When we think about major sci-fi movies that defined the ‘90s, a lot of titles come to mind but there is one that often tops the list for its impact on pop culture and filmmaking. That film would be The Matrix. Released in 1999, the film was an unexpected hit that not shifted Hollywood’s approach to visual effects but delivered a deeply compelling original story that questioned if reality was really, well, real. But The Matrix wasn’t the only film in the ‘90s to question reality and look cool doing it. It wasn’t even the first. There’s another film that was released a year before we met Neo that is thematically very similar, but thanks to sheer luck is largely forgotten in the shadow of The Matrix’s success.
Videos by ComicBook.com
Directed by Alex Proyas, Dark City was released on February 27, 1998, and genuinely had a lot going for it. The film stars Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly, Richard O’Brien, Ian Richardson, and William Hurt and follows John Murdoch (Sewell), a man with amnesia who discovers he’s suspected of murder. As he tries to find out his real identity so he can clear his name, he also discovers the truth about a mysterious group known as the Strangers as well as the truth about the world he lives in. The film barely broke even at the box office despite receiving critical acclaim and more or less slipped into that category of films that only genre fans or real cinephiles talk about, which is a shame since a year later The Matrix with its very similar themes—and even some sets shared from Dark City—ended up being a box office smash.
Why Did Dark City Fail While The Matrix Succeeded?
The disparity in performance between Dark City and The Matrix is an interesting case study in how one general concept can live or die based on how you present it—and how you sell it. While the fundamental elements of both Dark City and The Matrix are generally the same as they’re stories of an everyman figure who discovers that reality is not what they believe it to be and that humanity is being controlled and manipulated by another force with their world being little more than a simulation, the approach is very different. Dark City is a much darker story and the film reflects that. It’s moody, has slower pacing, most of its action is smaller and low-key. There’s also the part where, feeling like the audience would think the story was too complex, the studio made the director give the film an opening voiceover that more or less spoiled the plot. The result was a slow, dark, noir-toned sci-fi film.
In contrast, The Matrix was a much more accessible film. The story was much more direct and straightforward. The conflict was very easy to invest in with a human against machines battle, and the hero of the story, Neo, was made easy to invest in as the chosen one. Wrap that up in a bright set with a lot of fast-pace and kinetic action that looked very cool on screen and you have something that even people who weren’t into super cerebral concepts like simulation theory or even sci-fi more broadly could get down with.
But the complexity of Dark City’s story isn’t the only hurdle that stood in its way in terms of overall success. The film also wasn’t marketed particularly well. We already mentioned that the studio didn’t think that audiences would get the story of the movie so they required the spoiler narration in the opening, but that wasn’t the only issue. The studio also didn’t really quite know how to correctly market the film and initially treated it like a horror movie, which meant it wasn’t being marketed to fans of the correct genre (yes, that matters). This also extended to how trailers and other ads were presented deeper into the marketing cycle. Most of the trailers for Dark City were very vague and never really gave you much of a sense of what the movie was actually about, and while there was a decent about marketing, since there was a lack of clear identity with it, it didn’t build momentum.
The film’s release timing was also an issue. That February 1998 release date came at a time when James Cameron’s Titanic was still dominating the box office. And as for The Matrix’s marketing? It had an advantage there, too. Warner Bros. leaned into the mystery of the story, keeping the major elements of the story as something to be figured out and they also embraced the internet for their marketing efforts—making The Matrix one of the first films to do so. It resulted in quite a bit of buzz for the film and it paid off.
Despite Its Failure, Dark City Deserves to Be Appreciated
While Dark City didn’t achieve the commercial success it deserved to in its day, the film is one that really deserves to be appreciated even today. Not only is Dark City actually a very good movie in its own right, but without Dark City we wouldn’t have The Matrix as it exists. As we mentioned briefly, The Matrix actually utilized sets from Dark City. Specifically, the opening rooftop chase sequences of The Matrix were filmed on the exact same outdoor sets that were used in Dark City. There were also many VFX technicians that worked on Dark City who would go to work on The Matrix as well. That means they brought a lot of what they brought to Dark City to The Matrix, giving both films a bit of shared aesthetic. It isn’t a situation where The Matrix couldn’t have existed without Dark City, but rather a situation where it may well have had a very different look. The lessons of one film were applied to the other.
And even if you don’t want to watch Dark City for how it influenced The Matrix, Dark City is a sci-fi movie that deserves to be watched for its darker, more noir-esque take on the simulation concept. There is something very interesting and a bit almost refreshing about the film’s slower pace and the way it makes you think, how it treats the story as more of a mystery to unpack rather than an action story. It’s a great film—and you can currently stream it on Roku.
What do you think? Leave a comment below and join the conversation now in the ComicBook Forum!
