Natural City (2003)

This is an interesting movie and will appeal to Philip K Dick and Blade Runner fans. Possibly. Out of curiosity, if nothing more.It's sort of based more on Blade Runner than the book on which that was based - Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - and it's more a follow-on than a retelling. Cyborgs (Replicants), Blade Runners (MPs), limited life spans and attempts to counteract it. You get the idea.Fans will be thinking Great! But it's nowhere near the same calibre as Blade Runner. It's confusing, poorly-paced and substitutes action sequences for moments of tension.One highlight - which is probably not much of a highlight, really but which I enjoyed - is the music at 1:30 which just shouts Ennio Morricone. It fits the scene beautifully.The movie has much to recommend it it but ultimately falls short as a "Blade Runner" or "Sheep" adaptation or follow-on. However, fans of either owe it to themselves to watch it and make up their own minds.Just beware of the OTT reviews written by viewers who have little or no knowledge of its sources, or who still (can you believe it?) think gloss, sparks and action is all you need.

Well I've just wasted nearly two hours of my life watching an annoying thuggish idiot try to save the 'life' of his android girlfriend (quite why being a mystery as she seems to have the personality and IQ of a mushroom) while people jumped about doing backflips preposterously avoiding thousands of bullets. Curiously though when one of the main characters was left on his own to perform heroics these previously deadly killing machines stopped jumping about and doing backflips, ran at him singly like idiots and got slaughtered. Why do scary goons always do that? And honestly can't Ridley Scott sue them for breach of copyright? This was no mere Bladerunner homage with a few nods and winks, the flying police cars were *exactly the same* (except the rubbish cgi was nowhere near as good as the 1982 bluescreen effects).I'll give it a 3 because the first two acts weren't altogether terrible, but the last was abysmal. It consisted of either laugh out loud funny action sequences or interminably dragged out scenes of people slowly dying to soppy music. And that's being generous.

A movie with cyborgs, artificial intelligence, flying cars, and virtual reality simulations, sounds like it should turn out great doesn't it? Unfortunately the movie is marred by a weak main character and storyline.It seems to me that the director went through great lengths to make the main character as unlikeable as possible, and he succeeded. I tried to find good qualities about the main character, a military policeman named R, I tried to find a reason to care about this character but couldn't find any.The fight scenes are decent but unfortunately they are rare in this movie. The scenery and artwork is breathtaking, unfortunately they are the only good qualities about this movie.

I read through the reviews here before I watched it and didn't know what to expect: a classic or a bummer? In my view, the truth is in the middle and the average vote of currently 5.8 seems justified. "Natural City" is by no means a movie on the "Blade Runner" level. Take away the futuristic eye-candy, and what is left? A man is in love with a cyborg lady without really telling us why, how or what for. Real character development is not happening! He gets in a conflict with his friend over the cyborgs which leads to gratuitous violence with faces covered in blood like in a million action flicks before. Meanwhile, a girl plants flowers in a roof garden to provide a contrast to the post-war destruction scenery around. "Natural City" doesn't really have any new ideas, it simply spices up the collection of familiar trade marks with "Matrix/Equilibrium Next Generation" visuals which is fine for web 2.0 designers but not for the art of film making. Everybody who truly believes this is going to be a classic should go watch "Soylent Green" where it was the actors and the story that mattered. Still, "Natural City" is a movie that has its touching or stunning moments. Actually, I liked that explanations were not provided in many cases. One might argue whether it is a deliberate attempt to open it for interpretation or simply plot holes. But I think, if we once really caught a glimpse of the year 2080, there would be much that we won't comprehend, either. You know how silly SF movies of the 1950s seem today because they applied manners, moral standards and ways of conversation that are outdated. In this respect, I'm curious what people will think of "Natural City" in the future. Keep it in the archive.