Episode 264 – Dark City (1998)

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to today’s tour of Dark City, brought to you by Max, Mike; Movies, the podcast for your busy Dark City life, and their latest flavor . . . sorry, series, “Walk the Dark Street.” And how appropriate is that, folks, because all our streets are dark! Here. Because it’s Dark City . . . tough crowd. So, on your left, there’s a fine example of our city’s neo-classical architecture in the famous Sutherland Building, but you can’t see it . . . because it’s dark. Right now we’re going over the picturesque Connelly bridge which spans Sewell river but you can’t see either of those things . . . because it’s dark. Seriously, why does anyone shell out money for these tours? It’s dark here; that’s our whole thing! It’s in the name of city, for gosh sakes! No! Get off me! They have to know that these tours are a fraud! A fraud, I tell you!

But our podcast is not a fraud and is certainly not created by bizarre aliens wearing human forms, attempting to understand what is to be truly hu-man. What a silly idea. Or is it? This 1998 film is another non-standard choice as an example of film noir, as it’s science fiction (or fantasy, really; the science doesn’t bear a lot of scrutiny) and deals with the nature of the self and raises the question: are we nothing more than the sum of our memories? Whoa, deep! Does it work? Does the science fiction element help or hinder? And does this film belong in our Catalog of Noir? Give a listen to Mr. Max and Mr. Mike and find out!

Poll question:Is there still room for film noir in today’s cinema? Or has it all been said before? Is it still relevant?

5 thoughts on “Episode 264 – Dark City (1998)”

  1. Noir can definitely be applied to new films and I am sure, like Western film, sci fi and other genres will be mixed with other styles (as this series has already shown) and twisted in new ways by clever filmmakers. One thing that should not come back is the omnipresent narration! I don’t like it in classic noir much but nowadays it just seems a cheap way to make something seem noir and rarely works. Blade Runner is so much better without it for example.

  2. Right there with you on the narration in “Blade Runner,” Walrus-Wrangler. Interesting point about how narration can be a big indicator for noir; hadn’t really thought about it but I think you’re right! Interesting stuff.

    1. Hey Max, speaking of Blade Runner, i saw a test screening before it came out and loved it…there was no narration and it had some extra focus on some of the violence. I saw it again when it released and was NOT HAPPY!

      1. Vince: I wonder if you saw what became the 1992 “Director’s Cut,” which was not a cut actually made by Ridley Scott. It was released as such as a ten year anniversary cut and it not only had a couple of VERY necessary scenes that had been removed but the narration was nowhere to be found. Then Scott came along ten years later, did a REAL Director’s Cut and screwed the whole thing up not least of which by putting the damned narration back in. So, there are versions of the ’92 cut out there. Watch THAT one. 😀

        1. I have the multi disc bluray set with i think 5 versions! Its a great set but i only watch no narration versions… i think the one you mentioned is the one i default to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *