Dark City: Directors Cut
Staring: RUFUS SEWELL, KIEFER SUTHERLAND, JENNIFER CONNELLY, IAN RICHARDSON, RICHARD O’BRIEN, AND WILLIAM HURT.
Directed By: ALEX PROYAS.
<VERY MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD>
The Dark City Directors Cut, is a totally re-edited film that includes over 11 min of additional footage. There are a few new scenes that were obvious however the entire film has been re-edited by director Alex Proyas, and unlike the recent new Waterworld cut, this is not the TV version. The image quality is staggering as the remastered print looks amazing compared to the original. Its almost like comparing VHS to DVD, its that good!!! The new cut delivers a more mysterious take on the intentions of The Strangers. The opening narration, that all but gave away the plot in the original film has been removed. For new viewers of the film this will add a new twist on just who or what The Strangers are. Small cuts in dialog are also noticeable, as the music score has also been altered. Upon my first impression of Dark City I was instantly reminded of The Matrix, the look and colors are right out of the machine world, there are other striking similarities as well.
Originally released in 1998 , (a year before The Matrix btw), Dark City is the story of John Murdock (Rufus Sewell) , as he awakes with his memory erased, in a hotel room with a dead call girl. The enigmatic Dr Schreber (Keifer Sutherland), wants to help him as he calls, and tells him to leave immediately. John escapes just as the Strangers come looking for him. The Strangers, are pale looking freakish men (no women) in black, that have psychokinetic powers.
The police eventually come into the scene as Detective Frank Bumstead (William Hurt), has been hot on the trail of the killer, that has now killed six prostitutes. Fearing that her husband is going to be arrested for the murders Emma Murdock (Jennifer Connelly), attempts to convince detective Bumstead that he’s not the killer.
As Murdock slowly begins to remember fragments of his youth spent at Shell Beach, he’s confronted by the Strangers. They try to capture him, however quickly realize he now has the same psychokinetic powers they do.
If I cover more plot details the story will become clear, as the new cut takes away the obvious and creates a new aura of mystery to the film. As I re watched the original cut I couldn’t help but notice it seemed rushed. In reviewing the “Directors Cut” , I watched the movie at least 3 times, every time I found myself enjoying it more and more..The Directors Cut of Dark City, is a superior film in every way. If you were a fan of the original, this new version will blow you away!
The DVD has 3 commentaries including one by film critic Roger Ebert, it also contains new bonus features, and 80 new photos.
Run time: 111min.
Loading ...
November 27, 2008
#1
As much as I disliked Keifer Sutherland, I actually really enjoyed this movie. I found it at a blockbuster a couple of years ago, and just picked it up knowing nothing about it but what was written on the case. Good movie.
November 29, 2008
#2
@Jon, I am with you on not liking Mr. Sutherland. I just don’t know what it is about him that I don’t like. I enjoyed a couple of seasons of 24 before but other than that he has done crap….
As for this DVD, I have it on VHS, and not director’s cut. This is one of those weird movies that you can watch over and over again. I really enjoyed it the first time I watched and have seen it many times since. It is not in my top list but it is still a good one.
November 27, 2008
#3
I found the Platinum version yesterday and noticed that the Roger Ebert commentary is on that one as well. It seems like over the years since its theatrical release the director with the cooperation of others have been steadily improving this movie. While that isn’t too unusual, it’s done much more often to movies who’s potential was never fully exploited, despite a big budget and a high profile. It shows a real interest and love for this property, when it would be easy to let it go and move on. I only saw it once, when it was first released. Now I’m going to have to seriously consider picking this up. 790 you just keep uncovering the good ones.. 8-)
November 27, 2008
#4
Jon do you dislike Keifer overall or just in this movie?
November 27, 2008
#5
I thought he was okay in this movie. Generally, I just am not a fan of anything that he has done. I really can’t explain it, and I don’t really have a good explaination, I guess. I just don’t like him. I don’t hate him or anything, just not wowed by him.
November 28, 2008
#6
That’s cool I can relate, as we all have celebs we dispise,,, (Cruise, Smith, Crowe, and the bastard Sam Jackson). Lol ,,,
I will say that he’s not a $cientologist, and he’s actually a very nice guy !!!
^
Yeah 24 rules!!!
November 28, 2008
#7
I wrote an article about this film months ago:
http://film-book.com/dark-city-the-director%E2%80%99s-cut/
This version is way better than the original. I always read how the film was one way in screenings and another for its theatrical run. Glad to see that the first version is getting its due.
I’ve seen the new version about five times already.
November 28, 2008
#8
I vaguely remember this flick and you remind of the darkness that I do recall from it.
November 28, 2008
#9
Have you met Keifer 790? I don’t doubt he’s a nice guy though. Nothing personal. In fact, the only person I can think of off the top of my head whom I thought was just a regular Hollywood Jerk (and when I met him, I was proven right) was Christopher McDonald. He plays the prick so well, and it is based on his real life experience. He was such a jerk to me, I finally understood where he drew his inspiration for his role as Shooter McGavin in Happy Gilmore.
November 28, 2008
#10
@Filmbook
That was a very nicely done piece! Thanks for sharing it. Everyone keeps saying this version is so much better, I’ll have to check it out!
November 28, 2008
#11
Jon, you may have hit it on the head more than you know. From the folks I’ve met over the years, I’ve formed a theory that it seems that characters actors portrayed were never that far off from their inner nature. It’s what makes some portrayals seem so real…
Just a theory on some.
November 28, 2008
#12
Yeah I’ve met Kiefer very briefly on the set during season 5, very cordial…
It was kinda funny cause after I talked with him he looked down at the script he was reading and got upset that he wasn’t told about a few rewrites. He walked over to the Assoc Director and practically chewed him a new ass,,, something about him being told in advance,,, the AD, took it like a pro, and calmed him down, but when Keifers not happy that whole show stops…
One guy that seems like you don’t want to go near him is Powers Booth,,, I saw him one time walk by and I said, “great job on Deadwood” he just kept a walkin… Tall guy too!
Chris McDonald , yeah he seems kinda angry ,,,I believe that was one reason they let him go on SNL,,,
^
On the acting in “Dark City” yeah I have to agree, the actors all look perfectly cast. Connelly seems like an emotionless robot when she’s signing in the night club, however everyone’s going thru the motions in “Dark City”, except the main character John Murdock,,,
The studio wanted Jude Law for the role of Murdock but the director insisted on Rufus Sewell,,, I thought that everyone did a great job, especially Richard O’Brien, (Mr Hand)… yes,,,,,,
^
I would love to know how much influence “Dark City” really had on the Matrix trilogy, the story’s are almost identical, with the exception of the antagonists…
November 28, 2008
#13
Interesting. It would seem to mak sense, especially for all the actors who only seem to be able to portray one type of character. Thats pretty cool.
Okay, lets think a bit. If this is true, then we can all find out some cool things about our favorite celebrities. If they tend to portray one type of character, or if they are really really good at portraying one type of character, then logic would assume they have a great amount of personal experience to draw upon, hence they are what they are good at portraying.
Lets apply this theory to some actors we all know:
Jason Statham really can kick your ass in a million different ways.
French Steward really is retarded.
Matthew McConaughey can steal your wife away from you, no matter how much she loves you or how long you’ve been together.
Bradley Cooper really is an arrogant douche.
And finally, Christopher Walken really is a psycho.
That was good fun! Anyone got any other suggestions? (by the way, dont get all serious and start getting upset if I listed your favorite actor. I am just joking around! ;)
November 28, 2008
#14
Well acting is acting,,, the producers all get together on casting and draw from what they think will work best for a film… (Half the time they get it right)
That’s one reason I enjoy films, its the variety of actors and great situations.
One thing that kills a movie for me (overused actors.)
DeCraprio, Cruise, Smith, Willis, Damon, Kidman, and my personal nemesis, Samuel (I’m in every movie and there’s nothing you can do about it) Jackson,,,
If these actors are in ANY film, I’m likely not to see it. A-Listers work, but not forever…
Even Statham needs a good sci-fi role (IMO)… The tough guy role only works for a while,,, just look at Steven Seagal.
November 28, 2008
#15
Anything with the cast of the old show Friends, I diss. Ever since they blew off the contracts and went on strike 3x, 4x, for more money, I just felt like that was a massive sense of greed.
Rumor had it that Aniston started it, but regardless, it turned me off to them, as a whole.
November 28, 2008
#16
Lol, Bruce I heard that the cast didn’t want to continue the show because they felt they were all getting typecast as tv actors, so they asked for more cash as compensation…
The network has allready made all the money back through syndication…
I could never figure out the fanbase of “Friends.”
2 guys and 2 chicks that basically do each other during the course of the series.
I always felt the show should have been called “Swingers”…
November 28, 2008
#17
@790
I agree Sam Jackson is over-exposed, but I don’t dislike him for it. Not yet. I think his role in The Spirit will do that for me. But unfortunately, I have to keep seeing him on screen because of my inner Marvel geek. Maybe they can keep Fury out of the Avengers pic?
@Bruce Simmons
I could never get into friends because it just seemed to fake to me. Was I missing out on anything guys? Sould I give the show another chance?
November 28, 2008
#18
Swingers! There we go!
You’re so money 790, you don’t even know it!
November 28, 2008
#19
Well yeah there’s some movies that I’m screwed with like Avengers, cause of nemesis Jackson. Damn him!
(Spirit) I won’t see that one… Yuck. Looks awful.
November 28, 2008
#20
Lol, Jon. Yeah the network couldn’t sell the show to (certain markets) with the name “Swingers” so they change it to “Friends”, whalla its now ok for Mid America…
Meanwhile Joeys doing Jen this week, and the other guys trying out Courtney Cox…
^
In our times of sexually transmitted disease I felt the show was putting out the wrong message, especially to the young kids watching it.
Didn’t Anistons character have a baby??? Who’s the father, who cares its just another wacky episode of “Friends”. Yeah whatever!!!