Where am I, who am I and have the Wachoskis read the script I'm in?

Rating: 9/10 (18 April 2002)

When The Matrix was released, a lot of people got considerably excited. More than a few sci-fi diehards, however, pointed out that, at some points, The Matrix is very, very similar to Alex Proyas 1998 film Dark City, which hadn't been as much of a success as The Matrix. And both movies are indeed similar. Both The Matrix and Dark City deal with worlds that are not at all what they seem to be and ordinary people finding out there's a saviour in them as well. Beyond that, both films are amalgams of pop culture; everything from Philip K. Dick to comic books went into the blender when making either of them (although Dark City is more film noir than Hong Kong-style action fest). Then there's the presence of seemingly invincible bad guys (of course dressed in token black) - with the spoon bending kid from The Matrix portraying one of them in Dark City. Even some of Dark City's sets were used in The Matrix.
If you think this is leading to a comment where I criticise The Matrix for being a mass-marketed rip-off of Dark City: It's not. The Matrix is a hugely popular film for a reason: it's good. The Wachowski brothers' mixture of pop culture, philosophy and computer science is a far more a science fiction film than Dark City. The Matrix is more grounded in our daily reality than Dark City, what is presented is more an extension of our current technological knowledge than a pure fantasy. Because that's the direction Dark City takes in the final reel. The Matrix also has a level of complexity and depth (the nature of reality and perception of it, the birth and evolution of consciousness) which Dark City does not possess. Thematically it's limited to one question, albeit an interesting one: are we humans defined by our past, our memories or is there something else which constitutes our soul? (can you guess the film's answer, by the way?). But defending The Matrix against people who dislike it simply because Dark City predates it, is not my (whole) point.
That whole point is that both movies are in different ways extremely entertaining. I've discussed The Matrix' merits over Dark City. Now the other way around. Dark City is fast, very fast. It races along at absolute top speed. Certain points are made in scenes no longer than a few seconds. Even the dialogue scenes race by, with director Alex Proyas creating a brilliant feel of constant pursuit. And it never lets up. Basically it's a two-hour plus epic squeezed into ninety minutes, which considering all those awfully stretched out three-hour movies that seem almost standard nowadays (Pearl @%^@# Harbour, anyone?) is a bit of a switch. If your attention drops for one second, you'll miss something. And even with constant attention, you'll probably miss something too. And there's a lot to be missed. The sets are absolutely amazing, most special effects are too and the soundtrack (constantly present, even during dialogue scenes, heightening the film's pace even more) is brilliant. In such a powerhouse of moviemaking, actors tend to get lost but here only Kiefer Sutherland does. His Mengele-with-guilt character is no more than the addition of a couple mannerism and a peculiar speech pattern. Rufus Sewell is wonderful as confused saviour, however and so is the rest, who give either beautiful melancholic performances (William Hurt and the often underrated Jennifer O'Connely) or really weird (and occasionally funny) ones (Richard O'Brien).
The big surprises are hinted at early and many, but it doesn't matter because so strong is the sense of forward motion throughout the film you'll be waiting what Proyas will come up with next. And he keeps the best for last. A great twist, a transcendental awakening, a final battle, a victory for individuality and a load of special effects which even makes The Matrix look understated, it's the perfect climax to 90-minutes of near-perfect sci-fi pop culture mish-mash. It may have a video clip style, but Dark City is only MTV-moviemaking if you don't use the term in a derogatory fashion. It's a film aimed at people more responsive to audiovisual stimuli (you simply can't miss the Blade Runner reference) than verbalized ones, but also one that's as fluent in its storytelling as any other classic masterpiece you may be thinking of. It may not be perfect (the opening voice-over is possibly the best reason to quit that awful Hollywood test screening practice right now) and it's highly derivative (the memory-swapping plot is pure K. Dick) but as far as '90's science fiction goes this is up there with the best of the best (which is, you guessed it, The Matrix).
Rating: 9/10