- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford
Posted on 12/15/10 at 8:57 am to Freauxzen
Posted on 12/15/10 at 8:57 am to Freauxzen
It's a great movie, but I will stand up for the "its boring" crowd. That is legitimate criticism. a director is responsible for pacing, and a movie that needlessly drags is a failure of the director. Now, I find this movie to be intricate, not boring. It slowly reveals itself, but I am sympathetic to the argument that a movie takes too long to get to its destination. I don't think its unreasonable for a movie to wrap itself up in 100 to 120 minutes. If you go beyond 120 minutes, there better be a good reason.
Many longish films could stand to be edited. This isn't short attention span, it's just good storytelling. Using the space just because you can is not a good reason.
Many longish films could stand to be edited. This isn't short attention span, it's just good storytelling. Using the space just because you can is not a good reason.
5
Posted on 12/15/10 at 9:19 am to Baloo
quote:
If you go beyond 120 minutes, there better be a good reason.
i agree. epic stories can get away with this for sure, because, well, they have a lot of informtion in the story
this movie didn't seem to require a lot of the information we're given in the middle. the story could have just have effectively been told without 30-45 minutes.
and i'm usually a guy saying good movies could have been great with another 20-30 minutes, esp in the beginning
but this was certainly a good film. after i watch it again i may call it great. but i don't think it's as elite as many make it out to be. great locations/cinematography. great acting. some instances of great writing. but really bad pacing that just dragged it down overall, imho
Posted on 12/15/10 at 9:44 am to Baloo
I will gladly watch a 3 hour movie if its pacing and story are good and they aren't wasting my time. I'm sorry but this one was just not compelling enough for me to keep my attention.
It was just ok and it was too long. Affleck's performance was really good but honestly, Pitt was just playing Pitt in my opinion. He is vastly overrated in most everything he plays in.
It was just ok and it was too long. Affleck's performance was really good but honestly, Pitt was just playing Pitt in my opinion. He is vastly overrated in most everything he plays in.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 10:25 am to Baloo
quote:
I don't think its unreasonable for a movie to wrap itself up in 100 to 120 minutes. If you go beyond 120 minutes, there better be a good reason.
Perfect movie length is 100 minutes imo.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 11:00 am to Baloo
quote:
I don't think its unreasonable for a movie to wrap itself up in 100 to 120 minutes. If you go beyond 120 minutes, there better be a good reason.
Disagree. I can name a dozen films that go longer than two hours. Another favorite of mine is Once Upon A Time In America. Absolutely loved it and it was over 3 hours...there are numerous others too.
I just don't see us agreeing on much. Obviously we like different things.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 1:46 pm to Baloo
quote:
It's a great movie, but I will stand up for the "its boring" crowd. That is legitimate criticism. a director is responsible for pacing, and a movie that needlessly drags is a failure of the director. Now, I find this movie to be intricate, not boring. It slowly reveals itself, but I am sympathetic to the argument that a movie takes too long to get to its destination. I don't think its unreasonable for a movie to wrap itself up in 100 to 120 minutes. If you go beyond 120 minutes, there better be a good reason.
Many longish films could stand to be edited. This isn't short attention span, it's just good storytelling. Using the space just because you can is not a good reason.
I agree that many movies can be edited in length and actually make them better movies. However, I'm not sure I can specify a definite time limit. Depends.
But this movie was very, very good. Not boring at all, imo.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News