Humanity's Past Is a Blur in This '90s Techno-Noir Cult Classic and It's Streaming Free on Tubi
One of my overlooked favorites is Dark City, a mind-bending techno-noir thriller that explores the idea of identity against the backdrop of a city swathed in darkness. Released in 1998, this absolute gem preceded The Matrix by a year, and it's streaming for free on Tubi right now.
Watch on Tubi
I've been a fan of techno-noir vibes since my first time watching Blade Runner, and the '90s delivered a spate of excellent options that let me feast my eyes on beautiful sets, amazing stories and worlds that felt real and gritty in the best of ways.
Dark City delivers a futuristic city swathed in shadows, with vibes from the 1950s like automats, or the costume design, and it's a style I can't get enough of.
A man wakes up in a bathtub with no memory of who he is or how he got there. Almost immediately, things go off the rails. There's a dead woman in the next room, a cryptic phone call telling our unknown protagonist to get out of there, and a mystery that begins to unfold in the dark streets of the city. John Murdoch figures out who he is slowly through a series of clues, like his name in a ledger at the motel and his briefcase.
As he tries to figure out what happened, he's beset on two sides. Police Inspector Frank Bumstead is trying to unravel a case of dead prostitutes that's leading him toward John. And then there are the mysterious "strangers."
The strangers
Jasin Boland/New Line Cinema
These are tall, pale men who seemingly have the ability to change reality via "tuning." John is cornered by these strangers, but in a moment of desperation manages to alter reality and escape their clutches.
Soon after, the clock strikes midnight, and John watches as every person in the city falls asleep, and the strangers use their mysterious abilities to change the architecture of the city itself.
As John tries to recover his memories, he remembers he is from a small town outside the city called Shell Beach. However, any attempts to reach it end in failure. At this point, John is apprehended by the inspector, who believes him when he explains that something strange is going on in the city and uses his ability to tune to prove it.
The atmosphere, set design, and overall cinematography in Dark City make every frame worth noticing. The 100-minute length is infused with mystery, drama and more questions than answers. The strangers stalk John and the inspector, a local doctor who has information about the strangers and where they came from, and the city continues to change and trap everyone within its alleys.
I won't spoil the third act for you when you find out what the strangers are really after, and the methods they employ to find answers. When John begins to unravel the mystery he woke up inside of, things go from weird to truly out there. The murders, the amnesia and the city are all linked by the strangers, and once you find out what happened, there is no going back.
Dark City reached cult classic status with good reason. While it might not have been a box office hit, it's still an amazing watch 27 years later. It's one of those sci-fi movies that gets me every time, and the cast delivers a top-notch performance. Sream it for free on Tubi, and discover the mystery for yourself.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
6 hours ago
- Fast Company
It's increasingly likely we're living in the Matrix. Just ask this MIT professor
In the new edition of my book, The Simulation Hypothesis, released in July, I've updated my estimate of how likely we are to be in a simulation to approximately 70%, thanks to recent AI developments. This means we are almost certainly inside a virtual reality world like that depicted in The Matrix, the most talked about film of the last year of the twentieth century. Even young people who weren't born in 1999 tend to know the basic plot of this blockbuster: Neo (Keanu Reeves) thinks he's living in the real world, working in a cubicle in a mega software corporation, only to discover, with the help of Morpheus (Laurence Fishburn) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), that he's living inside a computer-generated world. The AI Factor What makes me so sure that we are living in a simulation? There are multiple reasons explored in the book, including a new way to explain quantum weirdness, the strange nature of time and space, information theory & digital physics, spiritual/religious arguments, and even an information-based way to explain glitches in the matrix. However, even while discounting these other possible reasons we may in a simulation, the main reason for my new estimate was because of the rapid advance of AI and virtual reality technology, combined with a statistical argument put forth by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. In the past few years, the rise of generative AI like ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and X's Grok has proceeded rapidly. We now have not just AI which has passed the Turing Test, but we already have rudimentary AI characters living in the virtual world with whom we can interact. One recent example includes prompt-generated video from Google Veo. Recently, Google has introduced the ability to create realistic-looking videos on demand, complete with virtual actors and landscapes that are completely AI generated, and speak real lines of dialogue, all based on prompts. This has led to prompt theory, a viral phenomenon of AI-generated video of realistic characters exhorting that they were definitely not generated by AI prompts. Another recent example is the release of AI companions from Grok, which combine LLMs with a virtual avatar, leading to a new level of adoption of the rising wave of AI characters that are already serving as virtual friends, therapists, teachers, and even virtual lovers. The sexy anime girl in particular has led to thousands of memes of obsession with virtual characters. The graphics fidelity and responsiveness of these characters will improve—imagine the fidelity of the Google Veo videos combined with a virtual friend/boyfriend/girlfriend/assistant, who can pass what I call, the Metaverse or Virtual Turing Test (described in the new book in detail). The Simulation Point All of this means we are getting closer than ever to the simulation point, a term I coined a few years ago as a kind of technological singularity. I define this as a theoretical point at which we can create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from physical reality, and with AI beings that are indistinguishable from biological beings. In short, when we reach the simulation point, we would be capable of building something like the Matrix ourselves, complete with realistic landscapes, avatars and AI characters. To understand why our progress in reaching this point might increase the likelihood that we are already in a simulation, we can build on the simulation argument that Bostrom's proposed in his 2003 paper, ' Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? ' Bostrom surmised that for a technological civilization like ours, there were only three possibilities when it came to building highly realistic simulations of their past (which he called ancestor simulations). Each of these simulations would have realistic simulated minds, holding all of the information and computing power a biological brain might hold. We can think of having the capability of building these simulations as approximately similar to my definition of the simulation point. The first two possibilities, which can be combined for practical purposes, were that no civilization ever reaches the simulation point (i.e. by destroying themselves or because it isn't possible to create simulations), or that all such civilizations who reached this point decided not to build such sophisticated simulations. The term 'simulation hypothesis' was originally meant by Bostrom to refer to the third possibility, which was that ' we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.' The logic underlying this third scenario was that any such advanced civilization would be able to create entirely new simulated worlds with the click of a button, each of which could have billions (or trillions) of simulated beings indistinguishable from biological beings. Thus, the number of simulated beings would vastly outnumber the tally of biological beings. Statistically, then, if you couldn't tell the difference, then you were (much) more likely to be a simulated being than a real, biological one. Bostrom himself initially declined to put a percentage on this third option compared to the other two, saying only that it was as one of three possibilities, implying a likelihood of 33.33 % (and later changed his odds for the third possibility to be around 20%). Elon Musk used a variation of Bostrom's logic in 2016, when he said the chances of us being in base reality (i.e. not in a simulation) were one in billions. He was implying that there might be billions of simulated worlds, but only one physical world. Thus statistically, we are by far highly likely (99.99%+) in a simulated world. Others have weighed in on the issue, using variations of the argument, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, who put the percentage likelihood at 50%. Columbia scientist David Kipping, in a paper using Bayesian logic and Bostrom's argument, came up with a similar figure, of slightly less than 50-50. Musk was relying on the improvement in video game technology and projecting it forward. This is what I do in detail in my book where I lay out the 10 stages of getting to the simulation point, including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), BCIs (Brain Computer Interfaces), AI, and more. It was the progress in these areas over the past few years that gives me the conviction that we are getting closer to the simulation point than ever before. The Equation In my new book, I argue that the percentage likelihood we are in a simulation is based almost entirely on whether we can reach the simulation point. If we can never reach this point, then the chances are basically zero that we are in a sim that was already developed by anyone else. If we can reach this point, then the chances of being in a simulation simply boil down to how far from this theoretically point we are, minus some uncertainty factor. If we have already reached that point, then we can be 99% confident about being in a simulation. Even if we haven't reached the simulation point (we haven't, at least not yet), then the likelihood of the simulation hypothesis, P sim , basically simplifies down to P simpoint, the confidence level we have that we can reach this point, minus some small extra uncertainty factor (p u). sim » P simpoint – p u If we are 100% confident we can reach the simulation point, and the small factor p u is 1, then the likelihood of being in a simulation jumps up to 99%. Why? Per the earlier argument, if we can reach this point, then it is very likely that another civilization has already reached this point, and that we are inside one of their (many) simulations. p u is likely to be small because we have already built uncertainty into our P simpoint for any value less than 100%. So, in the end, it doesn't matter when we reach this point, it's a matter of capabilities. And the more we develop our AI, video game, and virtual reality technology, the more likely it is that at some point soon, we will be able to reach the simulation point. Are we there yet? So how close are we? In the new book, I go through each of the 10 stages and estimate that we are more than two-thirds of the way there, and I am fairly certain that we will be able to get there eventually. This means that today's AI developments have convinced me we are at least 67% likely to be able to reach the simulation point and possibly more than 70%. If I add in factors from digital and quantum physics detailed in the book, and if we take the 'trip reports' of mystics of old and today's near-death experiencers and psychonauts (who expand their awareness using DMT, for example) at face value, we can be even more confident that our physical reality is not the ultimate reality. Those who report such trips are like Plato's philosopher who not only broke his chains, but also left Plato's allegorical cave. If you read Plato's full allegory, it ends with the philosopher returning to the cave to describe what he had seen in the world outside to the other residents, who didn't believe him and were content to continue watching shadows on the wall. Because most scientists are loath to accept these reports and are likely to dismiss this evidence, I won't include them in my own percentage estimation, though as I explain in the book, this brings my confidence level that we are in a virtual, rather than a physical reality even higher. Which brings us back to the inescapable realization that if we will eventually be able to create something like the Matrix, someone has likely already done it. While we can debate what is outside our cave, it's our own rapid progress with AI that makes it more likely than ever that we are already inside something virtual like the Matrix.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
For Warner Bros., Original Horror Has Scared Up Some of 2025's Best Box Office Bets
We hope there's not the same level of hand-wringing and asterisks thrown around about Zach Cregger's 'Weapons' as there was for Ryan Coogler's 'Sinners,' because a stellar No. 1 opening for 'Weapons' now gives Warner Bros. two original horror movies that each opened No. 1 at the box office in 2025. 'Weapons' brought in $71.8 million globally, including $43.5 million domestic, according to Monday's final totals, easily landing it the top spot ahead of 'Freakier Friday' and holdovers like 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps.' Warner Bros. ('Weapons' is a New Line Cinema title) now has had seven films this year that have opened No. 1, including 'Mickey 17,' 'A Minecraft Movie,' 'Final Destinations: Bloodlines,' 'Superman,' and 'F1: The Movie' (which WB released with Apple). New Line also released January's 'Companion,' another original horror film also produced by Cregger, and that film made $36.7 million worldwide. More from IndieWire You Hate AI. They Teach It Anyway. Spike Lee's 'Highest 2 Lowest' Reinvents Kurosawa in the Canyons and Subways of New York While franchise horror films have had their moment this year too, including '28 Years Later,' 'Final Destination,' and 'I Know What You Did Last Summer,' other dips back into the IP well have struggled, including 'M3GAN 2.0,' 'Until Dawn,' and 'Wolf Man.' Blumhouse's slate for the remainder of 2025 also includes several sequels to past hits. The success of 'Weapons' is more ammunition for anyone beating the drum that Hollywood needs to take more risks. And 'Weapons,' though not on the budget level of 'Sinners,' had its own risks. Not only is it a cryptic, genre-bending original with a not-so-veiled message about grief and trauma in the aftermath of school shootings, Cregger's film carries a $38 million production budget, a number at which New Line reportedly won a bidding war over Jordan Peele's Monkeypaw banner. That's an aggressive number for an emerging filmmaker. His prior film was the sleeper hit 'Barbarian,' which wound up grossing $40.8 million domestic and $45.3 million total. 'Weapons' has already trounced that, and the better comp could be 'Sinners,' which made a similar $48 million in its opening weekend. 'Sinners' had an impressive, hard-to-top hold across weekends, and it's possible 'Weapons' has the hallmarks to potentially do the same. Reviews are equally strong, 'Weapons' got an A- CinemaScore to an A for 'Sinners,' and 'Weapons' (like 'Sinners') also did especially well in IMAX, bringing in $8.1 million globally from IMAX screens compared to $11.1 million global for 'Sinners.' IMAX is already planning on holding over 'Weapons' on virtually all its domestic screens for another weekend. For his next film, Cregger will be dabbling with IP in his take on the video game franchise 'Resident Evil,' another property that demanded an aggressive bidding war to win Cregger's services. But the success of 'Weapons' suggests that studios will be lining up to give him a blank check for whatever original idea he hatches next. Best of IndieWire Guillermo del Toro's Favorite Movies: 56 Films the Director Wants You to See 'Song of the South': 14 Things to Know About Disney's Most Controversial Movie Nicolas Winding Refn's Favorite Films: 37 Movies the Director Wants You to See Solve the daily Crossword
NBC News
17 hours ago
- NBC News
ESPN, Fox to bundle upcoming streaming services for $39.99 a month
Disney's ESPN and Fox Corp. are teaming up to offer their upcoming direct-to-consumer streaming services as a bundle, the companies said Monday. The move comes as media companies look to nab more consumers for their streaming alternatives, and draw them in with sports, in particular. Last week, both companies announced additional details about the new streaming options. ESPN's streaming service — which has the same name as the TV network — and Fox's Fox One will each launch on Aug. 21, ahead of the college football and NFL seasons. The bundled apps, however, will be available beginning Oct. 2 for $39.99 per month. Separately, ESPN and Fox One will cost $29.99 and $19.99 a month, respectively. While the bundle will offer sports fans a bigger offering at a discounted rate, the streaming services are not exactly the same. ESPN's flagship service will be an all-in-one app that includes all of its live sports and programming from its TV networks, including ESPN2 and the SEC Network, as well as ESPN on Disney-owned ABC. The app will also have fantasy products, new betting tie-ins, studio programming and documentaries. ESPN will also offer its app as a bundle with Disney's other streaming services, Disney+ and Hulu, for $35.99 a month. That Disney bundle will cost a discounted $29.99 a month for the first 12 months — the same price as the stand-alone app. Last week, ESPN further beefed up the content on its streaming app when it inked a deal with the WWE for the U.S. rights to the wrestling league's biggest live events, including WrestleMania, the Royal Rumble and SummerSlam, beginning in 2026. The sports media giant also reached an agreement with the NFL that will see ESPN acquire the NFL Network and other media assets from the league. The Fox One service, however, will be a bit different. Fox had been on the sidelines of direct-to-consumer streaming for years after its competitors launched their platforms. Just this year, it said it would offer all of its content — including news and entertainment — from its broadcast and pay TV networks in a streaming offering. Fox One won't have any exclusive or original content. Fox's move into the direct-to-consumer streaming game — outside of its Fox Nation app and the free, ad-supported streamer Tubi — came after it abandoned its efforts to launch Venu, a joint sports streaming venture with Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery. Both Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch and Disney CEO Bob Iger said during separate earnings calls last week that they were exploring bundling options with other services. Since Fox announced the Fox One app, Murdoch has said the company would lean into bundles with other streaming services. 'Announcing ESPN as our first bundle partner is evidence of our desire to deliver the best possible value and viewing experience to our shared customers,' said Tony Billetter, SVP of strategy and business development for FOX's direct to consumer segment, in a release on Monday.
