Interesting Sci-fi, Nothing Special

Rating: 6/10 (9 December 2001)

I have been seeing raves about "Dark City" ever since it was released. For some reason, it strikes a real chord with a certain demographic of society that tends to hang out on movie mailings lists and the like. The same folks that love every single "Star Trek" film tend to rave about it. It's always nice to see a film find its audience.
So, I finally saw the dvd (just the film, no commentary) last night. I was neither impressed nor let down. "Dark City" is a solid science fiction film that tells a dark (in several ways) tale with a fair degree of understatement. I personally prefer such films. I would rather see an unpretentious, low-key film that draws me in unexpectedly than catch the latest Julia Roberts all star extravaganza. Different tastes for different folks. Some people don't go for the whole "subtlety" bit. I do.
The most striking thing about the film is its look - which isn't particularly original. It has a 1940s noirish feel to it. Cross "Blade Runner" with "Brazil" and mix in a dose of "Batman" and you get the idea. Not particularly compelling after having seen it several times before, but very competently done.
Our hero, Rufus Sewell, awakes in a strange room and finds his life is suddenly going to pieces. Nothing is what he thought, everything is a mystery without clues. It is your "Twilight Zone" standard plot #43. You half expect him to wind up on the train to "Willoughby." Nothing wrong with all that - but I've seen it before. But, again, competently done. It kept my interest, if not my rapt attention.
"Dark City" then devolves into your standard "man must figure out what is going wrong with the world" series of plot twists. Does he solve the mystery? Don't they always? Does he put things right? What do you think?
I'm not down on the picture, it just isn't anything that special. The striking Jennifer Connelly is completely wasted, as usual, though she gets a goodly amount of screen time and shows off her astonishing facial profile at every opportunity. She does have a tendency to seem a bit blank at times, but as virtually the only female in the film, she is quite a sight for sore eyes.
I can't quite figure out how Rufus Sewell was cast in the lead, as he has trouble expressing the extremes of emotion that the character must be feeling. Too bad he and William Hurt didn't swap roles.
Hurt is the real bright spot, acting rings around everyone in sight (unlike in the previous year's "Lost in Space," where he never really found the character of John Robinson, but more in keeping with 1983's brilliant "Gorky Park"). The rest of the characters provide good background filler, especially one particular creepy kid actor (who does a much better job than any of the young proto-actors in "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone").

Kiefer Sutherland does a fabulous job with his diction. He has the William Shatner thing down cold. Aside from Hurt, he is the only lead who really seems to inhabit his character. He is one of those characters who you are never sure about, until the end. If he were a little more of a physical presence here, he really would have shone on the dark city. He plays the character as so overly cowed, though, even when he might not have to be, that he seems to recede into the shadows. The character unnecessarily loses focus. Missed it by "that much," Kiefer.
But for the Hurt character's Sam Spade gig, I'm left with the feeling that all I saw was an above-average SciFi Channel made-for-tv movie. The fx were good (shape-shifting buildings) - but not particularly memorable. Some visuals were quaint (the beach poster) - but hardly enough to build a film on. The secret of the city was let out too early, blowing the suspense and forcing the film to rely on a hokey "Masters of the Universe" type of ending which consisted - I kid you not - of the good and bad guys glaring at each other.
A nice film. Worth a 6/10. Not in the league of "The Matrix," though.