Below average hostage/hijacking/political thriller.

Looking at the cast, one would expect this movie to be worthy of one's time. Harrison Ford, Gary Oldham, William H. Macy, Dean Stockwell, Glenn Close - names that should amount to a watch-worthy experience. However, the movie falls short on all accounts.

Warning: This comment contains minor spoilers.

A poor man's version of the Jack Ryan series. Harrison Ford plays the role of president Marshall, on board the USAF1 which gets hijacked by Kazakh terrorists. Having recently given a speech on his new Just Say No-politics towards terrorists, negotiations appear to be out of the question. Not all of his government and staff agree on this, however.

This could have made an interesting movie. The tension in the White House, when faced with the fact that it is the country's leader who is taken hostage, combined with the political intrigues that arise in such a situation, should have been exploited further. Instead, we are treated with the traditional gung-ho blazing guns solutions where one man saves the day. We've seen it a million times before, and a hundred times better.

Even the special effects are highly ordinary. A lot of them are clearly computer generated, and it is a let-down when it becomes this visible. Better airplane fighting scenes were filmed 40 years ago.

Every cliché appears, even the amazing "fighting inside an airplane with a big hole in its side, without being sucked out into thin air" scene.

Some enjoyment can be had from trying to find the most stupid scene. My favorite: Look for the parachuting secretary with a happy smile on her face, 15000 feet above sea level, wearing only a thin blouse.

From the acting, it seems that the actors are aware that this is not the movie they will be rememvered by. Particularly disappointing is Gary Oldham on autopilot, as the one-dimensional villain. Ford ditto, as the good guy.

While it is reassuring to see that the American president saves the day yet again, not even the casting crew stars can save this film. In the computer world, GIGO means Garbage In, Garbage Out. It applies here as well. Spend more money on the manuscript next time, Mr. Petersen.

Avoid: 4/10


It was the most annoying and stupidest film that I saw in 1997. I remember reading somewhere where Harrison Ford had stated about his dislike for the film, Blade Runner(1982). Well, Air Force One(1997) is a lousy feature compared to that scifi classic. Gary Oldman is average as the main villain. One reason I hate this movie is its Hollywood by the numbers approach and lack of any compelling characters.

It seems that Harrison Ford is trying to be John Wayne in his actions and this is the film's fatal mistake. The role of the President was originally written for Kevin Costner who instead choose to do The Postman(1997). I depised Air Force One(1997) so much that I was rooting for the villains to succeed. Air Force One is a disgrace from a compatent director like Wolfgang Petersen who did better things like Das Boot(1981), The Neverending Story(1984), and In the Line of Fire(1993). Glenn Close is the only actor who gives an interesting performance in the movie.


If you saw "Airport '77", "Passenger 57", and "The Peacemaker" then you have seen this movie. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. And surprise surprise good wins. Oh, sorry I gave away the ending.


This movie shows with total realism the heroism of a band of American people when their plane is high-jacked by terrorists. Harrison Ford plays the US President and he is not going to make things easy for terrorists- that's for sure. In my country we see Harrison Ford as a true American hero. He rocks in every movie.

The great storyline and wonderful acting of a great cast full of amazing American actors will make you enjoy this superb production that has everything.

Good drama and spontaneous signs of patriotism, together with a powerful script and unexpected ending. This movie shows a lot of good things about how Americans deal successfully against terrorists.

All in all it is a must see and you will always remember some good quotes along the whole movie. Specially people from Europe and Asia will love this excellent movie which has everything.


Any resemblance between President Bill Clinton and the Harrison Ford Chief Executive in Wolfgang Petersen's far-fetched, entertaining, but woefully predictable skyjacking saga "Air Force One" ends when Ford's fantastic First Guy starts knocking off the villains. Nevertheless, the parallels between Clinton and Marshall appear clearly obvious. Harrison Ford's President James Marshall is married to a tenacious, headstrong wife in the Hilary mode, and they have a 12-year old daughter. (So was Bill Pullman's president in "Independence Day.") Unlike Clinton, President Marshall flew helicopter rescue missions in Vietnam and received a Medal of Honor. No, the filmmakers refuse to identify President James Marshall's party affiliation, which make "Air Force One" impartially political, while it trumpets America's anti-terrorist stance.

Andrew W. Marlowe's melodramatic screenplay shows more agility than innovation. While his characters emerge as largely one-dimensional stick figures, the dimensions of their predicaments assume nothing less than cataclysmic proportions. Marlowe's script keeps Harrison Ford leaping through enough flaming hoops to fill three movies. Like several other summer blockbusters, Marlowe's script does not know when to throw in the towel. Just about everything that can happen aboard "Air Force One" occurs. Presumably, with the recent spate of skyjacking movies, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood appropriated both Air Force One and the President as the pulp of their fictional escapade.

The movie opens in slam-bang style with an elite American commando team parachuting into Kazakhstan at night. Using the latest hi-tech gear, they kill the palace guards and abduct an adversarial Russian leader, General Radek (Jurgen Prochnow of "Das Boot"), who is promptly incarcerated in a Soviet hoosegow. Three weeks later in Moscow, President Marshall stipulates that the U.S. refuses to negotiate with terrorists. Meanwhile, a ruthless ultra-nationalist Radek zealot, Ivan Korshunov (Gary Oldman of "True Romance"), succeeds in smuggling his bogus TV news crew aboard the most secure plane in the world. A disgruntled Secret Service agent, Gibbs (Xander Berkeley of "L.A. Takedown"), as we later learn, helped these guys obtain their security clearance. Once the plane is airborne, Korshunov and his men commandeer it, kill the pilots, and watch helplessly s the president ejects in his escape pod. (Does anybody remember "Escape from New York?") Ivan contacts the Vice President (Glenn Close) and vows to kill a hostage every half-hour until Radek walks away from prison. According to Defense Secretary Walter Dean (Dean Stockwell), Radek's release would bring down the pro-American regime in the Kremlin and bring back the Cold War, so the Russians are reluctant to set him free unless President Marshall makes the request personally for Radek's release.

The filmmakers cannibalize in typical Hollywood fashion every neat idea from all the other skyjacking thrillers. Generally, "Air Force One" follows the formula of the Kurt Russell hit "Executive Decision." Both movies start with a commando raid and then shift to terrorists hijacking a jetliner before an unconventional hero makes his entry. You can tell that Marlow evidently watch the Wesley Snipes thriller "Passenger 57" for one scene. Another scene features a stunt that appeared in both "Airport 75" and "Cliffhanger." The president here imitates the action heroes from the Bruce Willis "Die Hard" franchise and the Steven Seagal "Under Siege" movies. Finally, the "Air Force One" ending should come as no surprise to any "Star Trek" movie veterans. Anybody who thrives on movies like an insomniac will spot these plot elements. Although "Air Force One" borrows heavily from other epics, the staging of the action and some new scenes in the skyjacking formula boost this opus over the rough spots.

Anybody familiar with German director Wolfgang Petersen will recognize the affinity between "Air Force One" and his earlier classic U-boat thriller "Das Boot"/"The Boat" (1981). The casting of "Das Boot" star Jurgen Prochnow as the heinous General Radek aids in this comparison. Moreover, Petersen sends his highly mobile and energetic cameras plunging about the corridors of "Air Force One" with the same dexterity that they swept through the hull of the sub in "Das Boot." Despite a connect-the-dots plot, Petersen makes every dot a fire storm of intensity. The scene where the President's jet careens wildly across the airfield in Germany and nearly crashes is pretty harrowing.

Ford's presidential protagonist is basically Indiana Jones in a suit and tie. The filmmakers rely on Ford's action hero charisma to compensate for the lack of depth in his inadequately sketched head of state. Shrewdly, they shift gears to the parental side of the chief executive. Ford's best scenes occur before take-off when he asks about his favorite football game. Although Marshall emerges as a cardboard politician, it's his "Die Hard" courage that wreathes him with laurels. Unlike those wimpy Jack Ryan movies "Patriot Games" and "A Clear and Present Danger," Harrison Ford's hero here kills the villains. The bad guys don't slip out of Marshall's clutches and conveniently impale themselves on sharp objects. (Remember the way the "Patriot Games" villain died?) Marshall runs up a body count, kills with a machine gun, snaps necks, and slugs it out with rough and tumble adversaries. Ford is one of the few male box office stars who can shed tears (when Ivan threatens to pull the trigger on his daughter) and not make it look schmaltzy. Ford manages to maintain a stiff upper lip throughout "Air Force One" and his scenes with bad guy Gary Oldman crackle with electricity. Ultimately, however, Ford's performance qualifies as serviceable, nothing truly special like the cop the played in "The Devil's Own" (1997).

The real casting coup in "Air Force One" is Glenn Close as Vice President Kathryn Bennett. Close manages to hold her own in a room packed with veteran male character actors like "Quantum Leap's" Dean Stockwell who constantly bullies Close to usurp presidential authority. Although certainly not the most original skyjacking melodrama, "Air Force One" manages to add elements to the formula and boasts enough visceral R-rated violence to keep you distracted throughout its 124-minute running time.


John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up in an eerie hotel, naked and in the bathtub, with no memories and blood on his forehead. (I couldn't imagine a more strange and frightening experience.) The ring of the hotel phone breaks the silence-- a strange man on the other end tells him he must leave because there are people looking for him. Many events such as this one unfold in Dark City, where "man has no past... and humanity has no future".

Dark City has been passed over by so many critics it's depressing. I think that it should at least have been up for "original screenplay" or SOMETHING at the Oscars to reward Alex Proyas for his fantastic vision. I fail to see why so many people label this movie "noir" like it's BAD or something. Being dark and twisted is not a crime, and despite some other people's comments, this movie is NOT just for the trenchcoat-wearing masses (or if it is, maybe the rest of you can learn something from Goths). If you like sci-fi, dark plots and having reality be so well distorted that you don't realize it IS, so you will love Dark City. (People who have seen the Matrix BEFORE this movie MUST see it, it is very similar in these three respects).

I gave it a 9 out of 10 ONLY because I thought the ending fight scene was a bit weak. Great for a fight scene, but because the rest of the movie focuses on John Murdoch's quest to discover his past and the eerie, ominous happenings in the city, the climax seemed hastily thrown together, as if the crew all of a sudden remembered they had a deadline to meet and could no longer continue the plot in the previous fashion.

The visuals in this movie were absolutely stunning. The effects were NOT used to substitute for the plot, like other movies such as Starship Troopers, Lost in Space and Alien: Resurrection. They were used only as needed and were breathtaking. The editing is NOT as choppy as is rumored, it only lends to the power of the movie. There are some heart-stopping images in Dark City. Watch for the Strangers' clock, views of the city and John's memories.

Proyas takes ideas and ambience from many other movies but integrates them all neatly into Dark City. Gotham City is clearly seen as is Metropolis and other influences such as Ed Hopper's "Nighthawks" dominate in the diner scenes. The forty-ish era (yet strangely futuristic) city is known to be populated, and yet it is ominously empty (hence one of Hopper's main themes, isolation in large cities). (It's especially quiet at midnight, hehehehe... ;D ) This 40's era ambience together with the sci-fi fantasy undercurrent makes for a very interesting feeling while watching.

I'm happy that Kiefer Sutherland, Richard O'Brien (of Rocky Horror fame) and William Hurt agreed to do this movie, it gave Dark City just that much more validation in the USA (I wish things weren't like this, but they are). Kiefer Sutherland is absolutely wonderful and convincing as the doctor/scientist Dr.Schreber, and Rufus Sewell is a properly confused yet determined John Murdoch. Many critics say that William Hurt's character, the detective, and Jennifer Connelly's Emma Murdoch could have used a little more development, but I think part of the point of Dark City was that you don't really know who people are (not to mention yourself). Richard O'Brien and his character's whole race creep me out every time I see the movie, but he's especially frightening and a strange character. I had to resist the urge to talk like a Stranger after seeing the movie a few times.

Trevor Jones, one of my favorite movie composers, did the score for Dark City, and I must say it's very apropo. The deep, bass vocals and frantic themes are some of my favorite aspects, but "Memories of Shell Beach" is a haunting, beautiful song as well. Some of my other favorite scores by him are the Dark Crystal and Last of the Mohicans.

Altogether, I think Alex Proyas had a stroke of genius in the making of this movie. One of the most original dark sci-fi movies I've seen in a long time. It deserves its place with the Matrix, 12 Monkeys and others, pioneers in a field so changed (usually for the worse) since Star Wars and since earlier sci-fi classics. I hope these won't be the last of a (dare I say it?) dying race of movies that have true creativity and originality.


I will be part of the rabid throngs of people lining up to catch a spectacle as huge as Reloaded and Revolution. Despite(and maybe because of) Matrix sky high hype right now, my thoughts drift back to this overlooked classic...but a little on Neo and gang first below...

The Matrix just happened.

With an uncanny midas touch, The Warchowski bros launched this(then unknown film) at the the right place, in the right time. With an execution commercial enough to bring in the box office moola and a philosophical subtext accessible enough for the general public to latch on to, the rest, as they say...is history.

The philosophical under pinnings though, (of blue pills, red pills, the subreality of consciousness and all that mambo jambo etc), so successfully popularised by The Matrix, was infact neither originated by The Matrix nor as fully realised than in other more accomplished works.

Which leads me to....drumroll.....

As such, IMHO, the best execution on the concept of reality and perception was already explored in a much more unbelievably visual opus, one year earlier, the grossly overlooked, criminally under-rated,

"Dark City". (One of My Top 10 All time Favourite Films)

This scifi/ film noir hybrid was impactful both cinematically and ideologically. Most importantly, it rewarded my wildly abandoned reach for human imagination and thirst for ideas, by fulfilling as much promise a motion picture can ever hope to give.

On top of that, my background as a "trekkie" scifi nerd meant I instinctively respond to films which challenge me both intellectually and spiritually. Dark City was thus a near religious, life cleansing experience for me.

And any which way I look at it, this film soars to heights unseen since 2001: A Space Odyssey...

But due to its messed up(or near-absent) marketing campaign(positioning the film to resemble a horror film for the teenage crowd), the film did not find its intended audience and flopped unceremoniously. Of course it found its audience but by then its was too late...

That said, the thirst for something better than our run of the mill pop corn fare is still there, waiting to be quenched.

And The Matrix filled that void.

Too bad it wasn't this film. But in a ideal world, it would. Sad.


Dark City is all about a man who has incredible powers but doesn't realize it. Everyone is under the control of mysterious 'strangers' who are injecting them with false memories/altering their reality. This man (Rufus Sewell) finally confronts these men in a battle for the city.

This is one of those films that inspires you to learn more about sci/fi. The whole movie is cold, dark and it never lights up for a minute. This movie is an underrated brilliant sci-fi film and it bares a resemblance to 'The Matrix', but was made before it, so there is no denying that Dark City must have been an inspiration for The Matrix.

The story is complex but develops itself as a frequently entertaining thriller. It is thought provoking, which is a lesser thing you'll find in films today. You'll sit there thinking about life after viewing this film. It can easily been our future if we head down the road we are on.

The performances are all very good, specially the three lead men. Rufus Sewell plays the confused lead, William Hurt plays the film noir detective and Kiefer Sutherland is the quirky side switching doctor. Don't forget Jennifer Connellywho plays the role with great expertise. Alex Proyas much like The Crow has created this Gothic world where the sun never rises and inhabitants live in darkness. The sets and costumes are beautiful. The acting is top-of-the-line, with Sewell in the lead part. Everyone does a great job.

The villains in this film, THE STRANGERS, are creepy and will send chills down your spine every time you see them in their long black coats and hat. The costumes for them are perfect and could not have been done better, they live in the world underground and you see the different lifestyles between them and the people they control, yet live above them.

The thing that amazed me the most would be the cross between the 1950 to 1980's, it was brilliant, the set pieces were perfect for this film. Every time I saw the buildings changing, I was in amazement. Everyone that took part in this film should be praised, this is a film that should get more attention from the general public, but is overshadowed by films that like to put more action then story in it's plot.


Dark City is the best film of Alex Proyas. He uses the Gothic and claustrophobic themes commonly and dark colors prevail during the film like "The Crow" .The story doesn't follow a certain order of rule, instead there is some mind games and puzzles in the film, that causes watchers to be active in each minute and motivate to the movie..

The topic is about a man who loses his past and first finds himself in a bath tub, doesn^t know about himself and his life, but he has one ability that no one has, he can be alive when the evil forces stops the time and reshapes the world according to their own demand. The story is so fantastic and Proyas' nightmare world come true in that movie.

I can basically say that it's one of the best science fiction movies ever made, it opens doors to different dimensions and force human brains' capability....

"Mutlu Bahar"


If you like mind twisting movies that stick with you for days/weeks and make you question the human existence and our reality as we know it, then DARK CITY is the film for you.

Similar in philosophy to the later released 'The Matrix', the film is centered around a man (Rufus Sewell) who becomes suddenly and unwittingly aware that his world is not what it seems. The film kicks off with Murdoch (Sewell) waking up in a bathtub with no memory and a dead body in the same room. He has no recollection as to how and why he's there.

As Murdoch attempts to put the pieces together he notices that at every midnight on the dot, apart from Murdoch himself, every inhabitant in the city falls asleep. It's then that he realizes that something even bigger than his memory loss is taking place.

Alex Proyas (The Crow) manages to combine a tantalisingly interesting Sci-Fi screenplay with dark and drab yet beautifully mysterious cinematography and he pulls it off (once again). Although a box-office flop, it has managed to, through the years, collect and maintain a cult following which is well deserved.

It isn't without it's faults, Rufus Sewell although adequate, doesn't steal the show (much like Keanu), and the talented co-stars (k. Sutherland, Connelly & Hurt) aren't utilised as well as they could be. The story does become slight complicated and a little ridiculous at times, but which Sci-Fi movie hasn't suffered from that affliction?! To summarise, think of 'The Matrix', minus the big name stars, special effects and hype, and multiply the philosophy and mystery by 10 (without complicating it, like the Matrix sequels did) and you end up with DARK CITY.


My age: 13

John Murdoch, played by Rufus Sewell, awakens in a bathtub in a hotel room, not remembering anything about his past and discovering that he is wanted for a series of brutal murders. He receives a phone call from Dr Schreber, played by Kiefer Sutherland, who wishes to help him, and leaves the hotel. He begins to have memories of Shell Beach from a postcard in his suitcase. He has no idea what is going on in the dark city. The strangers are another species who live under the ground and search for the human soul. The strangers have the ability to tune, to cloud people's minds and make them sleep. John finds that he is the only person who can resist this power and use it himself. Every night the strangers put the whole town to sleep, imprint people with new memories and change the appearance of the city. Detective Bumstead, played by William Hurt, is on the murder case, trying to bring John in, but is then caught up in helping John uncover the truth.

This film is visually excellent, especially during the scenes when the strangers are changing the city. I look forward to future work by the director Alex Proyas, whose directing style is brilliant in this film. Acting performances are very good, and the film has an interesting and intriguing plot. The characters are well thought up, and you really care about them. The film is great from start to finish, but the film is best in the end, with a showdown between the main stranger and John. One of the best films of recent times, Dark City deserves to be called the Number 1 movie of 1998 by Roger Ebert.

Australian Classification: M 15+: Medium Level Violence

Rating: 88 out of 100


This is probably the best Sci-Fi-Film of the Ninetees. Matrix is good, but this film is better. Both deal with the same question: What is reality? Not only was Dark City first, it also handles the subject much better and more adult than Matrix. Also its conclusion is far better than the one of Matrix.

Not only does this film deal with reality, it also deals with humanity, something which lacks Matrix. What makes us humans? To quote Dr. Schreber from the film "Are we more than just the sum of our Experiences?" This film is slowpaced, but not boring at all. And it deserves the title: Dark. The film is dark, "noir" and this gives the film a great atmosphere. The darkness and coldness of the strangers is in contrast to the bright light of the sun created by John Murdoch in the end.

This film is very philosophic, which I like. The best films are those which help us to think and this one clearly is such a film. Something which is needed in our society of marionettes and idiotic consumers who know more than anyone else before in history but who lack the ability to truly think.

The show down was a little weak, but the film made this up again at the very end with the last meeting between Murdoch and Mr. Hand. I remember Murdoch's words well and he speaks of a truth which is sometimes forgotten: What makes us human is not to be found in our heads, our brains and our minds.


Words can't begin to describe the admiration that I have for this movie. Even to this day, six years after seeing it for the first time, I can't get over the freshness, originality, and overall boldness of Alex Proyas' visionary masterpiece. Now that Proyas is getting a larger budget for I, Robot this year, I felt that it would be time to credit Proyas' earlier science fiction masterpiece in anticipation that I, Robot would only live up to this film.

 From the opening shots of this film, the viewer is instantly plummeted into a bold and grand setting of an indistinct city that seems that this is how noir films of the forties would look if they were in color. After a display of the bizarre occurrence that happens to the city around midnight, we are introduced to the film's protagonist, a man named John Murdoch, who awakens in a bathtub, with no memory of his life or how he got where he was. Needless to say, what happened to the dead woman next to his bed. After a few clues that seem to trigger brief glimpses of his childhood, he is chased from his room by three odd looking figures, looking for him.

As Murdoch wanders the city, trying to find his identity, we learn that not only are the strange people (who are appropriately named The Strangers) looking for Mr. Murdoch, but a police officer named Bumstead is as well, searching for the killer of not just the woman in the apartment, but six other women who were murdered in the same manner as the woman from Murdoch's room. Also is Murdoch's estranged wife, who is trying to make a reconciliation with him after a falling out. Even a therapist that Murdoch has been seeing because of his wife's infidelity is searching for him as well. Everyone seems to have their own reason to be searching for Murdoch, and Murdoch is trying to figure out why, since he has no clue as to who he is. In a sense, Murdoch's quest becomes a search for identity in a world that is trying to label him. Is he a murderer, is he a jilted lover, is he psychologically damaged person, or is he a like the strangers who are pursuing him?

But that becomes the center question of Dark City itself, do we make up who we are or are we made up of experiences and memories? We realize this question when we realize the purpose of the Strangers' inhabitance of the city. They are actually aliens, whose race is dying out and they need to observe the human race to see what has made us thrive so much. So, we enter their experiment, which revolves around making the inhabitants of the city fall asleep at midnight while the strangers give them new lives by implanting new memories in them and changing the environment around them.

Murdoch also discovers that the reason the Strangers are coming after him is because he has developed an immunity to the experiment, not falling asleep when everyone else does. He has also begun to take on the traits of the strangers as well, gaining their power to "tune", which is the ability to alter their environment by will alone. This whole concept suggests two things, the first being that humanity has the ability to adapt and thrive in a new environment and the other is that as an individual, humans have the ability to shape their world to their own desire once they are fully aware of themselves and their desires.

The movie in itself is a brilliant commentary on our society as a whole which is displayed in the beginning with Dr. Schreber's rat experiment in the lab, which comes to symbolize a smaller scale version of the strangers' experiment for us, putting rats (humans) in a maze of a city (life) and seeing if they can find their way. Which also seems to suggest that as a society, we are merely just rats in a maze, wandering around until we come to the end. The strangers' insistence on doing everything as a group also brings up another interesting point about the human race is that our ability to be individuals is what makes humans thrive rather than conformity and similarity. "Dark City" takes such bold and brilliant concepts, suggesting so much about our society as a whole and even the importance of individuality over conformity. The themes, once read into, take on such a strong and complex turn, unheard of in most science fiction films of recent years.

Then there is the matter of the setting itself, for no science fiction film can be complete without a strong and symbolic setting. The setting is vast and detailed, and this isn't just the city, which is a sight to behold in itself. The underground world of the strangers themselves is claustrophobic, atmospheric, and actually is the most alien in architecture, suggesting a twisted, surrealistic world, yet one that is dependent on the world above them. The city above ground displays a rich noir feel in which one feels that there is something sinister lurking underneath it's surface. Even the blending of the time periods, seeing 30s architecture around 60s cars driven by people in 50s suits is even a hint off that the city has been fabricated out of different eras and pasts as one of the strangers even seems to suggest.

"Dark City" is a film rich in ideas, concepts, visual splendor, and atmosphere. It's the kind of film that one seems to enjoy being lost in, despite the danger that lurks in it's atmosphere. It's a film that reassures it's viewers that a strong understanding of oneself and staying true to yourself that one can conquer any world they are placed in. And as I, Robot approaches, one can only hope that lightning can strike twice with Proyas and his unique blend of visual grandeur and his depth will emerge and be embraced by a larger audience, who might seek out this film.


"Dark" is right: this is a dark movie with dark people and dark buildings where there is no daylight until the very end of the story. It's a combination sci-fi/film noir and takes place back in the 1940s or '50s in some big city.

It's alien nonsense stuff about peoples' memories taken from them so that the aliens can learn enough about earth beings to eventually take over their souls because their own race is dying, blah, blah, blah. You've seen it before.

However, the story takes a back seat to the set designs and special effects, both of which are unique. I know of no other movie, before or since (it's been eight years), which shows a city literally re-shape itself each night with buildings expanding, rising, falling, etc. The visuals throughout this movie are fabulous and the sounds that go with it are good, too.

There is very little profanity in this movie but it's still an ugly, sordid story and not always fun to watch even though it keeps your attention and - at least with me - draws you back for multiple viewings. There is a magnetism to this film. This is the only video I got rid twice and re-acquired it both times! As I said, Dark City keeps drawing me back. Eerie!!!


Ever since I first saw the first Crow film with Brandon Lee, I've been an avid fan of Alex Proyas' film making and Dark City is another amazing example of his cinematic expertise. Filmed primarily in Sydney and starring Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connoly, William Hurt and Keifer Sutherland, Dark City is an incredible piece of work with an intricate and detailed story with an even more amazingly executed motion picture behind it. The sets and visual effects have been so well thought out and performed that together with the impressive acting (including many Australian actors such as Colin Friels and that tall funny looking guy from Mad Max) the film simply sucks you in and you can fully believe that the word Proyas has created exists; which is something that not many film makers can achieve easily. From start to finish, an instant classic that will surely gain cult status as the years progress.


I'm not saying the acting was perfect, i'm not trying to say the story was told in the most professional way or all by rules of film-making. It wasn't at all an up-tempo film Hollywood style with lots of explosions and rapid smart dialogs.

But, somehow, unlike most films with few exceptions, it had the capability of putting you in a certain mood. A mood of inconvenience, because you become one with the character John Murdoch, mostly thanks to Sewell's acting. Maybe it's because when I've seen this movie, it's always way past midnight, but I guess it's part of the ultimate experience from it.

The thing is I've only felt this way about a movie once before, and unfortunately, I can't remember the title of that movie, only that it ended with a picture of an ocean, and an alone man on the beach, leaving us never knowing if he would ever meet his girl again or not. I love when a picture put that enormous hill of emotions in your heart, and just as many questions in your head. That feeling, that mood.

Most of the actors has received bad reviews for this movie, not least on this forum. But in my opinion, Rufus Sewell is doing his part very well. First so uncertain, then slowly growing into his role. Keither Sutherland, in a pretty uncomfortable role as a scared, weak doctor does it surprisingly good. William Hurt is hard and scarred, but soft on the inside. I guess the actors are telling more about their parts than the script itself.

Generally, all the actors seem to have captured this feeling, this sense, that colors all throughout the picture, making the picture. You are not watching it. You are in it. You are John Murdoch.

I'd like to end with a quote

John Murdoch: "When was the last time you remember doing something during the day?"

It sort of reveals the touch of it. If you haven't seen it, see it, in the middle of the night! If you've seen it daytime, see it again at nighttime. Not because you're tired, but because it's dark.


Dark City (1998) New Line Cinema.

Review: Dark City being directed by Alex Proyas, who directed the dark thriller The Crow, I had to see this movie. This is an original, dark, engaging, and one of the best movies of 1998.

The story is the best. A man who wakes up in a bathtub has no memory at all. He discovers that some ominous beings are coming after him. Who are they? What do they want? And to top it off, he is a suspect in several murders. As the story unfolds, it just gets more interesting. The look of the city is quite a sight. It has an old school comic book feel to it. The style of everything is a nice 1940's style, from clothing to the cars.

As we follow our hero, we learn more about him....or do we? What is real? What is fake? Questions keep coming up but, are their any answers to all these questions? Even more weird is when at the stroke of midnight, the city changes shape while everyone sleeps.

Our hero is also followed by an honest detective, Insp. Bumstead, who just wants answers to the murders and gets involved in the mystery too. Our hero wants to look for one location that could unlock the mystery to everything. What could it be?

Another strong point here is the acting is excellent. Rufus Sewell plays his role with conviction and passion. The casting is flawless.

The Last Word: Awesome flick. This is a movie that is excellent brain food. It makes you think....a lot. You will most likely watch this over and over again to figure everything out. No problem. This movie never gets old. Highly recommended.


This is a tremendous movie I must say! Unfortunately I only got to watch it on a small poor TV, but the style and plot is still captivating.

The strongest point is a very nice style: 50-ish random big city, neither clearly American or European. It is always dark, sun never shines, everything looks a bit run down. Some puddles and rain reinforces the mood.

The start of the movie is wonderful in its total mystery; it is really a whole lot like a Kafka novel as the main protagonist walks around in a strange world discovering ever more of it. And it is really really strange in an absolutely wonderful way.

The basic premise of aliens putting humans in a lab far out in space and messing with their minds is really nice, and the way they do it interesting enough. However, I felt that the movie dropped some in its intensity when the mechanics behind the scenes get revealed. An unseen horror is always more interesting than a seen horror.

The end is a bit disappointing as it all digresses into a "big fight" in classic american style.

But the final end is nice in that there is no complete happiness, only a hint that things could be getting better.

Overall, better than most movies. An 9 out of 10!


First, just for the record, this film did not rip off 'The Matrix'. It came out a year earlier. Such arguments seem pointless to me anyway, since the basic premise both of these movies, plus 'The Thirteenth Floor', 'The Truman Show', 'Pleasantville', et al are so blatantly appropriated from Philip K Dick's SF of the 1950's.

Never mind that, though. This is another "What is reality" film (a question Dick apparently used to pose himself every morning); this time the variation being that an alien race has abducted a city of humans and is performing experiments on them to try to find out the nature of the human soul. That isn't a spoiler, BTW. In fact the very first thing that happens in this film is that the narrator tells you what I just told you. You can't help but wonder if it might have served to achieve a better sense of mystery if they hadn't thought to lay that on you in the first 30 seconds, but the film manages to be quite suspenseful all the same.

'Dark City' is directed by the bloke who brought us 'The Crow', which I thought was utter rubbish. It has a similar dark, stylised look, which will probably appeal to goths - but in 'Dark City' there is at least a reason for this perpetual night.

'Dark City' is SF, nominally, but the kernel of hard SF which mostly emerges (quite pleasingly) at the end of the movie is subsumed by the complete stylization of the movie's visual elements. There really isn't any need for the aliens to all look and talk like Riff-Raff from 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show', for the scary, gruesome, dark sets - for the fact that people are driving 1960's cars around and wearing 1940's fashions. There is no need to have an evil little kid alien, or for the aliens to all chatter their teeth when they do something ominous. You have got get over the silliness of this sort of stuff and appreciate that it's just part of the weird, atmospheric world the director has created. Really it all owes as much to comic book horror and super-hero stuff as it does to traditional science fiction.

'Dark City' is the sort of film which can easily annoy you if you allow it to, but if you can forgive its affectations and the fact that it doesn't even attempt to explain various obvious logical oddities (e.g. why don't people who collapse face-first in a bowl of porridge drown after a few hours?) then the film can win you over as the hero goes through his version of taking the red pill (or was it the blue one? I always forget.)

This film also raises several important questions about Kiefer Sutherland. How come his glasses don't fall off when he's hanging upside down? Why does he speak haltingly, stutteringly, EXCEPT when he's stressed out? Did he just get this job because his dad knew the producer? Fortunately Sutherland's typically ridiculous acting is balanced to an extent by William Hurt as Inspector Bumstead (honestly!) - the cop who's chasing after the hero. Hurt is, as always, almost completely devoid of personality, and looks as if he's in a trance most of the time. Of course he's always like this, but in this movie it actually makes sense.

Rufus Sewell is fine as the hero - the guy who 'wakes up' - and so is Jennifer Connelly as his 'wife'. The aliens are all over the top and silly, and they float through the air and chatter their teeth, but like I said, you have to just think comic-book, and you can forgive it all.

In some ways 'Dark City' is a film that I hate myself for liking, but the truth is it's a pretty darn effective, if somewhat ridiculous SF story, and what makes it work are precisely the things that make it silly. Go figure. 7 out of 10.


John Mudoch (Rufus Sewell) awakes in a bathtub completely naked, with blood dripping down his forehead, unaware of what is happening, he remembers nothing. In the next room he finds a dead body and a blood stained knife. What follows is john trying to piece together what is happening to him and what he unravels is one of the greatest science fiction stories ever put to film. There is a group called the strangers who have an ability to physically change surroundings of them and the people living in the city, they call this ability "tuning". They soon discover that john also has this ability, which is impossible as it would take a normal human a few lifetimes to gain the ability to "tune". Thats the most i can tell without giving away major plot points.

The movie is set in a 1940ish looking city where detectives are hunting John, along with the mysterious strangers. The tall buildings and the knowledge that the strangers could be anywhere in the city gives a menacing ambiance, heightening the tension in the movie and giving off a great effect on the viewer. The special effects in Dark City are stunning and realistic, especially when certain characters use "tuning".

Rufus Sewell gives a good performance as John Murdoch, though i could'nt help feeling he was holding back somewhat. I could think of a few other actors who could have gave a much better performance but he was generally good.

Kiefer Sunderland as Dr. Daniel Schreber was very good and seemed to have put all of his effort into his character, its quite an unusual role for Sunderland but he pulls it off pretty well.

Another performance worth mentioning is Richard O'Brien as Mr Hand, he gives a genuinely creepy performance as one of the main strangers, i thought i would see him and think crystal maze through all of his scenes but he does a pretty good job of playing a convincing character.

Overall the movie leaves a few unanswered questions, leaving the viewer to conduct their own theories about the outcome of events. I have a good grasp of the story as a whole but some people will find bits and pieces confusing. A great film anyways, i gave it an 8 because it tends to drag in some spots, but the end makes up for all doubts.


Imagine there's no heaven. Imagine a hundred minutes of pure atmosphere. Imagine a hundred minutes of raw science fiction. Imagine a hundred minutes of psychedelic cinematography. It will be called Dark City.

Probably the most overlooked movie of the 90s, Dark City is comparable to the likes of Blade Runner and the timeless Metropolis. It is a different from Blade Runner because the plot is more a picture in the puzzle than the puzzle itself. The classic sci-fi plot has been setup like a detective story. The story starts in true film noir style with a man wanted for a series of brutal murders. But he cannot remember whether he did them or not. In fact, he cannot remember anything. Thus starts a tale of discovery and a wonderful hundred minutes.

What makes sci-fi movies fun is the transportation of the viewer into its world and Dark City does this well. For quite some time in the movie, the plot unfolds like a crime story - but slowly and creepily leading into its sci-fi elements. And when it starts, its a lot of fun. The Strangers start chasing Rufus. They find out much to their surprise that Rufus can also 'tune in' like themselves. And then there is a kid with superpowers and has a couple of interesting encounters with Rufus. And the unforgettable Jennifer Connelly. For once in a movie she is being sought after and plays the ingénue to perfection, unlike most of her famous ventures where she is nursing crazy protagonists. Her memories are mixed up by the Strangers and she does not remember who Rufus is. By the end of the movie, Rufus has to start wooing her again. Nice.

What makes Dark City Dark City is the atmospheric canon of light and darkness. Dim lazy sets. A confused but determined Rufus Sewell. The creepy Strangers. Its a work of great imagination and packed a wallop when I watched it in an empty theater 6 years ago. Maybe this impact is what Manoj Night Shyamalan was talking about in order to stop studios' plans of releasing the DVDs of movies on the same day as their theatrical release. If somebody saw Dark City on DVD today they might never understand why its so good a sci-fi movie.


This is a movie you would love if you love the Matrix movie's concept. Well, the concept remains same but not the action which makes Matrix one of the most watchable sci-fi movie of this decade. This one does have clean cinematography though, with okay acts by Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Stherland, William Hurt, Jennifer Connelly. If one is intrigued by the mystery of our very existence then this kind of movie is surely going to provide some food for thought. If one day you get up and find that everything around you is just a big lie and the whole world surrounded you is fabricated, manipulated then what will be your reaction. In this one like Keanu in Matrix, Rufus also possesses the power of the changers, somehow lacks the brightness, smartness of Matrix. However all in all this is a watchable movie, just don't expect and compare with Matrix.


Reading through the reviews of this film, it's clear to me that the general viewing public (the folks who don't get this movie) really does like its action films to be big and dumb, and that they have been fooled by Hollywood into thinking that: a) "science fiction" is the same as "sci fi" (it's not); and b) "science fiction" is now supposed to be analogous to "action flick" (thanks for nothing, James Cameron!).

The same people who will not attempt to think about (I don't mean "like," I just mean "think about") the second two movies in "The Matrix" trilogy are going to hate this film, because it is truly a science fiction film and not an action movie or a "sci fi" movie.

For people who want to think about their entertainment, this is a great film for you.

The things people are missing are because of the fact that they don't want to pay attention.

Why are there Strangers in the form of little kids? Because the Strangers inhabit the human dead and, since children can die, the Strangers can inhabit their bodies.

Can't the Strangers do anything? No, clearly they can't because, if they could, they wouldn't need the doctor for his work with humans. They clearly have limits to their powers.

Why are the characters so wooden? Because they aren't comfortable with themselves. John is comfortable with his power at the end of the movie because he has grown comfortable with himself and who he is. Bumstead and Emma seem distant at first because they are only just introduced to those lives when we first see them. They have memories of being those people, but they are not those people and they are not yet comfortable in their skins.

Again, this is a very deeply made film. You have to dig deep to discover what is going on. The Jungian themes, the emotional themes, the questions of self identity and how society, such as a city, can inform our identification of not only ourselves but those around us are set here for us to think about.

So, in short, if you want a film to pay attention to and think about, this is your flick.

If you want a big, dumb action movie, then go elsewhere - there's noting (for you) to see here.


My words will be few. I feel this is one of the truest forms of science fiction that I have seen in a movie. It is dark and strange yet very much deals with real issues. This movie should leave the viewer with much to think about. A truely great movie. I have been waiting for it's equal.


For all of those who have been misguided and praised The Matrix as the greatest scifi movie(though i rather call it junk), you have been lied too. The Matrix is actually an overbudget, over-rated, and over-produce version of this classic, Dark City. The special effects, unlike The Matrix, make sense in this film. They not only please the eyes, but they make the mind think. This is not eye-candy junk. This is the real thing. A film which knows no boundries and does not add a nonsense storyline to it. It is sad to see people flock to The Matrix and over look this more original picture. You'll see sequels of The Matrix, but you will not see sequels of Dark City, because it is art. Brillantly scripted, Brillantly acted, Brillantly directed. This is the real sci-fi thriller we've been waiting for. Not since 2001: A Space Odyssey, has a sci-fi film made science so powerful and exciting. As for The Matrix, it made it dumb.


A truly riveting movie. A great film that causes you to think about its implications rather than spoon-feeding you plot. The special effects (while spectacular) never encroach or overtake the character development. Also the only movie where Sutherland doesn't play a biker type.


This is the one of the best Sci-Fi movies I have seen in recent history. The way everything is meticulously placed is incredible. From the lighting to the characters and the city itself. With an incredible jaw dropping reveal at the climax I cannot recommend this movie enough.

The pacing is great and starts fast and ends fast. There are pauses in the action I believe Alex Proyas placed there to give the viewer a chance to catch his breath.

Roger Ebert named this the best movie of 1998, it may not quite be that, but nonetheless, you will not be disappointed.

Check it out I am sure you will love it.


What an astounding, absorbing, tour de force! Happened upon "Dark City" on cable TV in the wee hours as I was about to go to sleep -- and right from the start, I was mesmerized by this amazingly brilliant, darkly thrilling, gothically mysterious excursion into the labyrinthine nature of existence. One of the most outstandingly creative, intelligent, well-crafted philosophical filmic SF journeys in decades! Even though I found the very ending to be a bit week (though passable) and tangentially inconsistent with the visceral flow and power of the film as a whole, I heartily recommend "Dark City" to all those who thrive on a challenge to the imagination and have the courage to question the darkness in a quest for the light.


Dark city is one of the most original pieces of sci-fi to come along in a long time, add that to the amazing visual look brought to the film by it's director and you have a body of work that is little short of perfect. Alex Proyas may not direct many films but when he does he gets it right. It's a shame then that Dark city did not get the full recognition it deserved, I myself watched it on it's opening weekend in the uk, in cinema that had no more than six people in it. When you compare this with the box office success of a film like the Matrix which while being a good film still falls well short of the tale being told in Dark City, it seems that people on the whole don't want intelligent science fiction but the typical pap that hollywood is too eager to churn out for the masses. We need more films like Dark City and Twelve Monkeys and we need more directors who belive that their audience has a brain and is willing to use it.


The problem with science fiction anymore is the increasingly unoriginal concepts that are up and coming. Instead, remaking or reinstating old classics. Not so, the case with Dark City. Probably one of the most overlooked films of our time, Dark City tells the tale of a man who wakes in a world with no memory of what is going on around him. In essence, we are in the same boat. He goes through searching for clues and trying to survive the touch of the Strangers, a race that houses more purpose to these people than they could possibly know. With the help of their human doctor, they conduct experiments. Our hero jumps in to not only understand them but to free us all. Your first thought in seeing this movie is probably, 'Wow, how similar this is to The Matrix.' With exception to the fact that it came out before The Matrix ever graced it's previews, there are similarities. I have said many times to people, this is how the other two should have ended up. Hey, if your going to take something, may as well take it all. Anyway, moving on. Dark City is brilliant. The action sequences alone are suspenseful, and to this day I watch and pick up new things. Note that there are spirals throughout all of the film. Also, the acting. A good sci-fi must perpetuate good acting in order to sell this fiction as a possible reality. To start, Rufus Sewell, a fine thespian indeed. Not only does he sell the newborn man, but he also makes you feel a certain sense of sorrow for him. Next on the plate is the ever great William Hurt. I can say that I've only seen a handful of films he's been in, but anytime I do, he is phenomenal. Dark City is no exception. He plays the inspector, bent on finding a killer but realizes the case has nothing to do with this life. Next comes Kiefer Sutherland, a fantastic choice for this film indeed as the Igor mad scientist. What you come to find out is that he is helping the enemy because he has no choice. The work Kiefer does with his voice takes you to a different thought process of who it is, making you feel sorry for his character more than Sewell's. Fourth down the line comes the lovely Jennifer Connelly, now an academy award winner, and rightfully so. She shines as much as she can in this sci fi feature where she plays a smaller role than people think. And last, but certainly not least, comes Mr. Richard O'Brien. He redefines what the term evil villain means. His vocal work, though not sure if it's his voice or an imitation, is superb. I can't go a day without thinking of high pitched voice as he spouts the line "We use your dead as vessels", and then a snarl. All in, one of the better films in history, I would definitely place this on my top ten list.

10 out of 10.


I've read reviews of "Dark City" in many places (and many of them here) hailing it as a modern science fiction masterpiece, so boy was I disappointed when I watched it and came to the sober conclusion that it's just not very good. Yeah, yeah, yeah the visuals are stunning, blah, blah, blah, but as is proved time and again, visuals alone can't make a movie. At least this had an interesting story, but as befalls so many films in this mind-bending sci-fi genre (and "The Matrix" suffers from this as well, though it's a far better movie), the writers have set up such a cerebral concept that the movie grinds to a halt when it has to trudge through all the exposition just so that the audience can keep track of what's going on. Though that in itself is never very clear in "Dark City." This movie just rushes from one scene to the next, in an attempt to create a breathless and exciting tone I guess, but scenes aren't allowed to play themselves out. We're on to the next set piece before we've had time to absorb the one we just saw, and the characters get buried underneath all the furious editing. However, I don't believe there would be much chance for them anyway, since most of the actors aren't very good either. Rufus Sewell and William Hurt do o.k. but Jennifer Connelly phones in a wan performance and Kiefer Sutherland is barely watchable in a lamentable impersonation of the creepy Nazi chasing Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." His line delivery is so eccentric and monotonous that I was cringing every time he opened his mouth by the film's end.

No, I'm afraid the majority is out to sea with this one. This film and "masterpiece" don't belong in the same sentence.

Grade: C-


Science-fiction done well is always enjoyable. Such is the case with Alex Proyas' "Dark City". The writer, co-scripter and director, Proyas has given his film a real boost by adding strong dramatic tension and a menacing thriller element. He blends all the ingredients well, and provides the perfect mood for the feature.

George Liddle's production design is superlative, well captured as it is by the camera of Dariusz Wolski. Music is from Trevor Jones.

Rufus Sewell does very well as the bewildered Murdoch, a man who has no idea who he is or what is going on in this "Dark City". Kiefer Sutherland is a treat (perhaps his best role) as the psychiatrist who appears to hold the key to Murdoch's past and the secrets of the city. William Hurt sadly gets too little to do as the fastidious Inspector Bumstead, while Colin Friels plays the borderline psychotic "Frank" with glee. Also starts Jennifer Connelly as Murdoch's forgotten wife, and Aussie stars Melissa George and Bruce Spence. Great to see!

The only thing Mr. Proyas does not prepare us for is his rather over the top finale (perhaps a little overkill there), and his all too neat denouement. The conclusion only slightly taints what is otherwise a thoroughly enjoyable production.

Friday, October 30, 1998 - Astor Theatre StKilda


You could say this movie was a precursor to The Matrix, but its better than that. You could say this movie takes its cues from Bladerunner, but it would be more accurate to say it got those cues from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. You could say this is the best sci-fi movie ever, and I would only put up a token argument. Throughout the film there is an incredible amount of tension. The special effects are amazing (especially for 1998), and somehow it never bites off more than it can chew. The plot is daring, complex and filled with twists, but in the end it completely makes sense. There were so many times when this movie could have fallen apart, devolved into nonsense, but it always holds together. The acting is great, the visuals are great, and the script is great. What more could you want?


Perhaps one of the very first films in the age of DVD to find its audience following a poor theatrical run, "Dark City" is the follow-up to director Alex Proyas' other stylistic achievement, the graphic-novel adaptation, "The Crow." In the film, our main character, John Murdoch, wakes up in a dingy hotel bath tub, bleeding from his forehead. Scared and confused, he comes to find that he is the suspect in a string of brutal murders and hot on his tale is a mysterious organization known as the Strangers, who oddly resemble the cenobites in Clive Barker's "Hellraiser," but whom have the ability to warp the world around them.

Like "The Crow" before it, "Dark City" is heavy on set-design, bleak atmosphere and memorable visuals, but thankfully, the script (co-written by David S. Goyer) is smart enough not to hinge on special effects and set design, and rather, toys with your expectations while delivering something stream-lined and efficient, instead of being overly long and bloated like it very well could have been. Driving the film is Rufus Sewell as Murdoch, a character who is never sure if what he is seeing or doing is even real. While Sewell sells it, his co-star, Jennifer Connelly, unfortunately isn't given much to do other than look good and sad. Thankfully performances by William Hurt and Keifer Sutherland inject some energy into the narrative, only to bounce off of the underplayed humanity on display by Sewell.

While "The Matrix," released a year later, would overshadow its influence on the science fiction world and pop-culture in general, it's worth noting that the film still stands as one of the best genre films of the 90's and begs to be seen by anyone with a love for sci-fi in need of some refreshment. It's perhaps the best film by Proyas, and at a breezy 96 minutes, it gets the job done well, never wasting a moment or sacrificing exposition. Even if you're not sold on its plot, you'll at least be mesmerized by its visuals, which in and of itself, is worth the price of admission.


Dark City is a masterpiece. Of what, though? Ah, that is not so difficult a question to answer.

Alex Proyas is most famous for his rendering of The Crow, a noir-influenced comic book adaptation turned bloodfeast. Its rough, canted hues and heavy silhouettes focused that work into a study of the virtues of revenge and the vices of redemption. Fast-forward four years, and Proyas sheds the inbred angst in a quest to reinvent science fiction. What he has created is mature and frightening, a singular vision that should rightly be compared to such films as Fritz Lang's Metroplolis and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.

The plot begins with an introduction by Kiefer Sutherland: the Strangers, an alien race, are all but extinct, and in order to prolong their lives they are studying humans in hopes of unlocking the secrets to the eternal soul. Sound cheesy? That's because it is -- but then again, so was "Blade Runner," with its replicants' difficulties grappling with a conscience. John Murdoch is the object of their obsession for the duration of the movie, as he has achieved the ability to "tune," meaning he can reshape the physical world purely at will. But Murdoch's memory is murky -- he doesn't know whom to trust, if anyone. All he knows is that he needs to get to Shell Beach.

The plot is pretty straightforward, simple and uncomplicated. But this movie is not self-contained like, say, The Matrix was; this is not a plot-driven hypothetical. Dark City is a vision, a cinematic language of noir imitating sci-fi and vice versa. It is complete in that it is a thorough visual treat: ominous, foreboding set pieces loom; and cityscapes blend and diverge. It is a world wholly unique yet still hauntingly familiar. It is a chamber drama, marrying existential paranoia with hardboiled mystery.

So what kind of masterpiece is Dark City, really? A visual masterpiece? Certainly. But it's more than that. It's a reimagination of our world, and a new way to contemplate the dilemma of humanity -- as I heard it put in a song recently: "Do you know where the self resides/ Is it in your head or between your sides?" Proyas doesn't pretend to know or give the answer, but it might have something to do with Shell Beach.


I was absolutely amazed by this film. It has changed my entire perspective on life. After seeing this I want to smack myself for every time that I've ever complained. Ever been depressed. Ever "suffered". I am very disappointed that Beyond Borders was not released in cinemas in my country, and did not do well worldwide. I think it could touch so many more lives like it did my own. I am so much more grateful for what I and everyone else in the Western world have/has. We have very little to worry and stress about. Our lives are so trivial and we need to understand just how lucky we are. On top of it being an amazingly meaningful movie, it has a very well developed storyline with excellent acting by both Angelina Jolie, Clive Owen and everyone else.

Please see this movie. It is wonderful and breathtaking and emotional and heartwarming and covers almost every other feeling you could have.

And if you are one of the people brave enough to do something about the situations discussed in the movie, I thank you so much, from one human to another.


I didn't even know about this movie until I chanced upon a trailer of it and then realised it hadn't even made it to the cinemas. I wondered why so I searched on IMDb, most comments are mixed but I reckoned I should give the movie a watch but couldn't get hold of the DVD until now. Only then did I know why it never made it to the box office nor even near any cinemas in certain countries.

Let's face it - we go to the cinemas to forget our problems and not be reminded of them which is precisely the reason why movies like these don't make any money but others do. Most movies about injustice and persecution always have the good guys win in the end but this movie doesn't. In fact, we're introduced to the startling reality of the lives of volunteer workers and what they have to go through with all their good intentions in place. We are also introduced and/or reminded of the ugly side of humanity as to why certain countries will never be able to have peace because people are just too selfish fighting out their own agendas to spare any thought for another person.

Clive Owen was superb in this movie and whilst I would've liked to see him paired up with Catherine-Zeta Jones (the original choice for the female lead), Angelina Jolie was pretty decent as well. It could've been worst coz the behind-the-scenes commentary said their original male lead was Kevin Costner. No offence but I don't think he would've pulled it off. He's too 'The Bodyguard' if you know what I mean.

The love story is just a sub-plot and was so subtly done and there are no mushy lovey-dovey sequences to make your eyes roll. It's just a simple story about two people bonded by their common passion but whilst one chooses to act it out whole-heartedly, the other keeps a silent but burning fire for it. Now, that's love!

One commentator here said that this movie doesn't do any justice for the refugees and the victims but I must say that no movie can. Even if you do visit these places to see for yourself what really goes on, you have a choice - you can leave whilst these people don't so unless you are in that exact same position, I think nobody should ever try to comment about it because it's something I don't think none of us in developed countries can ever truly understand. Besides, this movie is about the volunteer workers and what they have to go through and the love story between the two leads as the backdrop to distract us from the painful realities depicted in the movie. I don't really agree with some inaccurate plots in certain movies but I don't know the 110% truth about this movie so I just accept it and then find out more about it if I want to. It's something you can't expect from movies anyway coz movies are not supposed to educate but just to entertain and maybe enlighten us a little. You want a 100% accurate show, then go watch National Geographic.

All in all, the filmmakers of Beyond Borders deserve some credit for trying to tell a story different from the rest of the junk playing in the cinemas nowadays. Some of you might have felt they didn't really succeed but I still think they gave it their best shot. Now, you have to give them at least that!


I am appalled to see that the overall IMDb rating for this movie is only 5.2 (edit: now down to 4.9! Madness! Later edit: Ah, now it's up to 5.4 - still abysmal. Oh, and now it's up to 5.9 - going the right way, at least!). Hopefully posterity will be kinder to it than that. It is a very good, well-acted, well-written and well-filmed movie. Apparently, though, it is too subtle for many viewers.

The humanitarian situation it shows is reality. The characters may be fictional, and they may not be representative of the typical relief worker - but they aren't supposed to be. This is a story of those particular two people, and how their feelings for each other grow out of the humanitarian work they are embroiled in. There's no separating the love story from the relief efforts, because she falls in love with him because of his commitment to those efforts. It's true that, at the end in Chechnya, she is more interested in him than in the local situation, but there are two very good reasons for this: One, unlike in Ethiopia and Cambodia she was only there to find him; she wasn't involved in some relief work there, so obviously his safety was foremost in her mind. And two, and more importantly, if she managed to save him, he could have continued being the man she fell in love with; continued his courageous commitment to fight death and suffering. So, I repeat, the love story and the humanitarian subject matter of this movie cannot been separated.

And the thing about her leaving her own family; fer crying out loud, it wasn't a happy family! Her cheating husband represented, both to Angelina's character and in a wider metaphorical sense, the numbing meaninglessness of a trivial, awkward and frequently loveless domestic situation, compared to the importance of saving lives and being in the company of infinitely more inspiring people.

(And what a refreshing change to see her husband - Linus Roach - in the kind of role that so many women portray in the usual Hollywood movie, being the colorless, passive backdrop to the male hero. Gratifying to see it reversed, for once.)

The ending of the movie was unexpected, and yet, in retrospect, it couldn't have ended any other way. If the movie were serious about its subject matter - the relief efforts *as well* as the love story -, it required an end of that sort. The surviving daughter keeps the hope for an eventual happy end alive.

I'm saddened that so many people did not "get" the movie. Many of the criticisms leveled against it are of scenes that were *meant* to evoke that response, and which are addressed later in the movie. There's a development going on; the characters are growing in the course of the story, and so is the movie. Many people apparently couldn't perceive that.

This was an extremely well-structured, rare, thought-provoking and sobering type of movie that I'm thankful could get made in this day and age (and I've just bought the DVD). But what a pity it met with such an insensitive public response.

9 out of 10.


Most people are missing the point. This movie has power, from the first scene of the camp in Ethiopia. Maybe the acting wasn't spectacular, no, and neither was the plot. And yes it was strange to see a piano in the desert. But that is not the point. The point is this is really happening, and has been happening for far too long. That people everyday really do risk life and limb to help other humans who have no choice but to go through life living that risk as a reality. The point of this movie is to connect to the viewer, to ask the viewer to recognize that more needs to be done, that more can be done.

Reading an interview with Angelina Jolie inspired me when I was 17 years old to go into a life of service. I will be joining the Peace Corps when I graduate college in 2006. Hopefully, I will be deployed to Senegal to help in small business development. Now, after reading about the genocide in Rwanda in a book entitled "Shake Hands with the Devil" by Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, I am convinced that I can do something, anything, at least on some level. I hope the film, rather than being perceived as good or bad, will inspire others all the same.

So what if the movie wasn't Oscar caliber? At least the refugee and continuing conflict situations have been brought to light in another way, brought to more people's attention. Instead of debating the film's merits we should be out there doing something right now. Whether it's calling the attention a local politician, learning on our own, writing an opinion piece for a newspaper, teaching our children tolerance and understanding, or donating money to a worthy cause. More can be done so easily.

BBC Interview with Angelina Jolie: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3808501.stm


I did not know what to expect when I rented this DVD I was intrigued by the write up on the cover. Well I thought that the story in general was very appropriate after what has happened in Asia and the war in Irac. I think that people are very much unaware of what is going on in these countries and it is too easy to sit and watch CNN and SKY and say what a shame and then switch off and go on with their lives (Me Included). I thought that the movie was very real and the fact that there was a love story made it even more real because I'm sure that there are many real aid workers who have experienced the same things. It makes fore more excitement with all the different countries and situations. Showing us that it is not only a problem isolated to one country or one race of people. This movie made me sit up and think about the situations of the World and my own Country. I say thank you to the the actors (Angelina Jolie; Clive Owen),directors,writers,crew and all the folks involved in the making of this movie. Well Done. I believe all the persons who had something bad to say about this movie, need to take another good look and check to see if they actually have a heart beating in their chest. They are probably last or NEVER in line to give a donation to a good cause. I thank you all for listening.


This was a great film! How anyone else can say otherwise is beyond me... I think it is a fine tribute to relief workers and others around the world who both in the present and in the past have risked their lives (and I am sure many a time their sanity) trying to lend a hand in hopeless, horrible places and situations (where people are starving to death, or are displaced because of war, or are dying of preventative diseases, etc. etc. etc.) Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen are spectacular, and portray very well the constant obstacles and risks involved with just SIMPLY TRYING TO HELP OTHERS IN NEED AROUND THE WORLD (whether it be trying to acquire funding from rich and powerful people and countries, or having to negotiate with warlords and governments just to get supplies through, etc., etc.). The movie is never "over-the-top" or "unrealistic" and stays very grounded and real throughout the whole thing. ABSOLUTELY A "10" ON ANY SCALE!


I think they did a magnificent job of showing the stark, gritty, in-your-face reality of life for many people in our world. It wasn't glorified, it wasn't scandalized, there were no quick fixes. Just people struggling to help the handful they can. This is what it's really like.

In addition, the way the arms-smuggling angle was covered was also very deftly handled. It wasn't condoned, the problems, the reasons, the advantages and the consequences were all demonstrated. But at the end of it all the viewer is simply left with the question "so what do you do?"... they sure weren't going to hand over a half-digested pat answer.

Every so often a movie comes along that shows us how "the other half lives", movies like The City of Joy, Baraka, Salaam Bombay. I'd put Beyond Borders in that category. Perhaps not quite as brutally true-to-life as the former, but I think the love-story aspect may pull in some viewers that would otherwise not go anywhere near such sights, and that, I think, is a very good thing.


This film subject is very familiar to my country and I know many refuges in personal. I must say that Angelina Jolie made a great job in film and really in personal life like ambassador in UNHCR but I think that people in general form their opinion about some crises in general with big influence of media. The true is very often hidden behind some political or financing interests. This film try to touch this topic but I think that it is not enough. It is very sad that in every part of our life politic and high interest play the role, even when some human lives can be lost. Meny of my people lose their homes and Jobs and some of them their love ones and that is worse what can hap-en to person. Wars is ultimate evil of human race. Today in my country live almost one million refuges. I just want to say that nothing are more important than a human life and everyone must think about that.(sorry about my English)


I thought this movie was very interesting and very profound. I'm willing to bet money that if Angelina Jolie was not in it, the majority of the viewers would not have seen it. I thought this movie was great, not because of our favorite "Tomb Raider" hero, but because, the message that this movie sends. I believe it really hits home for the audience. If you are interested in action, romance, and adventure, then I recommend this movie. Jolie plays a great part in this film. Her character is so passionate and just so full of adventure. I think this film is one of Angelina's bests--not THE best--but, one. So, once again, if you have not seen it, then please, try and make time for it.


I agree with the critics who lambasted 'Beyond Borders', a film with the intellectual depth of an infomercial that portrays starving children to elicit donations. Similarly, the filmmakers' methods undermine their intentions, if their intentions were in fact as noble as many of the other reviewers here seem to think. If they sought to inspire viewer sympathy and support, the filmmakers succeeded. Personally, I feel for the extras exploited in the film, and I support any viewer who stopped watching within the first hour.

If this were merely Angelina Jolie's latest bit of entertaining fluff, I could forgive the film for its shortcomings as a star vehicle designed to exhibit the actress' ample charms. Here, however, Jolie is cast in a serious role as a UN relief worker whose only contributions to the relief effort appear to be her wealth, her compassion, and her ability to strike a pose during a bad situation. I could almost hear Isaac Misrahi cooing at Jolie's miraculously kempt appearance and missionary-chic ensembles. Are we meant to applaud Sarah (Jolie) for not wearing perfume after Nick's ridicule, even when we can see faint traces of mascara on her drooping eyelids as she broods in Chechnya? The attention to Sarah's impeccable appearance detracts from a film that seemingly condemns such superficial concerns in light of human suffering throughout the world. Moreover, it contributes to the overall hypocrisy of a movie meant to galvanize social reflection and reaction through the didactic speeches of its belligerent protagonist Nick (Clive Owen), while exhibiting remarkable indifference to the objectification of the nameless victims that suffer and die in the film so that our love is not for them, but for the named heroes who suffer and die out of pity.

In 'Beyond Borders', the world is a simple place in which the problems of Chechnya, Cambodia, and Ethiopia are conflated to represent Third World issues for which compassion is the panacea. Perhaps if this were true, I could appreciate Sarah's sudden ill-conceived trip to Ethiopia at the beginning of the movie, thus precipitating her future involvement with the UN. Why not admire her for responding to Nick's impassioned plea for more funding at a dinner in London when her peers are cruel and apathetic? For starters, the fact that she is so moved by one incident is more indicative of her obliviousness before the pivotal event than any admirable quality attributed to her reactionary social conscience. Amidst her tears, Nick's speech, and the audience's jeers, a little boy is humiliated to make a point. Worse, a fracas ensues, and his separation from Nick leads to the boy's demise. Sarah's journey to Ethiopia is as senseless as his death, but 'Beyond Borders' seemingly justifies these events by implying that irrationality is at the heart of all worthwhile endeavors. Nick, after all, is as irrational as Sarah. In his recklessness and outrage at the human suffering he encounters as a Third World doctor, Nick is an ineffective negotiator and fundraiser. He is subsequently forced to resort to an uneasy alliance with an insipid trafficker in weaponry and other questionable goods. His actions lead to plot complications involving the relief workers, but the social consequences for the local populations they endeavor to help remain unexplored. Even when Nick later expresses his guilt over the little boy's death, I wonder if we are meant to feel sorry for him or the boy.

Nick is the cynical foil for Sarah's naïve idealist, but, predictably, the initial hostility between them turns to attraction. It's inevitable, I suppose, that the two beautiful do-gooders exchange a few clichéd remarks about the state of the world before tumbling into bed. First, however, they share meaningful glances during Sarah's short stay in Ethiopia. The shipment of provisions she brings with her lasts only a few days, and as her only occupation involves feeding milk to an extremely malnourished boy whom she rescued from certain death, she leaves. Her bedside vigil earns her the respect of the relief workers, but the film does not question the outcome of her actions. It becomes apparent that Sarah's act, along with her mediocre piano playing, is supposed to endear her to Nick. Never mind that her efforts are short-lived and that she abandons the now motherless child to suffer the cruelties of a prolonged existence alone.

What more can we expect from a film that suggests food shortages are the root of famine, evil is the cause of war, and apathy is the sole impediment to social change? If only things were so simple. One of the many problems facing relief efforts is that policymakers are unwilling to explore and fund long-term solutions that have enduring consequences but less immediate results, and thus this film, in its glorification of thoughtless emotion and quick solutions, actually hinders such efforts. Moreover, its neocolonial view of the locals in Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Chechnya as savage criminals or helpless victims is derogatory and condescending. These are not people, but stereotypes ripped from the headlines of sensationalist magazines.

This film contends that Sarah, in her facile understanding of the situations she encounters, can somehow rescue the world from its own depravity by accompanying trucks carrying needed supplies across ravaged terrain. What ethnocentric, ignorant conceit to think that she could provide aid without adequate knowledge of the local languages, people, or customs! Then again, all Third World countries are the same in their shared devastation, and Sarah cares, right? Good intentions are no excuse for inexcusable actions or bad film-making. Why doesn't Sarah combat poverty in London or address the needs of her family, which she abandons to endanger her life in reckless pursuit of Nick? The answer's obvious: Then there would be no tragic soap opera against an exotic backdrop of human suffering. It is unfortunate that Sarah and Nick need the exploitation of others to add meaning to their bland love story.


Beyond Borders brings to light the very realistic struggles of the millions of refugees created by war and the valiant efforts of aid workers who contribute to their survival in spite of overwhelming odds. The storyline of crossing your life's borders away from a comfortable life to help other struggling human beings is a story worth being told. In this type of humanitarian experience, every aid worker I have come into contact with has described the experience as extremely enriching. I'm saddened most of America did not embrace this subject matter at the box office. We, as Americans, live a very comfortable life comparatively, and perhaps it's out of fear, complacency or just selfishness that we generally do not cross borders to help fellow human beings. This attitude does not make us very popular around the world, but perhaps if more people become aware and did something to help other people in their struggles, the world would be a better and safer place to live.

As a journalist who covered the Afghan / Soviet war, recently watching the "Making of" on the DVD was compelling to see how the filmmakers made something so realistic without putting their cast or crew in harms way. I hope this film will be embraced as a DVD so that studios will continue to make films of solid subject matter. Angelina Jolie was well-cast in this role for she (in real life) is the Ambassador for the United Nations High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR). She brought much passion into this role, and while she appeared a little "girlish" initially, the character had to grow out of her pampered life for us to follow her across the borders both real and metaphoric. I am pleased she was brave enough to embrace such a role, and hope she will continue to grow in her range of acting choices. Noah Emmerich reminded me of a very gentle Aid worker I knew killed on the job, which tugged at my heart strings. While Clive Owen's portrayal of a man who closes off his heart to survive the cruelty of every day life in the war zone is accurate, for the general public who has probably not lived through these extreme conditions, it's difficult to empathize or care. I'm sure that is why there might be a general dislike of this character. For a handful of my friends, the romantic connection was unrealistic, but in reality if you're living day to day in such extreme conditions and you're friend dies, you'll let down your guard just to feel alive. I'm sure a lot of people had sex just after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The excellent production design, cinematography and poignant music moved the story forward, but while I loved this subject matter, I also felt the transitions between three very distant locations caused the film to feel somewhat disjointed. Perhaps that was due to "behind the scene" budget constraints (maybe some transition scenes were cut before they could shoot them) or perhaps some studio executive was pushing the film out to theaters before the cut was ready because the investors were crying out for their ROI. Who knows what the politics were...

Either way, I liked the film, am going to buy the DVD and will definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to be inspired beyond their own border. I certainly was.


This movie was great. It is the first one that shows the cruel reality in Africa and Asia. I like Angelina Jolie even more after seeing this movie. It's great that she does the same in real life as in "Beyond Borders".

 The movie itself was really interesting, I didn't felt the 2 hours. It took my attention and kept it till the end, which cannot be said about a large amount of movies. I'm not surprised that it bombed at the box office because most people are, as is said in the movie, "operated on compassion". I think most people didn't like it because they don't know what it is to be hungry and poor and left alone. Once again - I really liked the movie. I got it on DVD and I think it's a great look on reality!


Perhaps lingering is the wrong word, since as I write this, I only left the theater about 30 minutes ago... But I can still feel my heart clenched in my chest, and my mind is still rolling back and forth over what I've just seen. In my experience, those are the kinds of films that stay with you.

There have been a lot of reviews on both sides as far as Beyond Borders goes, and I think it comes down to knowing yourself as a movie viewer. Beyond Borders presents you with a glimpse of the world, and it asks you to believe in it, to internalize it. If you're the kind of person who can EXPERIENCE a film, rather than just kick back and watch it, than you'll be brushing flies out of your eyes, and jumping at every sudden burst of gunfire. You'll be overwhelmed by the desperation around you, and you'll feel despair, and helplessness, and you'll think "Good for those people who go to Ethiopia/to Chechnya/to Cambodia. I'm so glad someone's helping," and then deep down, you'll be ashamed to realize that you think that just because you elected to see a movie about Relief Workers rather than The Texas Chainsaw Massacres, you deserve some sort of gold star.

And yes, there is the love story. And if you love love stories (as do I) you'll love this one. Again, it comes down to how much you'll let your self believe in a movie, and how much you expect to be convinced. Certainly, I would NEVER accuse Angelina Jolie and Clive Owens of sharing no chemistry, as I was completely unable to breathe during most of the scenes they shared. Both actors excelled in their roles, together and separately.

No, it wasn't fast-paced. It wasn't full of witty acerbic dialogue, or fantastic car chases. There were no jokes about bodily functions. It was just sincere, and powerful, and good (in every sense of the world). Though it was by no means perfect, I gladly rated it a 10 for excellence.


I literally gasped out loud in the movie theatre when Jolie's character went up to the African child to rescue him from the vulture. That child's face gives new meaning to the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". That face epitomizes what the horror of war and famine really means in terms of human suffering.

I went to see this movie because I really enjoy watching Angelina Jolie perform, despite the distraction of her oversized lips. I think she is an excellent actress and I'm never bored when I see her on the big screen. Paired up with Clive Owen, I thought the chemistry between the two of them sizzled. I'm wondering what those who voted less than 7 for this picture expected to see when they viewed this movie or even if they did see it.

I thought this movie was great and despite the horrible circumstances and the tragic ending, I left the theatre feeling I had been very entertained. I gave it a 10 and look forward to seeing it again when it comes out on video.


This movie leaves you speechless, and takes you to a new emotional level. I feel this movie will not reach people like it should though... People and Middle America will pass it off and just play it up as Hollywood hype and just really not want to acknowledge what is happening in the real world... This movie is a 10 and I just hope it can bring light to subject matters that just get pushed under the carpet.


(possible spoilers) If you haven't done so already, IGNORE the critics - GO SEE THIS

MOVIE! Beyond Borders is definitely worth seeing. Yes, it is a love story which develops over the course of a dozen years. However, amidst that story, stark and ongoing brutal realities experienced by so many in the world are depicted - and therein lies the importance of this film. It is thought provoking on many levels. On a performance level, the supporting cast filled their roles well. I couldn't help but be drawn into liking particular characters and was especially attentive to a young man's story of his "dance" with a landmine. How haunting. Both Jolie (Sara Jordan, English socialite) and Clive Owen( Dr. Nick Callahan) come through with strong performances. I give credit to director Martin Campbell for respecting the dignity of refugees and using generated images as appropriate, rather than exploiting people unnecessarily . This wasn't meant to be a documentary. Although a few situations might have been developed more realistically (hence 8/10 stars), the movie flowed and kept my full attention despite it's two hour plus length. I found the ending both unexpected and powerful. The imagery of Beyond Borders, both visual and verbal , gives pause for thought : Like Sarah Jordan, aid-relief workers most likely have those in their personal lives who say "don't go, it's not safe there," yet they remain motivated to go anyway. Who are the Dr. Callahans who travel to yet another location once their camp is shutdown - perhaps because of reparation or funding cuts? Why the cuts and what is the full impact? Could more be done? How many workers are injured/killed in the field and how do those situations really come about? Or I know of no place in this country where I might walk and be in danger of stepping on a landmine.... but as I sit in a theater eating popcorn, there is a strong possibility someone, somewhere, did and that happens too often. Maybe the price of that ticket and popcorn once a month could start helping UNHCR or HALO or someone... Yes, entertaining films have their place, but others like Beyond Borders carry the hope of lasting impact. Kudos to all those involved in putting this film together.


This movie was fabulous, I don't care what anyone says. It was compelling in a way I haven't seen a motion picture BE in a very, very long time. It didn't appeal to the "awkward" sense of "brilliant" that compel some to give high remarks or head to the theater, but I'm telling anyone who cares to read it - it's definitely worth it.

In it's opening weekend (10/24/03) it didn't break the top 10. Scary Movie 3 was number one, so this is an explanation of why this movie, however excellent, didn't make the big bucks. People in the USA want to see stupid, banal movies instead of intensively profound movies that grab you on multiple levels. It was fabulous. Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen were FABULOUS. It was just compelling and highly emotional. Go see it.


I just watched this movie last night and I just have to say WOW.

'Beyond Borders' is such a good movie, the writing is excellent... the story really pulls at your heartstrings.The actors do an amazing job bringing this story to life.

The war violence and the danger were believable and well-done...

I was captivated from the very first frame of the movie... it just draws you in and won't let go.

Some people may not like the ending but I was glad they did it in a realistic way, 'cause this stuff does happen sometimes.

Clive Owen played the stubborn/charismatic/compassionate character wonderfully, I don't anyone could've done a better job.... and Angelina is a wonderful actress, she pours a lot of passion into her character into the movie as well. Its nice when actors just disappear into a role :)

I cannot recommend this movie any higher... It takes its time telling the story, which suits it nicely, but don't turn it off right away, if this movie had been fast-paced, it would've ruined the experience *if that makes sense ;-)*

It's a pity this movie wasn't more well-received at the box office.


I am amazed by this movie - I have never ever seen anything before that touched me this much. Being unable to get the picture out of my head, it has changed my view on fugitives and those who do their out-most to help.

First of all, it has changed my perspective on life, thank you for that!!! Secondly it is now perfectly clear to me, why Ms Jolie has chosen to adopt children from Etiophia and Cambodia.

I strongly recommend everybody see this movie - when my children are old enough, they will definitely be forced to watch it too.

What a great movie and a shining star of an actress!


Although surprised that Jolie received a razzberrie nomination for this, she -- as the the other characters -- is not the protagonist. The significant characters are the locations: Especially Ethiopia and those victimized. Each landscape, in each conflict captured in images, portrays the inescapable fact that the human species, unlike all others on our planet, is capable of going "beyond" the need to kill for food or for survival or even to become "leader of the pack" in a "fair" competition. An aspect in homo sapiens somehow "needs" to "plan" not only the submission, but -- when necessary -- "beyond" the complete elimination of the others around. Despite its flaws, a powerful commentary about our human condition that should not be missed!


Well ,here is to those who didn't appreciate the movie . In order to really appreciate the movie u need to feel it !!!! I am from India where things like these often happen and i can connect to the movie . Nick's passion to help, Sara's state of silent acceptation and disturbed emotions are what i can connect to. People comment that the director is confused over what he wants the movie to portray as - politically-minded "message movie", or romantic epic .. but its OK for it to be multifaceted isn't it, after all our life is not about dealing single issues at a time...... its a jumble . Thats what the MOVIE portrays !!! Its a beautiful movie .. with blunt and raw emotions that really question u if have done anything as near as what Sara n Nick have !!!! and if cant appreciate the beauty of that then u don't deserve to watch the movie .


I likewise never saw the movie in the Theater. I thought the movie did its best to be as realistic as possible in depicting the plight of the refugees in the World and the starvation and sickness that accompanies their lives. The helplessness of the volunteers came through loud and clear and the way that the rest of the world reacts or doesn't react to the human suffering struck home. It was a very meaningful movie. I wish more movies that are made carry a message just as "Beyond Borders" did. Probably more influential actors may have presented a stronger impact upon the audience. Frankly, I don't know why the movie did not attract a large audience if it was released at all. But there have been some really good whole movies that have likewise failed.


Angelina Jolie is brilliant in her portrayal of a wealthy young woman's journey from glamorous to humanitarian. Angelina's real life journey begins coinciding with the film's-she's rich, happy, young-everything that everyone wishes they could be. But when her life is disrupted by a look at the "real" world through the eyes of a passionate and handsome man. She is shaken by the truths he shows and hopes to help the less fortunate-but it's more than she bargained for. The life she struggles to lead as a humanitarian is anything but glamorous. She quickly learns that her hopes are not the only thing she must change to survive. Her heart must have the strength to endure the mental and physical dangers of fighting the battles of poverty.


A message movie, intended to bring home to those lucky enough to have seen it exactly the things that have made so many squirm while watching it. To those who object to the romance tied around it, how else could you get something of such expanse made? Hollywood has used romance as the drawing card to fill the seats for message movies for almost 100 years now..."Hearts of the World" comes to mind. Hopefully in 85 years this will be viewed as a triumph like that movie is! I saw in one review someone take exception to "having a child only to leave it behind". As a Vietnam era veteran, I object, as I am sure do all those men and women before and since who have left a child to serve; for someone "called" to do relief work, if anything it's a bigger gesture, as they don't have someone telling them they have to go!


This movie was great, it had wonderful scenery, music, actors, the whole lot. It's very moving too: very sad and depressing. I saw it with 4 of my friends, and towards the end I could not stop squeezing my friend's hand. I was in a state of just *awe* for 1+ days after seeing it. It made me feel a lot like how i felt after "Escape from Sobibor." I predicted how the ending would play out (and i was right) even though I did not want it to. Very moving, very good, very sad...go see it unless you are the type who likes uplifting, comical films.