Aha!

In 1998, after a long movie-going drought, I went to see Dark City. I loved the story idea but found the movie almost unwatchable. The cuts were so fast and furious that I actually started to count to myself as they happened, to see how long they were. I rarely got to three.

I have wondered, in retrospect, if that wasn't just the result of not having been to the movies in so long, and (a little bit) age. Not that I was old, but I wasn't a kid, and these kids today, with their MTV and their Dan Fogelberg--what was I saying? Oh, right: It just seems to me that our ability to process information quickly has gone up, and perhaps that was what I was unable to get comfortable with.

I've often thought about re-watching that flick to see if I could tolerate it now. Then there's this, from IMDB:

Has one of the shortest Average shot lengths (ASL) of any modern narrative production at 1.8 seconds. This means there is a cut almost every 2 seconds.

I now feel confident in saying: Ha! It wasn't just me.

Also, if you're going to spend that much on sets, howzabout letting the audience see them?

Maybe we could have an "editor's cut" or something. I'd love to see that movie in a way that was, you know, less likely to induce a seizure.