Content! Content!

It's about time for finals. So, until I have time to write more original content, here's a review I wrote last year on my old blog. It's the first "real" movie review I ever wrote, and I still like it.

So...enjoy. And look here after the first of the year for regular updates and new content! :D

---

Dark City - Proya's Pinnacle of Excellence

Dark City
Dir: Alex Proyas
1998 - 100 min. - R (Violence, Language)

***/****
Price paid: $6.95
Max. Recommended price: $18.95

Everything "The Matrix" wanted to be, a year before it. That just about sums up "Dark City", where no one is what they seem to be, and the life you remember may be nothing more than a labratory concoction pumped into your veins. John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) finds himself waking up in a cold bathup of water with a headache and no recollection of who he is, where he's been, or what exactly is going on in the city he inhabits. Soon after waking, he receives from a man known as Dr. Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland) promising to help John understand exactly what is going on. As the movie progresses, John finds that the entire city seems to be against him. Framed for a series of murders he did not commit, John must race to find out who he is, why he's framed, and why it is that no one can explain the way to Shell Beach.

Proyas takes us on a fast-paced, frenetic journey through a futuristic film-noir world which we are lead to believe is the possible future of society. Having one of the shortest average shot lengths in modern narrative cinema keeps "Dark City" moving at break-neck speed, and adds suspense to a movie already brimming to the lid with action and intrigue. Add to this Proyas' ability to meld live-action camerawork seamlessly with computer-generated cityscapes and his knack for visually stunning (but not overbearing) special effects, and you have yourself a formula for success.

"Dark City" is not a movie for the weak of heart. It's tough to digest (it took me three viewings to sit through the whole thing.) But, considering that it's available in the bargain bins at almost any Wal-Mart store in the country for under $7, it's hard NOT to recommend this movie. Give it a shot. It just may change your outlook on existence...


-Ryan Murray
10/09/05

United Artists to be revived...
...by Tom Cruise??

(Cross-posted to my JMC-262 class blog.)

Sometime last week, it was reported that Tom Cruise and MGM had come to an agreement to revive United Artists, the studio originally founded by Mary Pickford, D.W. Griffith, and Charles Chaplin.

My original reaction to this? Well, my original comments aren't suitable for print. However, after curling up (or in this case sitting in a rather uncomfortable chair in the basement of the UWM library) with the latest issue of Variety, I've come to a rather odd comclusion for me:

This may actually work. And, it may not suck too badly.

Don't get me wrong, I still hate Tom Cruise with all the loathing I can muster up from the darkest regions of my soul. But, as bad as some of his more recent films have been ("War Of The Worlds," anyone?), as a producer, Cruise does have a somewhat-impressive track record of success. Take for example, a small snippit of his work (as a producer) between 1996 and today:

• Elizabethtown
• The Last Samurai
• Shattered Glass
• Narc
• Vanilla Sky

Not a shabby lineup, by any means.

Also, Variety has brought to my attention a fact that I was previously unaware of. Apparently, Cruise is not contractually obligated to star in any of these films, only to produce them. This lessens my disgust greatly, as I am generally opposed to much of what Cruise has starred in during the past 5-6 years. Not only that, without Cruise starring in these films, they may be more likely to live up to the legacy of United Artists and what the studio stood for so many years ago in Hollywood.

So, I'll wait to reserve judgement. Until I see UA release Battlefield Earth II.

At that point, all bets are off.

"the path to 9-11."

So a co-worker burned me DVDs of the ABC special "The Path to 9-11" to watch (I, and nearly all other Americans was tuned in to the "Manning Bowl" that evening on NBC, and was unable to watch.) I've only gotten about an hour or so in, and so far, it's been really a great watch.

Now, we've all heard the hullabaloo from the "left" how this work is biased towards the "right." Clinton administration members and congresspersons from both sides complained about supposed inaccuracies, and the work was apparently edited by ABC at the 13th hour. In other words, the work has been a political mess, with both sides being rather unhappy. However, I think this is crap. Frankly, I don't care about the political leanings of the filmmakers, and I don't care about any purported inaccuracies....this work isn't labeled as a "documentary", so who cares?

What's stood out to me so far is exactly how large-scale this special was. With an estimated $40 million budget, this is one of the most expensive projects I've ever seen on the small screen. And, it shows. This work plays like an extended-length movie...one which is rather engrossing in scale. What I noticed most is how much this movie really sucked me in...really made me feel for both the informants risking their necks for love of their country, and even for the terrorists. The filmmakers have really done a good job depicting BOTH SIDES as people...not just blindly depicting the terrorists as "monsters." You really get a good sense of why the terrorists do what they do....their motivations, justifications, hopes for success, and even their fears of failure and sense of paranoia.

So far, it looks like it's going to be a good watch. I'm hoping to finish it sometime this week. But at 5 hours, it's not a quick digest.