Welshrogue

Dark City is the story of a man who who wakes up to find that he has no memories. He lives in a city where it appears the sun never shines and everything changes every night.

The Matrix is the story of a hacker who is suddenly told that everything he sees and believes is actually generated by computers as his actual body is maintained by robots for the electrical energy it generates.

The idea of someone who suddenly realises that the life he is living is not what it seems is definatly not a new one, but within a year both Dark City and The Matrix were released to very different reactions. The Matrix was a huge box office hit, aided by the special effects and the big names of Keanu Reeves, Lawrence Fishborne among others. Dark City had a much quieter opening, only capturing the audience’s attention on home video.

Dark City had a good cast with Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly and Richard O’Brien. All great actors but none with the same box office draw of Keanu Reeves. This helps the movie as you don’t focus simply on the lead actor but more on the whole cast. The special effects of the city changing etc. are not as spectacular as The Matrix but it does its job without distracting from the plot. The plot itself is told in a darker way than The Matrix but is very similar with the lead character having the power to alter what the controling powers are trying to do.

Dark City was directed and written by Alex Proyas who had earlier directed The Crow. In comparision, there are similarities between the movies. He later went on to make the blockbuster I,Robot with Will Smith.

The Matrix was directed by the Wachowski brothers, who before this, hadn’t made any movies in the same vein. Obviously after The Matrix they went on to make the sequels before making the politically charged V for Vendetta.

The Matrix, as mentioned, had a great cast, introducing Carrie-Anne Moss and Hugo Weaving to a bigger audience than they had received before. The story is a great mind twister but often has to take a back seat to the special effects such as ‘bullet time’. As a visual treat, The Matrix is second to none. As a story, especially when taking into account the poor second and third movies it perhaps didn’t have the focus it needed, and perhaps with the later movies, was just a vehicle for more stunning special effects.

The best way to judge a movie is what happens after the final credits have rolled by. If you simply turn off and do something else then it can be a good movie but nothing more. If the movie finishes and you sit there thinking, discussing ‘whatifs’ and other situations then the movie can not only be a good movie but a great movie.

Based on that criteria, The Matrix is a good movie but Dark City is a great movie.

Which do you think was better?

The 1953 version of War of the Worlds was a departure from what HG Wells had written about, tripods, civilian caught up in the panic. What it did add though was an iconic symbol (the flying saucers) and it perhaps put a more cynical view of proceedings. The acting was first class with both Gene Barry and Anne Robinson being horrified and terrified. The action was moved from England to the US (as in the Orson Wells radio production) and it became a larger story than the book with a much larger cast of characters and more involvement with the military. It is a very enjoyable movie and considering when it was made, with good special effects.

The 2005 version of War of the Worlds stays closer to the book, with the tripods rampaging across the country. It also keeps with the civilian trying to survive with no information or help coming. From the begining, the build up shows the main characters (Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning) as an every day disfunctional family who suddenly have to flea for their lives. The movie concentrates on the family rather than the bigger picture, focusing on the panic of not knowing what is happening, and then panicking after finding out what was happening. While it is too soon to know if this movie will be considered a classic, it is a great movie that allows the viewer to get caught up in the circumstances.

To my mind, the remake is probably the better movie as it feels like it remains truer to the book than the 1953 version. The tripods are a big reason why I believe this. Also the focus on the small family helps.

It is hard to write of the 1953 version and the 2005 version without mentioning both the 1939 Orson Wells radio play which terrified the US and is still a great listen, and the Jeff Waynes War of the Worlds double album which along with telling the story as close to the book as possible, introduced some amazing songs, and perhaps most importantly, some art work that many consider the dafinative version of the tripods.