posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:00 AM
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight
Dark City is a good, trippy sci-fi movie. I love it for its dark, gritty atmosphere. The sets on that film were really good and you really felt like
you knew and lived in Dark City yourself. While I found the movie weak on a few other points, it was a pretty enjoyable movie.
Ever since I have told everyone about my experience and attitudes towards 2001, they have been trying to recommend other films for me, which is great!
However, I find that most of them are just dramatically different in their approach (maybe they didn't have the sci-fi innocence of the 1960's)
Dark City, The Abyss, Stargate et al the contemporaries are good movies in their own right and are very thought-provoking sci-fis (and those are
always the best!)
But, I find that most sci-fiction movies are just built on the shoulders of what 2001 achieved. And heck, couldn't we say that about movies like
1927's Metropolis? arguably, the first sci-fi movie ever made..
I don't know what makes one movie along the line better than its predecessors or descendents, but I think Kubrick definitely had something to do with
While most other movies are aiming for blockbuster status, I think ole Stanley was in the very unique position as a filmmaker where he had total
creative control, and could easily make the movie exactly the way he wanted without studios breathing down his neck.
Kubrick wasn't the first "indie" film-maker, but he was kind of the first of the successful independent film-makers!
edit on 5-1-2013 by
NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)