[Jerry Garcia]

Downfall.

It was a little grim.

[noisereductions]

Most films shouldn't be over 80 mins in my opinion.

[Rob Instigator]

yr short attention span is showing

ha!

I agree with you in that too many films are padded, and go on too long, but long classics such as Bridge on River Kwai, or Schindler's List, or any such epic film would DIE if they were cut to a 90 minute running time.

[noisereductions]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

yr short attention span is showing

ha!

no it's not that. I mean I can watch Kill Bill 1 & 2 and be interested the whole time. I just think a lot of movies throw in unecessary shit to pad the time. That's part of what makes most slashers and porn great. They're pithy.

[Keeping It Simple]

Here's something interesting I read about the movie Avatar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-planet.html

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

Most films shouldn't be over 80 mins in my opinion.

I agree

[Derek]

Rope and The Birds are my favourite Hitchcock.

[shabbray2.0]

 

surrogates 5/10
mediocre all the way

[noisereductions]

yeah it looked bad.

[atsonicpark]

I definitely don't have a short attention span. My favorite films of all time include Stalker (nearly 3 hours), Eureka (nearly 4 hours), and Satantango (7 hours and 15 minutes!)...

[demonrail666]

Certain films warrant their extended running time but the tendency now to stretch films that would've once happily run to an hour and a half into some three hour epic is a real pain. It's sort of laughable when you see the 185 min running time of what amounts to little more than an overblown B movie. Has Hollywood sacked all its editors?

[atsonicpark]

It just blew my mind that FUNNY PEOPLE was 2 1/2 hours long. I mean, Jesus!

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

Most films shouldn't be over 80 mins in my opinion.

It entirely depends on what the movie is. You couldn't possibly squeeze the whole of The Lord of the Rings trilogy into an 80 minute running time. It had to be made in three parts with a running time of 300 minutes for each part. I own the extended editions of each part on DVD with extra running times between 45 - 60 minutes.

[noisereductions]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

It entirely depends on what the movie is. You couldn't possibly squeeze the whole of The Lord of the Rings trilogy into an 80 minute running time. It had to be made in three parts with a running time of 300 minutes for each part. I own the extended editions of each part on DVD with extra running times between 45 - 60 minutes.

well I did say "MOST movies..."

In the case of Lord of The Rings, it should have been 2 films. Cuz Two Towers sucked. Yeah I said it. Big Whoop.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

It entirely depends on what the movie is. You couldn't possibly squeeze the whole of The Lord of the Rings trilogy into an 80 minute running time. It had to be made in three parts with a running time of 300 minutes for each part. I own the extended editions of each part on DVD with extra running times between 45 - 60 minutes.

Of course some films need that extra running time but a majority of two-plus hour movies could easily lose a half hour somewhere. If Hollywood tried to make Citizen Kane now it'd nodoubt run to something like 7 hours.

[chicka]

Gone With the Wind 3 hours and 58 minutes and it never drags. 3 hours 32 minutes for Ben Hur never bored with that one either.

[Rob Instigator]

agree. the length of a film is irrelevant, as long as the story is captivating.

I sat through both CHE' movies, and while it was a 5 hour ass numb, it was completely worth it.

Les Enfants Du Paradis is a two parter, 3+ hour film. One of my faves of all time. seen it at least 5 times.

when a film is rich and wonderful, the length is like a long novel, you are just glad you have so much goodness to get through.


Seven Samurai is over 3 hours long. Godfather is 175 minutes.

what I hate, and what I think most are referring to, are the fucking "standard" fare movies, that, if they were a succint 90 minutes long, one could enjoy as just entertainment, but then they get padded and extended, and they fucking lose all their juice, and end up sucking ass. that IS most hollywood films sad to say

[atsonicpark]

lights in the dusk - 8/10
man without a past - 7/10
blissfully yours - 7/10
tropical malady - 7/10
speaking directly - 9/10 [In this film, you will see a man jerking off for 5 minutes straight, another 5 minute sequence of an erect penis going soft, looping of the bombing in Vietnam, 5 minutes of a completely blank screen (except for a stop watch in the corner) which you, the viewer, are supposed to fill in with your own thoughts -- all amongst some delightful political observations, home video footage, folk music, and some other insights into Jost's life (including love life) and whatnot. A deeply personal, and spiritual, film, and by far one of the best I've ever seen.]

[DanielCarlson]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

what I hate, and what I think most are referring to, are the fucking "standard" fare movies, that, if they were a succint 90 minutes long, one could enjoy as just entertainment, but then they get padded and extended, and they fucking lose all their juice, and end up sucking ass. that IS most hollywood films sad to say

Well said. I don't hate long movies per se, Fanny and Alexander by Bergman is on my top 10 ever, and the best version of it is 5 hours. But many movies these days are too long just for the sake of being long, when there really isn't anything interesting to say/show that requires more than say 90 minutes.

[Rob Instigator]

when one checks out one's watch in the middle of yet another chase/action/montage sequence, one knows the movie is suck suck