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silly SF movies of the 1950s seem today because they applied manners, moral standards and ways of conversation that are outdated.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.
