Downfall.

It was a little grim.

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

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.

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. :)

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

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

I agree

Rope and The Birds are my favourite Hitchcock.

surrogates 5/10
mediocre all the way

yeah it looked bad.

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!)...

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.]

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.

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

sweet jeebus i hate both those movies-- i hate most of hollywood's "golden age" big budget productions.

come to think of it, i hate most of today's hollywood big budget productions

no personal criticism of you-- it's just that those particular movies give me hives-- same as, oh, the 10 commandments, spartacus, etc. etc.


that movie is FUCKING BRILLIANT!


a lotta indie filmmakers tend to do that shit so that their stuff qualifies as a "feature" rather than a short-- lots more $$ there. so yeah, there's a "standard" all suckas strive for, no matter if the story has enough steam to fill it up or not.

there should be short films before features instead of so many craptastic commercials at the movies. it used to be like that in ancient times.

anyhuevos i watched this for the 2nd time last night:





funny thing i noticed, most of hipsterdom 40 years ago is still the same today.

and the desperate for fame are the same too, except now there's facebook and people try on their own.

except for the band's clothes-- too fucking shiny. and men wear less suits.

but anyway the guy walks into a show the band is playing i say holy fuck good guitar and who is it? it's jimmy fucking page with the yardbirds (pre-zeppelin) and i laughed a bit.

joints were humongous too-- that was the pre-hydro era.

good fucking movie anyway. the very last scene is fucking brilliant.

Saw that for the first time last week..strange. Loved it, though.

What other Antonionis should I see? I've seen ZABRISKIE POINT and THE PASSENGER which were both alright. LA NOTTE was good though.

8/10. Tim Roth's first role, and it's fucking awesome, he was already a great actor.

Is it me or does the New York media absolutely adore contemporary and controversial movies from Britain? Not that I'm complaining, as it fills me with pride that they do.

new york media ignores anything not originating, referencing, or praising NYC.

The latest "Kitchen Sink" British movie the New York media are loving is "Fish Tank". I read the girl in it was cast after being spotted arguing with her boyfriend in a railway station!

Not to worry !@#$%! none taken. I'm sure there's something out there that you think is the shit and I think sucks. They're all just opinions why some people take them as an attack on their character when some one disagrees with them is beyond me...

there are enough movie to go around

personally, I laughed my ass of at shitty MAJOR PAYNE

9/10. Wall·E is better, Up is better, Wall·E is better, Up is better, Wall·E is better, Up is better, ...

English title: "No one knows about Persian Cats"

Just OK, it's often awkward in the story-telling and sometimes badly shot (while the subject was very promising).

Even better than I remembered. Fucking classic.

I thought Short Cuts was alright. Too long, haha. Didn't like the DEUX EX MACHINA ending. Didn't like a lot of the stories, I thought they focused on some of the less compelling characters too much. Pretty good though.

I have been watching shin chan.

fucking fucking fucking amazing.. from start to finish

I love the ending because of its deus ex machinaness. Then again, I love Magnolia, and that basically does exactly the same thing, but even more so. You are right that some of the characters should have got more screen time though. Like Chris Penn and Tom Waits' stories. But generally, I just adore the film. Since seeing it for the first time I've become a huge fan of Carver's writing, and seeing Altman just weave all those stories together like that is a joy. The acting is also amazing all around. Like Jack Lemmon's scene where he talks to his son. That floored me.

Evil Dead

....still didn't do enough for me to fall in love with

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Evil Dead anymore. Army of Darkness, also, never saw the big deal with that one.

EVIL DEAD 2, on the other hand, is a masterpiece.

Evil Dead II is indeed a masterpiece. But The Evil Dead is one of my favorite movies ever.