is a light hearted good old fashioned Science-Fiction hijinks filled romp. 3. The actors are better. Every character is believable, Well played, And looks the part. While I admire Lawrence Fishburne as Cowboy Curtis, I simply can't understand Keanu Reeves walking around in sunglasses. The Matrix makes less sense than Dark City. All the heroes in Dark City are likable and all the villains are loathable. The fifties atmosphere is vibrant and colorful. The Strangers are more interesting and mysterious than the robots in The Matrix. John Murdoch seems like a real person. Inspector Bumstead's relentless pursuit of the truth is admirable. Kiefer Sutherland portrays a deranged but likable mad scientist to a T. All the acting is on point. The Strangers, In particular, Are reminiscent of The Coneheads. Dark City does not contain fake philosophy or too many references. It is just what it appears to be- a fun romp through a fabricated reality. 4. The story is more believable. While The Matrix's interpretation of technology is absurd at best, Dark City makes complete sense in every way. Instead of living in a computer simulation, The inhabitants of Dark City have not been duped in any way. The City is as it appears, It's simply not on Earth. The shot of The City on the spaceship is breathtaking, More so than the bleak apocalyptic vision of The Matrix. It is more believable to assume that The Strangers abducted a few hundred people from Earth and stuck them on a fake city than it is to assume that robots have placed humans into an intense computer simulation and use them for energy. In addition, The people in Dark City are more human- since they have not been grown in pods but have instead simply been abducted and given different lives several times over. 5. The Matrix explains too much. The Matrix explains everything, But Dark City leaves some questions unanswered, Such as why The Strangers are doing what they're doing and why The City is in the fifties, As well as a detailed account of where the humans came from. Vagueness is good. It makes Dark City not just a standard Science Fiction film but a piece of art. Now I'll explain why I loathe The Matrix. It is not revolutionary in any way. As I have said, It rips off the plot of Dark City- and the idea that reality is a simulation is by no means a new idea. It traces back all the way to Rene Descartes. Rene Descartes, If anything, Deserves an Oscar, Or Plato, Maybe- if you count his Cave as the predecessor to The Matrix. Shows like The Twilight Zone dealt with a simulated reality in at least 50% of all episodes. The Matrix took a simple idea and added some big name actors and special effects. It does not deserve four Academy Awards. Like the ideas it conveys, It is a fabrication. It is not the best Science Fiction movie out there. I didn't enjoy watching it. It's depressing, Bland, And didn't move my brain at all. The Blob is a better Science Fiction movie. You know what that "Bullet Time" is? It's just stop motion. Gumby makes better use of it. Gumby, At least, Is fun to watch. Stop Motion is not new. It is an old filmmaking practice. Old cartoons operated on it. The Matrix is not even as good as those old cartoons. Bullet Time is a perfect example of looks over depth. I do not care about Karate fight scenes. I care about meaning. The Matrix has very little meaning. It is pretentious and soulless. Keanu Reeves moves his hand, The camera takes a picture, He moves his hand again, It takes another picture- and so on. They aren't even doing real Kung Fu, It's all special effects. Bruce Lee movies are better, Because he knows how to do Kung Fu. All Lawrence Fishburne knows how to do is strum his guitar with Pee Wee. He's good at that, I'll admit. He's the best actor. The Matrix has a rehashed, Cliche storyline. The story of "The Chosen One" is as old as time itself- this movie simply has robots instead of evil wizards or bad cowboys or whatever. Neo is like Jesus. They ripped off the Bible, Too. John Murdoch is a more likable protagonist because he's just a normal guy who happened to wake up at the wrong time. Neo is too cool. This movie has nothing new going for it. OOH! He can kick! WHOA! I don't care. You know what's cooler? The automat in Dark City. Dark City has culture and taste. Yeah, The Matrix rips off Alice in Wonderland, Too. You know the difference? Alice in Wonderland doesn't have Kung Fu, Or robots, And it's fun to read. The Matrix was made for money. It may have won Oscars, And Academy Awards, And critics might have loved it. But you're committing appeal to majority there. Idiots will believe anything. Just like the pod people in the artificial wombs, Critics can be suckered into thinking a low effort hack screenplay is a work of genius. The Wachowskis have, Ironically, Turned into the robots. As I have proven, The Matrix does not deserve the praise it has garnered. It is not even a decent B-Movie. But it has been called a good movie by The Wachowskis, So people agree that it must be a good movie. It does not deserve its Oscars. Do you know why Dark City didn't win any Oscars for its original concept and fun plot? Because nobody watched it. They were too busy watching The Matrix. I await your next argument. References: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Dark_City_(1998_film) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/The_Matrix https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=R1LtAxntSnw https://www. Slashfilm. Com/dark-city-anniversary/ https://www. Vice. Com/en_us/article/7b7kje/the-matrix-is-dated-and-embarrassing https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Stop_motion