Movies are too fucking long these days imho

Movies are too fucking long these days imho

srsly

― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

avatar -- hell of long
robin wood -- like two and a half hours?

but it's even more of a problem with non-blockbustery movies

― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

lazy fucking editing

― call all destroyer, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

and thinking (whether it's true or not) that ppl need everything spelled out for them

― call all destroyer, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

ban flashbacks and voiceovers forever

― call all destroyer, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah I wish they made transformers 2 and sex in the city 2 better

― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

Been saying this for years man. Love and can live with a lot of long "art" movies - there is an argument about editing to be had there too, but it's different - but a comedy over 90 or an actioner over 100-ish minutes is invariably some bullshit imo.

Worst is when it's kids movies and I don't even really wanna be there - that first Pirates of the Caribbean felt like sitting thru Shoah or sump'n

― That was Verbeek, that was (Noodle Vague), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah I wish they made transformers 2 and sex in the city 2 better

― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, June 14, 2010 1:43 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

...

― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

karate kid is 139 minutes? that's insane

― peter in montreal, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

how long is 'a team'

― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

more time for people to talk and send text messages

― baout it baout it (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

and livetweet

― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

is there more stuff happening in these movies vs their 10-20 years ago counterparts or do they just draw the stuff out more (ie longer chase/fighting scenes)?

― peter in montreal, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

Funny People was definitely too long, the whole "getting back together with the ex" segment should've been cut altogether, as the main drama was between the two comedian guys, and the ex subplot just felt extraneous to that.

― Tuomas, Monday, 14 June 2010 19:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

I have no problem with epic/historical movies being long though. If anything, I thought the new Robin Hood movie was too short, it felt like the conflicts during the second half of the movie were solved too quickly and easily. I would've wanted some more medieval political drama plus swordfights.

― Tuomas, Monday, 14 June 2010 19:44 (2 years ago) Permalink

I've been wondering about this for years. It seems insane that SATC2 is a minute longer than Apocalypse Now. Romcoms and action movies have no excuse for topping 120 mins. These days I welcome a 90 minute movie like I welcome a 40 minute album - show some discipline ffs.

― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 14 June 2010 19:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

Karate Kid - and this isn't like a recommendation that you should drop $10 on it - Karate Kid was actually decent to watch for 139 min. I took my kid this weekend and neither of us got bored.

― kkvgz, Monday, 14 June 2010 19:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

Trailer for it looked alright, true. Doesn't need to be that long tho.

― That was Verbeek, that was (Noodle Vague), Monday, 14 June 2010 19:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

Spiderman 3 was so long it was a serious test of my will, and I lost. I think the big problem is these movies are so long yet the pacing is maintained - always big flashy action scenes, introducing new characters, packing in way too much info. The more a word is repeated the more it loses its meaning, and the more time these kind of movies go on the less I care about what happens.

If you wanna make a 2 1/2 hour movie then have at least a few spots that are beautifully ambient or hypnotic, in order to give the eyes a break, let us reflect on what we are seeing, and sum up the grandeur of the film experience.

― Adam Bruneau, Monday, 14 June 2010 20:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

who does it benefit? not the studios or the distributors or the exhibitors, as it cuts down on showtimes.

not the audiences.

the filmmakers?

actually I think it's a prestige thing for the studios, a subtle marketing message to distributors/exhibitors: "here's the release you should care about this season"

of course that prestige used to be reserved for THE NEW FILM BY FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA and now it's spent on ANY OLD GARBAGE WE RECYCLED FROM TV/VIDEO GAMES/YOUR YOUTH

don't get me started on albums longer than 45 minutes

― (e_3) (Edward III), Monday, 14 June 2010 20:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

Karate Kid really should have just been 85 minutes of 12-year-olds beating the living shit out of each other, hard-'R' style. Major improvement.

― Simon H., Monday, 14 June 2010 20:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

funny people - ~150 minutes

^ I understand this, apatow's an auteur now

― (e_3) (Edward III), Monday, 14 June 2010 21:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

i dunno if this is a particularly new thing but yeah i can't stand movies > 1.5 hours long

― hoes on my dick cos my groceries bagged (tpp), Monday, 14 June 2010 21:10 (2 years ago) Permalink

I am with you on this one, slocki. I watched "Extract" the other day & it was not the best movie but I think I had a better opinion of it because at least it knew how long to be.

― breaking that little dog's heart chakra (Abbott), Monday, 14 June 2010 21:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

I always appreciate that Woody Allen keeps his movies trim. Match Point is the only one he's ever made that has been over two hours. Fifteen of his 39 movies have even been under 90 minutes (although the last one was Shadows and Fog in 1991.)

― jaymc, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

I am just going to post this here, in case I ever need to refer to it:

Whatever Works (2009): 92
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008): 96
Cassandra's Dream (2007): 108
Scoop (2006): 96
Match Point (2005): 124
Melinda and Melinda (2004): 99
Anything Else (2003): 108
Hollywood Ending (2002): 112
Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001): 103
Small Time Crooks (2000): 94
Sweet and Lowdown (1999): 95
Celebrity (1998): 113
Deconstructing Harry (1997): 96
Everybody Says I Love You (1996): 101
Mighty Aphrodite (1995): 95
Bullets Over Broadway (1994): 98
Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993): 104
Husbands and Wives (1992): 108
Shadows and Fog (1991): 85
Alice (1990): 102
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989(: 104
Another Woman (1988): 81
September (1987): 82
Radio Days (1987): 88
Hannah and Her Sisters (1986): 103
Purple Rose of Cairo (1985): 82
Broadway Danny Rose (1984): 84
Zelig (1983): 79
Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982): 88
Stardust Memories (1980): 89
Manhattan (1979): 96
Interiors (1978): 93
Annie Hall (1977): 93
Love and Death (1975): 85
Sleeper (1973): 89
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (1972): 88
Bananas (1971): 82
Take the Money and Run (1969): 85
What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966): 80

― jaymc, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

This might be the most I've ever agreed with a thread!

(Heh, my gf, a huge fan of endless action and sci-fi movies, complained that Annie Hall was "too long"!)

― Sundar, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

I might be alone on this but I actually thought Splice could have really used another 15-20 minutes to help smooth out some rather, er, ungraceful plot movement.

― Simon H., Monday, 14 June 2010 22:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

I am with you on this one, slocki. I watched "Extract" the other day & it was not the best movie but I think I had a better opinion of it because at least it knew how long to be.

― breaking that little dog's heart chakra (Abbott), Monday, June 14, 2010 5:58 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark

ya i think i felt the same way!

― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 22:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

And, yes, I wouldn't mind this phenomenon so much if there were some sort of formal innovation going on to justify the length but when relatively standard comedies or action movies are just dragged out for that much longer, it does feel pretty ridiculous. (Funny People especially, particularly since I generally really enjoyed Apatow.)

xposts

― Sundar, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

I don't necessarily know if I agree that movies are "too long" but I agree that 99% of them waste a lot of time on dumb shit; ie it's not so much I believe movies should meet an arbitrary length of like 95 minutes but I do think they need to make better use of whatever time they take up

― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 14 June 2010 22:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

I can see if every minute you cut from a movie means you have to admit you wasted $10million on that scene, I'd feel stingy with the cuts.
How long are movies nowadays with budgets under $5 million?

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 14 June 2010 23:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

i think Edward III is most on the money here in saying that its an auteur thing. i think it has to do with prestige not just for the studio/distributor but for the director or editors. i also dont think its a coincidence that we're now seeing tons of new 'directors cut,' 'extended edition,' etc DVDs that supposedly emphasize the true version of a film, implying that longer runtimes=more authenticity or whatever.

or even just how many times have you heard the story of how the studio tried to chop xxx scenes out of whatever classic movie or ruined magnificent ambersons? so if judd apatow is going to get 150 minutes for funny people hes not going to sabotage his own movie

― killahpriest (/\/K/\/\), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

not that that explains why the studio would be down with that

― killahpriest (/\/K/\/\), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

and tbh i enjoyed funny people for the most part

― killahpriest (/\/K/\/\), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

In apatow's defense, there isn't much he could cut that doesn't disrupt the main story, and the parts that he could cut are funnier/better than the main story.

― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

In apatow's defense, he is fucking clueless

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 03:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

In apatow's defense, there isn't much he could cut that doesn't disrupt the main story, and the parts that he could cut are funnier/better than the main story.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, June 14, 2010 8:33 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

not much of a defense imho

― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 03:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

people need a break from the minute long youtubes they watch all the time

― an indie-rock microgenre (dyao), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

ITT people making me happy that I don't watch new movies

― Cunga, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

Karate Kid really should have just been 85 minutes of 12-year-olds beating the living shit out of each other, hard-'R' style. Major improvement.

― Simon H., Monday, June 14, 2010 8:57 PM (Yesterday)

Under appreciated post.

― Cunga, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

personally i think comedies need a REALLY compelling reason to break 90 minutes. and any movie needs to seriously justify breaking the two-hour mark. every minute you go over that, you should owe the audience money or something

I agree 100%. I have a pretty firm 2 hr limit and anything over that I start to get so antsy it's ridiculous. 90 mins is the perfect length for most movies imo.

Spiderman 3 was so long it was a serious test of my will, and I lost.

I saw a midnight showing of that piece of crap on a weeknight and got about 3 hours of sleep as a result. I was so pissed.

― o sh!t a ˁ˚ᴥ˚ˀ (ENBB), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

Maybe swollen mediocre films are the natural counterpart to hugely fat mediocre novels:

― Aimless, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

i can sit through a three hour movie in a theater no problem, but give me a DVD longer than 90 min and I literally fall asleep!

― baout it baout it (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah me too. it's harder to pay attention at home for some reason.

― Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

Never mind watching something on your laptop.

Pretty sure Ingmar Bergman's oeuvre wasn't meant to be minimized so you can check your Facebook and e-mail (or was it??)

― Cunga, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

everything is too long these days if you ask me.

― Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

even worse than movie length are movie titles!

― Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

hardly anything is ever something simple like say, "Armadillo Man". it's gotta be "Armadillo Man: The Curse of the Last Beginning"

― Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

Armadillo Man 2: hardly anything is ever something simple

― Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

guess I'll keep reading until it's over then catch up on the beginning tomorrow

― dmr, Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:12 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dying

― max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 03:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

!!!! lmao @ dave tbh

― ian, Thursday, 17 June 2010 03:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

When In Rome is only 91 minutes long but feels much, much longer.

― a cross between lily allen and fetal alcohol syndrome (milo z), Friday, 18 June 2010 03:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

Dinkytown flocked to the Varsity in the prewar years, when Fisher held "bank day" drawings for prizes such as new dishes, and sometimes even let patrons stay overnight in the cool air conditioning, which was provided by air pumped through water drawn from an underground well.

"Very few places had air conditioning in those days," says Beatrice Perper, one of Fisher's daughters, who worked the box office. "Many times in the summer, he left the theater open, so people could sleep there. He hired two people to stay and watch the theater. People used to bring whole families."

http://www.citypages.com/2005-03-09/arts/varsity-cheer/all

― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 18 June 2010 13:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

among the uninformed shit i've heard people say in my long career as a film academic is that until the 60s ppl didn't know when films started

is it time for the film equivalent of this thread?

― Simon H., Friday, 18 June 2010 14:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

this thread was a right laugh, but i've never seen a thread so become so totally de-railed.

but yeah movies.. they're *mental* long these days agreed. especially comedies.

― piscesx, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 13:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

movies I've seen recently that were the perfect length: Taken (think this was like 80-90 minutes?), Toy Story 3 (~100 minutes), and nothing else

― Egyptian Raps Crew (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 13:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

Watched Wendy and Lucy for the second time a couple of nights ago. 75 minutes--perfect. (Generally I like long films, though.)

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 13:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

― 전승 Complete Victory (in Battle) (NotEnough), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 14:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

Okay, so I plotted the average length of the top ten box office films for each year. I know more data points would have been nicer, but I've only got so much free time.

I like examining unexamined assumptions ("films are longer these days") - turns out this one might be true!

― 전승 Complete Victory (in Battle) (NotEnough), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 14:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

even more amazing is just *how* short they were 10 years ago. 107 minutes!

― piscesx, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

Excellent work. "I like examining unexamined assumptions"--for the folks on ILB, let me say that Bill James couldn't have said it better himself.

We need a data-analysis expert here. Your graph is persuasive, but a couple of red flags I'd raise: 1) is 10 films a year enough to start drawing conclusions (especially 10 that aren't random--maybe hits are longer by nature), and 2) maybe 2004-2009 is a blip; if you eliminate the last five years, you could say the length didn't increase at all from 1979-2004.

I don't know. I play a grade 6 math teacher in real life, but this one's above my pay grade.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

that graph is dominated by statistical noise

― caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

i dont mind long movies - if the movie is too long for itself thats another thing - like transformers 2 prob just shouldve been a commercial or whatever

― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

xpost -- We could retitle it 'supernovae are brighter these days'

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

skewing results: 12-minute end credits for horseshit effects-laden stuff

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

no good comes of any thread where "meme" surfaces

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, June 16, 2010 6:24 PM (6 months ago) Bookmark

― once more Jagger faps the hivemind (symsymsym), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

The end-credits is a good point--wouldn't be surprised if they account for most of the seven-minute difference between '79 and '09. I'm often hanging around right till the end of the credits to get the name of some song that caught my ear, and they go on forever. It doesn't even have to be a film with lots of special effects, very few of which I see--it applies to all films.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

I have no idea what if anything I have learnt from this chart, but really I just wanted to see if I could web-scrape the data off IMDB, which I could, with 3 lines of Perl

(data is in a Google Docs spreadsheet here; some years have <50 rows of data because some movies didn't have a length showing up; data scraped from e.g. http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2010%2C2010&title_type=feature&sort=moviemeter%2Casc which uses imdb's own questionable "MovieMeter" ranking but the box office data gets pretty shaky the further back you go so eh)

― bauble metropolis (a passing spacecadet), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

looks about right to me. my guess is the average length hasn't changed that much, but there are currently (like in the last 5 years) a lot more 2.5 hour+ trashy movies.

― caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

So if that is about right then I dunno if it's more true to say that the 00s and the 60s had a lot of really long films or that the 70s and 80s had a lot of short films.

Anyway, I have a short attention span and grew up with 80s films, so if the plunge downwards right at the end means the trend is turning round again then I'm all for it.

(I don't trust the data here a whole bunch btw)

― bauble metropolis (a passing spacecadet), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

that imdb moviemeter thing is sketchy, but i'd be surprised if the top 50 were a particularly biased sample of successful mainstream movies. i can totally buy that there isn't a gross trend in running length. imo this thread inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias although i agree that there are probably more really dumb long movies than there used to be.

i wouldn't trust any results based on a year that hasn't finished though, especially with award season to come, which will boost (usu. longer) oscar-type movies into the top 50.

― caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

the issue here, comparing the 1950s with the present, is b-movies, i.e. second features. they were shorter than the main feature because duh. but now we don't have b-movies so.

― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

Would all those musical-overture segments (which I assume were included in running times) from the big prestige roadshow films from the '60s make a difference? Not sure if there were enough of them to matter, but they seemed to run two or three minutes.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

Of course, those films were already three or four hours long, so probably not.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:04 (2 years ago) Permalink

well we're in difficult territory with that. there is a question of whether you would have had to endure them when the film got rolled out into regular cinemas. i genuinely dk. but those films were relatively rare -- this is about whether your average programmer is longer now.

― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

data doesn't matter. NO comedy/thriller/romance type movie that isn't some kind of visually stunning epic or intensely contemplative and/or suspenseful masterwork should EVER be over 120 minutes, and preferably not over 100 minutes. Whether there are more films like this than there used to be, all of them are too long.

― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

otm

― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

I bet that 90% of the films that check in at 150 minutes+ aspire to one or more of those things; how many actually achieve it, obviously many fewer.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

This is actually a significant factor in my cinema going now. I refused to see Avatar because of the length. I always ask how long something is before agreeing to go unless it's a new Coen Bros or something on that level.

― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

A four-hour Pauly Shore film? I'm guessing that's a pass for you.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

# of very long movies (over 130 minutes), by decade:

1950s — 58
1960s — 121
1970s — 72
1980s — 55
1990s — 97
2000s — 112

# of very short movies (under 86 minutes), by decade:

1950s — 84
1960s — 48
1970s — 38
1980s — 26
1990s — 35
2000s — 13

(wanted to do a medium-length one for comparison purposes, but couldn't decide what range to use — there actually seem to be two separate frequency peaks within "medium-length", one in the mid-90s, another in the low 110s)

― Egyptian Raps Crew (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

(all drawn from spacecadet's google spreadsheet data, in case that wasn't clear)

― Egyptian Raps Crew (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

data doesn't matter. NO comedy/thriller/romance type movie that isn't some kind of visually stunning epic or intensely contemplative and/or suspenseful masterwork should EVER be over 120 minutes, and preferably not over 100 minutes. Whether there are more films like this than there used to be, all of them are too long.

― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:13 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I bet that 90% of the films that check in at 150 minutes+ aspire to one or more of those things; how many actually achieve it, obviously many fewer.

― clemenza, Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:18 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i think the premise of this thread is that that's not true. 2.5 hour action movies and 2+ hour comedies that obviously don't aspire to much are not huge outliers any more.

― caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

I upped it to 150 minutes before making that statement--I see few action films, unless it's something like Inception or The Dark Knight, both of which obviously have artistic aspirations, whether you think they get there or not. But you might be right, I honestly don't know.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

More action films without artistic aspirations plz

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

On the basis of those two, I'd agree. I'd still prefer the aspirations, though, in hopes of lucking onto something like the second Spiderman or Batman films, both of which I liked a lot.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

Hurting rlly consistently a foole this week

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 19:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

don't wanna get dragged into that people-showing-up-at-random-during-the-middle-of-films-at-the-cinema-in-the-olden-days argument again but check this out

― piscesx, Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:23 (1 year ago) Permalink

it was a well known gimmick of Hitch's, don't think i've seen that poster before tho

― aboulia banks (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:27 (1 year ago) Permalink

IIRC that gimmick was used with Psycho only, because it was advertised as a Janet Leigh movie, and Hitchcock was afraid that people turning in late might miss her part of the movie.

― Tuomas, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:57 (1 year ago) Permalink

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/dec/12/is-the-hobbit-too-long

― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:47 (5 months ago) Permalink

it's amazing how they made the bold creative decision to make it into three movies. really makes me excited for the results.

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:53 (5 months ago) Permalink

169 minutes! holy Christ.

― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:54 (5 months ago) Permalink

All too many other potentially great movies, from Titanic to Out of Africa

stopped reading here

― Ward Fowler, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:59 (5 months ago) Permalink

haha

― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 13:01 (5 months ago) Permalink

This IS 40; 133 minutes for a comedy.

― piscesx, Saturday, 16 February 2013 16:37 (3 months ago) Permalink