Two films with similar premises both released in the late 1990s; one a blockbuster phenomenon, the other a niche cult sleeper.

Which do you think is better, and why?

Never even heard of the Dark City so by default...

Dark City didn't have as big a budget but it came up with the idea before. It's a better film. Just didn't have as much cool factor for its time. However, Matrix has aged like milk on a hot summer day in that regard. Dark City aged just fine like wine.

Matrix gave us the cringe cliche of every game and movie wanting to do bullet-time and black trenchcoats. From Conker to Scary Movie. Everything had to be like the Matrix. So many PS2 games unironically ripped it off. Characters written to be too cool...it's cringe as fuck now. Even tho this film came out in 1999. It set the trend for how shitty the early 2000s came to be.  As long as it sounds "cool" with the no look look with black leather on. Everyone knew kung fu. The bad writing didn't matter. Like the sequels or an Underworld or in games your Bloodraynes and Angel of Darkness. It reflected back on The Matrix that...it took us by surprise but on further examination. It's such shlock.

Matrix never made a damn lick of sense either. Machines using us as power when our nervous system could barely power a lightbulb. Much better ways to generate electricity. That dumbass plot point was only put in for the same reason Soylent Green is people in the movie Soylent Green. It only serves as an OMG shocking...even tho it makes little sense. But it's a movie...even a movie set in some fantasy needs something that seems plausible even if not.

Anybody here who hasn't seen Dark City... Just go see it, that's really the most imporrtant thing I can say on the subject.
Only seeing Matrix is like taking the blue pill.
Really, it's odd that the film just was so over-looked even before Matrix came out, given the cast is so much better.
In terms of the idea of copying, well that would be a further insult to Matrix if true, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't possible,
as Matrix would already have been planned if not in shooting and production before Dark City could have been released,
even if from viewer's perspective Dark City came out a year earlier so Matrix seemed like it was poor quality knock off.
This does make me remember there was director's cut Blu-Ray that was re-released and now I want to see it again

Matrix is an action movie with philosophical overtones. Dark City is a philosophical movie with some action.

The resident contrarian hits again.

Dark City.

When I ask myself who would win in a fight, Neo or John Murdock, I side with Murdock. As powerful as Neo is when he's in the Matrix, he pales in comparison to Murdock's matter materialization. When Neo becomes Jesus, Murdock becomes God. I know, that's a dumb way to assess which movie is better.

Really though, where the matrix hits you with the bombshell discovery early, Dark City takes you for a long ride with a satisfying end. Basically why I liked it. Also, the possibilities for a sequel is far more interesting than the sequels we got from the Matrix.

Never heard of the other one, but I doubt I’d find it to be better than The Matrix. The first movie anyways, which was amazing, the second and third were terrible.

Both are inspired by the lovecraft genre, so i love both. Matrix however had a lot of religious and philosofical undertones and of course a much bigger budget which made it better in the end.