Dark City (5 Stars)

After watching the theatrical version of "Dark City" in May, I decided to watch the director's cut today. It's noticeable how much has been re-edited. The only thing about it that I dislike is the way Kiefer Sutherland screams when he's approaching Shell Beach. That's a comment for my readers who already know and love the film. It'll confuse anyone who's never seen it, so my advice is that you go out and buy it straight away, preferably on Blu-ray. I'm not aware that it's available on any streaming services.

Rufus Sewell plays John Murdock, who's at the centre of a conspiracy. He wakes up at midnight in a bath tub with amnesia. He doesn't even know his own name until he looks at his driver's licence. There's a dead woman in the next room. He's the prime suspect in a murder investigation. Six prostitutes have been killed, and John doesn't know whether or not he's innocent.

John's wife Emma is a night club singer. John left her three weeks ago, but she thinks he's innocent.

Frank Bumstead is a lonely, brooding detective who's determined to find the murderer. The closer he gets to solving the case, the more he realises that it doesn't make sense. The last detective who was working on the case went insane, telling everyone that there is no case. It's all a game.

This is Melissa George's first role as a prostitute called May. John visits her to test himself. He wants to know whether he's capable of murder.

The psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Schreber is the only man who knows what's happening, but nobody believes him.

This is a brilliant film. It's a mystery that will thrill you from beginning to end.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Dark City (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #37

This is an amazing science fiction film with aspects of film noir and added hints of German expressionism. Calling it science fiction is already a spoiler, because the film opens without revealing its genre. After the first 15 minutes the mystery could still go in any direction, and even when there are supernatural occurrences the viewer is unsure what to make of them.

Today I read the Wikipedia page and found some interesting thoughts that weren't on the page the last time I read it. I'll quote them in full:

Theologian Gerard Loughlin interprets "Dark City" as a retelling of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". For Loughlin, the city dwellers are prisoners who do not realize they are in a prison. John Murdoch's escape from the prison parallels the escape from the cave in the allegory. He is assisted by Dr. Schreber, who explains the city's mechanism as Socrates explains to Glaucon how the shadows in the cave are cast. Murdoch however becomes more than Glaucon; Loughlin writes, "He is a Glaucon who comes to realize that Socrates' tale of an upper, more real world, is itself a shadow, a forgery". Murdoch defeats the Strangers who control the inhabitants and remakes the world based on childhood memories, which were themselves illusions arranged by the Strangers. Loughlin writes of the lack of background, "The origin of the city is off-stage, unknown and unknowable". Murdoch now casts new shadows for the city inhabitants, who must trust his judgment. Unlike Plato, Murdoch "is disabused of any hope of an outside" and becomes the demiurge for the cave, the only environment he knows.

Today I watched the original theatrical version, which is spoilt by an ugly voiceover in the opening scene. The director Alex Proyas has confirmed that the studio forced him to add the voiceover against his will. A Director's Cut was released 10 years later, removing the voiceover and making many small changes. I welcome the omission of the voiceover, but I have mixed feelings about the other changes. The additional 10 minutes footage is noticeable, but makes no difference to the film's quality. The musical score is different in places, and is definitely inferior in the Director's Cut.

My recommendation is: if you've never seen the film, watch the Director's Cut. You'll enjoy it. You won't be aware of any problem with the music, so you won't have anything to regret. Nevertheless, I consider the Director's Cut to be unnecessary. It would have been enough to add a second audio track to the theatrical version without the opening scene's voiceover.

I intend to rewatch the Director's Cut soon. Maybe next week. That's only a Maybe, so please don't hold your breath while you're waiting.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Alita Battle Angel (4½ Stars)

This is a film based on a Japanese manga series. It takes place in the year 2563, 300 years after a global war which led to "The Fall", the collapse of society. A small elite lives in a floating city called Zalem, while the majority of mankind lives on the ground in a slum-like society called Iron City. Humans still exist, but the majority of the population are cyborgs, with more or less of their bodies replaced by artificial parts.

The film begins with a scientist scavenging a junkyard for spare parts. He refers to himself as a doctor, because he repairs or replaces damaged cyborg limbs. He finds the upper half of a female cyborg in which the heart and the brain are intact. Based on the technology of the heart he surmises that the cyborg was built before the Fall. He rebuilds the cyborg using parts that he had intended to heal his daughter's crippled body before she was murdered. He wants to know who the cyborg was, but she has no memory of her past. He calls her Alita, the name of his daughter.

Maybe Alita has no memory of her past, but her instincts show that she's a highly skilled fighter. She fights and defeats other cyborgs much bigger than herself. As the mystery of her origin is unravelled she discovers love and she begins to stand up for what she considers unjust in the world.

I greatly enjoyed "Alita Battle Angel", despite my aversion to post-apocalyptic films. The film was directed by Robert Rodriguez, but it has more in common with the films of James Cameron, who wrote the screenplay. Even though James Cameron was only the producer, the film shows so much of his handiwork that I suspect he shared the work as director.

The new sport of Motorball is typical for post-apocalyptic films. It's an extremely violent game played by cyborgs on motorised roller skates which frequently leads to the players being injured or killed. For me this is the weakest part of the film. It's such a cliche that I groaned as soon as it was shown. It's an integral part of the plot, unfortunately, because only the champion of this sport is allowed to ascend to Zalem.

What the film has in its favour is action, action, action. If you want a good night out at the cinema to see a film without a lot of deep philosophical baggage, this is a good choice.

The Hulk (2 Stars)

What went wrong?

That's the question that everyone has to ask who sees this film.

Ang Lee is one of the world's greatest living directors. He's made many brilliant films in his life, including "The Life of Pi" and "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". He's won two Academy Awards as Best Director, for "The Life of Pi" and "Brokeback Mountain" (which I still haven't seen).

So how could Ang Lee produce this awful piece of trash? When it was complete he realised what he'd done. He felt so depressed that he wanted to give up filmmaking, but his father convinced him to carry on. Fortunately. This would have been a poor film to end his career. Two years later he won his first Academy Award as Best Director.

So what's so bad about the film?

First I'll say what's good. There's a nine-second Stan Lee cameo. It's actually a double cameo. Stan is shown walking out of a building with Lou Ferrigno, the bodybuilder who played the Hulk in the television series from 1978 to 1982. Both of them are security guards, one tougher than the other. Stan tells Lou that they need to beef up security. Never a truer word was spoken.

The other thing I like is the cinematography. Ang Lee uses imaginative split screen images frequently throughout the film. Sometimes different scenes are shown side by side; sometimes the same scene is shown from different angles; sometimes we see different phases of the same scene, seconds or minutes apart, being shown simultaneously. Sometimes it's even a fake split screen, i.e. there's a line across the screen, but something crosses the line. Here are a few examples.

Beautiful. It looks even better on screen, because the frames aren't static. The lines wander across the screen, changing the size of the images relative to one another. This is the only reason I've given the film a two-star rating. It's the only thing the film has in its favour.

It would be too difficult for me to name all the film's faults. I'm sure I would forget some, so I'll stick to the biggest errors. Just look at this screenshot of the Hulk. What did Ang Lee spend his $175 million budget on? Obviously not the CGI. The Hulk looks like a cheap plastic children's toy. It's embarrassing. He didn't even look that bad in the television series made 20 years earlier.

The Hulk's clothing has been a recurring joke since he first appeared in the comics in the 1960's. When he grows in size his shirt is shredded, but he never loses his underpants. They're a revolutionary brand that can stretch to four times the size without being damaged. When the Hulk turns back to Bruce Banner his underpants shrink back to their previous size. I'm not naive. I know the reason for this. It would have been inappropriate to draw a completely naked green monster in the 1960's.

Ang Lee tries to fix this problem, but his botched attempt makes things even worse. When Bruce Banner turns into the Hulk the first time he keeps his stretch pants. Then he turns back into Bruce Banner a short distance away from Betty Ross. He's shown completely naked from behind. Ah ha! So his underpants fell off because they were too loose after being stretched? That makes sense. Almost. The next camera shot shows him walking towards Betty, and his underpants have magically re-appeared, guaranteeing the film a family-friendly rating. This is a stupid continuity error. At the very least the camera angle could have been changed to only show Bruce Banner from the waist up. Didn't Ang Lee notice his blunder?

The acting is lacklustre, even from Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), who I usually admire. Josh Lucas (Glenn Talbot) and Sam Elliott (General Ross) are annoyingly shallow. Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross) is an actress I've never liked. She can't express the slightest emotion on screen, so her performance in "The Hulk" is typical for her.

The film's biggest problem is the story itself. From what I've read, there were problems with the screenplay, and the re-writing made it worse. The original story should have shown Bruce Banner battling Crusher Creel, better known as the Absorbing Man, while attempting to find his father. This was re-written, making Bruce's father the Absorbing Man. So Bruce has to battle his evil father? This is a ridiculous story, even for those who don't know the original comics. Why not just stick to what Stan Lee wrote in 1962? Stan knew what he was doing. He was a genius. The new generation of Marvel screenwriters are high-school dropouts who have no idea how to write a good story.

Even worse, the Hulk's origin runs through the whole film, new details added through things remembered in dreams from scene to scene. Using dreams to solve a mystery is bad storytelling. Ang Lee should have thrown this script in the trash can where it belonged.

When I last watched this film in 2014 I said I probably wouldn't watch it again. After Stan Lee's death it floated to the top of my to-watch list in a list of Marvel films based on Stan Lee's creations. It was difficult for me to watch the film today. I found myself getting bored, wondering when it would finally end. Now I can say with certainty that I won't watch it again. I'll keep it in my collection, because I'm a completist. I need to have all the Marvel films on my shelf, neatly ordered. I know that's obsessive, but it's the way I am. Maybe the person who inherits the films after my death will enjoy it. Probably not.

The film was a box office failure, deservedly. Supposedly it was a success in the first week, but then dropped in popularity. This was probably when people started telling their friends how bad it was.

I can only think of one value that Ang Lee's Hulk film might have: it can be shown at film schools as an example of a big budget film by a successful director that went astray. Students can write essays on the film's faults and attempt to explain how they happened. I'm sure that there's a psychology behind bad films. There has to be an explanation why directors are blind to a film's faults until after completion, when it's too late.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Dark City (5 Stars)

This is one of the best films ever made, if we turn a blind eye to the horrible voiceover at the beginning, a blunder that was fortunately removed in the Director's Cut. I included "Dark City" in my list of 30 films to watch before you die, so if you haven't seen it yet I have only one question: Why not?

Rather than write any more about the film today I'll point out a few details that you might miss if you only watch it casually. It has to do with some newspaper clippings that John Murdock finds in his coat pocket concerning a serial killer who has been murdering prostitutes. All of the following screenshots can be enlarged by clicking on them.

In the first newspaper clipping the headline reads "Killer Strikes Again", but carry on reading. The text of the article has nothing to do with a serial killer, it's about a battle between America and Japan in World War Two.

The headline of the second newspaper clipping is "Hunt for Murderer Continues", but the article's text is very curious.

A very casual woman and a man that didn't mind were very much in evidence in the police records lately. An old hatter near Castlemaine came home to find his domicile invaded by a strange woman. He admitted that he didn't mind, and next day she proposed that he should give her a legal status as his wife. As he was still indifferent, the banns were called, but before their conclusion the lady was missing.

Eventually he found her habitating with with another man. He still didn't mind, and allowed that he was willing to marry her, but before the wedding day had arrived the bride wandered into matrimony with another casual stranger, and brought the husband in to live with the late intended. He didn't mind, and continued that way until the newcomer decided to turn him out and did it in a half minute.

Very strange. The same text is repeated in the next column.

The third newspaper clipping has the headline "Street Walker Killer still at large", but read on. The article's text is the same story of the man who didn't mind that was in the second clipping. Was the man who didn't mind a killer?

The fourth newspaper clipping has the headline "Police Baffled by Murders". I'm more baffled why the article about the man who didn't mind is repeated yet again.

The fifth newspaper clipping is perhaps the most interesting. The headline reads "Killer Stalks City's Street Walkers", but the article's text has nothing to do with the murders. The picture is too blurred to read much of the article, but one paragraph is clear in the second column:

Of no less importance was the common recognition shown of the fact that any menace from without to the peace of our continents concerns all of us and therefore property is a subject for consideration and cooperation. This was reflected in the instruments adopted by the conference.

Does that sound familiar to you? I recognised it straight away. It's the same text that's written in the newspaper in "Basic Instinct" and "A Horse For Danny".

There are only five words I can use to describe these five newspaper texts.

Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Dark City (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #20

This film, made by the Australian director Alex Proyas, was a financial flop when it was released in 1998. It was filmed with a budget of $40 million, but only earned $27 million at the box office. However, it was later recognised as a cult classic, and after being released on DVD enough copies were sold to make it profitable. More than $13 million of DVD sales? That's healthy.

Visually, the film could be mistaken for film noir. It's literally a dark city, a city in which the sun never shines. There's a murder mystery, but as the film progresses it becomes less and less relevant. It's more important to find out the secret hidden in the city. The first person to discover the secret is Detective Walenski, but what he uncovers drives him mad.

The similarity between this film and "The Matrix" is unmistakable. Roger Ebert went as far as to say that "The Matrix" recycled the premise of "Dark City". Obviously the Wachowski Brothers were strongly influenced by "Dark City", but as is often said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Alex Proyas hasn't made many films in his career, but you might want to check out

• The Crow (1994)
• I, Robot (2004)
• Knowing (2009)

The Hulk (2 Stars)

Today is the first time I've watched this film since I saw it in the cinema when it was first released. It's so long ago that I had to check when it was. July 2003. That's a long, long time ago. I never bought it on DVD until now because I was so disappointed. Seeing it on sale cheap last week I decided to give it another chance.

This is the biggest failure of all Marvel films this century. That's all the more amazing, considering that the director was Ang Lee, a man who (usually) does nothing wrong. Look at all his other fantastic films like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Life of Pi" and "Lust & Caution". What went wrong with "The Hulk"? I don't know. There must have come a point in the film's development when he realised he had a turkey on his hands, but it was too late to go back. Supposedly he was so disappointed when he saw the final product that he wanted to give up film making, and he had to be persuaded to carry on by his father.

What's best about the film is the beautiful cinematography. What's bad about the film is the noticeable overuse of CGI, the poor story and the total disregard of the comic book origins. And then there's the lacklustre acting by Eric Bana (Bruce Banner) and Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross). The responsibility for the poor script lies with Ang Lee alone. The script he received had Zzzax and the Absorbing Man as the villains who would challenge the Hulk. Ang demanded a rewrite, making the Absorbing Man Bruce Banner's father. That was so idiotic. Obviously Ang has father-son issues that he feels compelled to reflect in his films. Worst of all is the idea that Bruce inherited his susceptibility to gamma rays from his father. The film goes to great lengths to explain the scientific background of what happened. Why? In the comic Stan Lee just tells us that Bruce Banner was exposed to gamma rays and became the Hulk. That's all. No explanation needed.

Something else that disturbs me is that the Hulk has facial expressions reminiscent of King Kong. It wasn't until recently that I found out that this was deliberate.

I don't know if I'll watch this again. Maybe ten years from now I'll give it another chance. Till then.

Noah (3½ Stars)

It's difficult to see what the target audience was when Darren Aronofsky decided to write and direct this film about the Biblical character Noah. He could have kept closely to the Biblical story, which would have pleased Christian fundamentalists while irritating the evolutionists, or rather the anti-creationists, as I prefer to call them. He could also have written a modern story, trying to explain Noah's adventure in the light of modern scientific theories, which would have pleased sceptics but annoyed creationists. Instead of this he wrote a fantasy epic, made up of 50% Bible and 50% his own ideas. Judging by the first reviews I've read, this middle path seems to have alienated everyone.

The trouble with filming the story of Noah is that even though it was a major event in human history, very little is said about it in the Bible. Mr. Aronofsky felt the need to add things to pad out the story and make it more dramatic. I can just about accept this as a necessity to make a good film, but in my opinion he went too far when he added things that contradicted the Biblical accounts.

I think everyone knows the story, so I won't shy away from spoilers in this review. We read about Noah in the Bible from Genesis 5:28 to Genesis 9:29. He received a prophecy from God that the world would be destroyed by a flood, so he built a giant ship, an "ark", in which he saved himself, his family and all living creatures that walked on the Earth or flew in the air.

Now let's talk about my problems with the film itself. Noah is assisted in building and defending the ark by "watchers", who are the remainder of fallen angels. Maybe they are included as a reference to Genesis 6:4, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown". There is a lot of theological controversy about the meaning of this verse, but the use of the same word in Numbers 13:33 shows that the Nephilim were giants. A common interpretation of the verse is that before the Flood the fallen angels ("sons of God") mated with women, and their offspring were superior in size and strength to normal pure bred humans. The "men of renown" would be the heroes of the old myths, men such as Hercules. That's a possible interpretation. The film's portrayal of the Nephilim as stone golems who had crawled out of Tolkien's imagination is highly speculative.

It is very strange that Mr. Aronofsky made Tubul-Cain a stowaway in the ark. In Jewish traditions Tubul-Cain was Noah's brother-in-law, the brother of Noah's wife Naamah. This story, though denied by many scholars, could have been used to add poignancy to the film. It could have been Noah's wife trying to save her brother, not Ham having sympathy with an enemy. But placing Tubul-Cain in the ark was just a cheap trick to add an extra battle to the end of the film.

To me it's incomprehensible why the story of Noah's sons and their wives is so mixed up. Genesis 7:13 is very clear on the subject: "On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark". It wasn't just Noah, his wife, three sons and Ham's wife, as the film portrays it. It's totally unnecessary for the film to make Ham the father of his brothers' wives, then wander off alone. In the Bible Ham had four sons after the Flood, Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan (Genesis 10:6), whereas Shem had five sons and Japhet had seven sons. Presumably they had daughters as well, but the Bible rarely considers women important enough to name them.

Overall, I have to praise the film for the good acting. My relatively low rating is a punishment for the inaccurate screenplay. It could have been a lot better if the story had stuck closer to the Biblical account.

A New York Winter's Tale (3 Stars)

This film was released in America as "A Winter's Tale", but in this case I prefer the full title of the international version. It's a fairy tale involving angels and demons in New York, with a guest appearance by Lucifer and a dog that looks like a horse.

The story begins in New York in 1895. Colin Farrell plays Peter Lake, a man who was abandoned in a boat as a baby when his parents were refused entry into the USA on health grounds. He grew up on the streets as an orphan and became a master thief. He worked for the gang of Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), who is really the demon responsible for "Manhattan and the five boroughs". Pearly's main intention isn't to become rich; he wants to prevent miracles happening in his territory. The angel watching over Manhattan does nothing to stop him because they have reached an agreement. When Pearly finds out that Peter is about to perform a miracle he tries to kill him, but Peter is saved by a dog who appears in the form of a white flying horse. While on the run Peter enters the house of Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay), a woman dying from the consumption (now referred to as tuberculosis). He loves her and is convinced that his love is strong enough to save her life, but she dies and is buried.

Pearly attacks Peter and pushes him off one of Manhattan's bridges. Maybe someone from America recognises it and can tell me which one it is. Peter is left for dead, but he manages to swim to the shore. When he dries himself off it's 2014, and he hasn't aged a day. He's convinced that Beverly is somewhere in the city waiting for him. Pearly attempts to kill him again, but once more Peter can rely on his flying horse.

Well. Does that sound like a mess? It is. And I haven't even mentioned other details of the story, like Will Smith's appearance as Lucifer and Beverly's younger sister. And the street paintings. And the stars. Colin Farrell is a brilliant actor, but not even he can save this film. As my regular readers know, I'm a very romantic person who believes that love is stronger than death, which is the message of this film. It might have worked as a Disney cartoon film. But not like this.

Dark City (5 Stars)

A man wakes up suffering from amnesia. He has a knife at his side and a dead woman is lying in the next room. The police suspect him of being a serial killer, but how can he prove to them he's innocent when he even suspects himself? As he dodges the police he's also pursued by a group of mystery men dressed in black. The only person who knows the truth is a psychiatrist who limps around the city giving cryptic clues as to what is happening.

This is one of the best films I've ever seen. If you haven't yet seen it I advise against reading other reviews, because it's difficult to say more than a few words without spoiling the film's mystery which unfolds as it develops.

The film was released in the same week as "Titanic" and suffered as a result at the box office. It was filmed on a budget of $40 million, but only earned $27 million in the theatres. Since then it has gained great critical acclaim. It's a film that is worth watching over and over again.