Review: Dark City (dir. by Alex Proyas)


“First there was darkness. Then came the strangers.” — Dr. Schreber

Dark City opens like a half-remembered nightmare, and that’s exactly the kind of vibe the movie sustains from start to finish. Alex Proyas builds a world that feels trapped between a detective story, a fever dream, and a sci-fi conspiracy, and the result is one of the most atmospheric films of the late ’90s.

What makes Dark City so distinctive is the way it treats its setting like an active force rather than a backdrop. The city itself feels oppressive and unstable, all sharp angles, heavy shadows, looming buildings, and damp streets that seem permanently stuck in the middle of the night. That visual approach owes a lot to German expressionism, with its warped architecture and unnatural spaces, and Proyas uses that legacy to make the city feel psychologically trapped and visually wrong in the best way. You can see the noir influence too, especially in the low-key lighting, the sense of fatalism, and the way the whole film feels like a detective story pushed through a nightmare filter.

The sci-fi side of the film is just as memorable because it doesn’t rely on shiny futurism. Instead, it leans into mystery, memory loss, and identity breakdown, which gives it a more unsettling and human quality. That’s part of why the film works so well: the weirdness is not just decorative, it’s built into the story’s central questions. The result is a movie that feels cerebral without becoming cold, and atmospheric without losing narrative momentum. Even when the film is being highly stylized, it still moves with purpose, and that keeps the viewer locked in.

The performances help sell all of that, especially Rufus Sewell as John Murdoch. He has to carry the audience through confusion, paranoia, and growing dread, and he does it with a mix of physical vulnerability and stubborn intensity. William Hurt gives the film a weary, grounded presence, while Kiefer Sutherland turns Dr. Schreber into one of those slippery, unforgettable supporting characters who always seems one step ahead of the audience. Jennifer Connelly brings warmth and melancholy to the film, which matters a lot because her character gives the story a human anchor amid all the conceptual chaos. The cast doesn’t play the material like it’s just an exercise in style; they commit to the oddness while keeping the emotional stakes legible.

What’s especially impressive is how the acting matches the movie’s visual language. A lesser cast could have made this feel overcooked or self-conscious, but here the heightened performances fit the artificial, dreamlike quality of the world. The characters are somewhat archetypal, yet that works because the film is so interested in identity as something constructed, remembered, and manipulated. In that sense, the performances aren’t just good in isolation; they’re part of the movie’s design, helping it feel like a living puzzle instead of a hollow aesthetic showcase.

The film’s influence on later sci-fi thrillers is hard to miss. A lot of movies after Dark City seem to borrow its basic flavor: the paranoid atmosphere, the reality-questioning premise, the noir-scifi crossover, and the feeling that the world itself is a conspiracy. Films like The Matrix, Memento, Minority Report, Equilibrium, and even Sin City all exist in a creative space that Dark City helped sharpen or popularize, whether directly or indirectly. It didn’t always get the mainstream recognition of some of those titles, but in terms of tone and visual influence, it was incredibly important.

Part of that legacy comes from the way Dark City captured a very specific late-’90s anxiety: the fear that memory, identity, and reality could all be manufactured. That idea became a major engine for sci-fi thrillers moving forward, especially films that wanted to combine philosophical unease with stylized action or mystery. Even the movie’s look, with its blend of noir shadows and surreal production design, became a kind of template for how to make sci-fi feel adult, moody, and psychologically unstable. It helped prove that science fiction didn’t need clean lines and sterile futures to feel intelligent; it could be dirty, haunted, and expressionist.

Dark City remains such a strong film because it understands that style and theme should feed each other. The shadows, the tilted buildings, the endless night, and the fractured sense of self all point in the same direction, creating a unified experience that feels deliberately unsteady. That’s why it lingers: not just because it looks incredible, but because it turns visual design into emotional pressure. It’s a smart, strange, and beautifully murky piece of sci-fi noir that helped clear the way for a whole wave of thrillers that wanted to feel just as paranoid and disorienting.

In the end, Dark City is the kind of movie that rewards both first-time viewers and people revisiting it years later. The plot twists are memorable, but the real achievement is the atmosphere, which is so complete it almost becomes the main character. Proyas made a film that feels like it came from the crossroads of German expressionism, classic noir, and modern sci-fi anxiety, and the result is a cult landmark that still casts a long shadow over the genre.

Movie Review: Darkman (dir. by Sam Raimi)


As I haven’t been to the movies lately, I’m working on reviews of older films I’ve seen.

A long time ago, just after Tim Burton’s Batman and before Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, Sam Raimi came up with the idea of making his own superhero movie. Supposedly, he had tried to get a hold of both Batman and The Shadow (which eventually went on to Highlander’s Russell Mulcahy), but wasn’t able to. As a result, Darkman was created. I never mind watching it or recommending it, as long as the viewer realizes they’re not shooting for Oscar Winning material here.

Darkman was a strange film. It wasn’t really marketed very well, evidenced in the simple “Who is Darkman?” posters that I remembered seeing on the sides of buses. I don’t recall there being any kind of commercials for the movie. While the movie did alright (and even spawned 2 sequels), I never thought of it as a great success. It still is, despite its flaws, a good film. Well, for someone at 15, it was good.

In Darkman, Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is a gifted scientist that has just about everything. He has a great girlfriend in Julie (Frances McDormand), who’s doing well in her job and he’s on the verge of a major breakthrough in developing a new synthetic skin. If he could only solve the problem where the skin apparently decays in light after 99 minutes. Soon after realizing the flaw in his project, he is attacked a group of criminals (lead by Larry Drake in a great role), burned with his own chemicals and his lab is set ablaze. Left for dead, he’s found and brought to a hospital. They’re able to confirm that he’ll live, but he’s also horribly scarred, has no sensation in his nerves (meaning he feels no pain), and will need skin grafts for the rest of this life. The result of all this trauma is also a bit of mental damage. Westlake breaks free of the hospital, resurrects his lab, and decides to get revenge for what was done to him. The synthetic skin technique now allows him to assume the appearance of anyone he chooses (as long as he has a picture of them, of course). He can wear a disguise for up to 99 minutes in direct sunlight, else his face begins to melt.

One thing I like about some of Sam Raimi’s films is that they’re just strange in some ways. Not Cronenberg strange (that’s just creepy sometimes), but they tend to have some weird elements. He likes to throw things into the camera, whether it’s someone’s face or an object. He’s also into these extreme zoom shots where he’ll have the camera low and bring it racing towards it’s subject. At the time the movie came out, my parents gave me a Camcorder. I did a lot of similar shots, chasing the cats around the house with the camera hovering a few inches off of the floor. I’ll admit it, it was pretty effective here.

Some of the acting was okay in Darkman. I particularly liked Larry Drake at the time because he seemed so different from the character he played on L.A. Law at the time, but everyone else here seemed like they were playing up their roles and in some cases, taking themselves far more seriously than they should have. Some scenes didn’t even make sense to me and felt like filler. I get that Westlake was just a little bonkers, but the whole “See the Dancing Freak” song and dance routine kind of left me with a “What the hell?” expression. Frances McDormand seemed to almost whine on cue (though I guess if I had a love one come back from the dead, I’d be a little shocked too). Colin Friels’ villain caused my family to collectively snicker and groan when at one part, he exclaims “Because I built it!!! I built it all!!” It was just all very strange. M. Night Shyamalan did something similar with The Happening, but for me, this really worked better in Darkman’s favor. Since the acting is so campy, the movie never really tries to make itself out to be Dark Knight / Captain America piece.

If you’re looking at it logically, there’s really no way that Westlake should have been able to pull off half of the disguises he used. You’ve height and weight to consider, and last I checked, Liam Neeson and Larry Drake really had two different body types. Where’d he get all the extra bulk, one has to wonder? Extra clothing, perhaps?

If Darkman has anything going for it, it’s the music. At the time, Danny Elfman was riding the high he had off of movies like Batman, Midnight Run, Dick Tracy and Nightbreed. While Edward Scissorhands remains the strongest score he had that year, Darkman has a number of nice action cues mixed with some somber tones. It helps to carry the film, somewhat.

Overall, Darkman was an interesting look at Sam Raimi’s approach to a superhero. It may have also been one of the key factors in securing the directing duties on the Spider-Man movies in the early 2000’s, which was far superior to this film. If nothing else, it’s worth a laugh or two.