Been revisiting Dark City (saw it like 10 years ago at a sci-fi film festival and remembered almost nothing about it) and thought that I'd, if not quite stick up for Teague, at least try to articulate what is I think is a legitimate point that he was making, which the guys seemed not to really get.
I understood Teague to be saying basically this: the crucial difference between The Matrix and Dark City is that, at least initially, the world of the matrix in The Matrix appears to be our actual world. Neo goes to a club, works in a cubicle, has a shitty boss, etc. etc. That then gives the viewer a way into the film, however briefly, so that when things start going haywire, there's no confusion about "is this supposed to be weird, or is this just the way this world works, or what?".
But the matrix of Dark City, if you will -- the world before we, the viewer, know what's behind the curtain -- is clearly not our world, totally aside from the 40's/noir overlay, which has nothing to do with it. There's the weird syringe thing by the bathtub, there's white-faced people, people fall asleep at midnight for no reason, the desk clerk changes, etc. etc. This is all in less than the first 15 minutes. And then we're given a sense that there's something behind the curtain, when the film hasn't really told us what's in front of the curtain. So you don't really feel like you have any sense of where you're supposed to be.
That seems to me to be a perfectly coherent and valid point, though it didn't bother me as much as it clearly bothered Teague. (But then again I like Last Year at Marienbad.) However, Teague, I would definitely urge you to give it another shot. There's enough interesting stuff there, both in itself as an intelligent sci-fi film that actually tries to be about something, and in terms of other films that it connects to thematically (The Matrix, Blade Runner, Solaris, Moon, etc.), to make it worth getting to grips with.
For the next hour, everything in this post is strictly based on the available facts.
