- 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 10:20 am to Blue Velvet
quote:
What does this say about you?
It says nothing of any substance about me. I gave the movie a shot and figured out early on what it was. It may be beautiful and well-acted and stylish, but it's also boring and not worth the time investment. That's my opinion and says nothing about my "attention span."
quote:
That I don't have the attention span of an 8 year old?
No. That you jump to unsupported conclusions.
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 10:28 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Perfect movie length is 100 minutes imo.
I think I would agree with that. I've always been impressed though by movies that are 90min or under. A lot of classics are 90 and under but these days you really don't see too many of them.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 10:48 am to Freauxzen
quote:Absolutely agree. I was being generous. One of my biggest criticisms of PT Anderson is his inability to get to the damn point.
Perfect movie length is 100 minutes imo.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 10:49 am to Tiger Ryno
quote:
Pitt was just playing Pitt in my opinion.
If you dont like the guy thats fine. I have my actors I hate. But I find it hard to believe that anybody could walk away from that thinking Pitt didnt put a lot of work into that role. You have to give credit where credit is due. But you not liking the movie adds to that im sure.
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 11:07 am to Cajun Revolution
quote:
Another favorite of mine is Once Upon A Time In America.
Best movie of the 80s IMO.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 11:07 am to Cajun Revolution
I would imagine there are hundreds of movies Baloo loves that are over 120 minutes. I didnt take that as necessarilly being his whole point.
I did however think the movie in question had good reason to be over 120 minutes. To me the story was just as much about Robert Ford as it was Jessie James. Two completely different characters that both of whom were extremly intriguing in different ways. I didnt mind finding out as much detail as the director was willing to give.
No doubt about it the movie tool a long time to wrap up. But I enjoyed the what seemed to be three to four endings.
I did however think the movie in question had good reason to be over 120 minutes. To me the story was just as much about Robert Ford as it was Jessie James. Two completely different characters that both of whom were extremly intriguing in different ways. I didnt mind finding out as much detail as the director was willing to give.
No doubt about it the movie tool a long time to wrap up. But I enjoyed the what seemed to be three to four endings.
This post was edited on 12/15/10 at 11:08 am
Posted on 12/15/10 at 11:14 am to iwyLSUiwy
iwy beat me to it. I love Once Upon a Time in America. Great movie. But I do think a lot of movies have a bloated runtime. Spiderman 3 was 140 minutes. Pirates of the Carribean (the last one) was 170 minutes. Are you kidding me? there was no need for that.
If you're making the Godftaher, by all means, take 150 minutes. but most movies can't justify that runtime. It's just bloat. It is possible for a film to have too many ideas.
I'm not saying all long movies are bad. Obviously not. but I think saying a long film drags and can't support its long runtime is a perfectly valid criticism (though to bring it back on point, I think Assassination can justify its runtime).
If you're making the Godftaher, by all means, take 150 minutes. but most movies can't justify that runtime. It's just bloat. It is possible for a film to have too many ideas.
I'm not saying all long movies are bad. Obviously not. but I think saying a long film drags and can't support its long runtime is a perfectly valid criticism (though to bring it back on point, I think Assassination can justify its runtime).
Posted on 12/15/10 at 11:17 am to iwyLSUiwy
Look, AoJJ was a long fricking movie. There is no doubt. My old man fell asleep half way through it. It kept me interested.
Personally, Lord of the Rings put me to sleep three times in the exact same scene...some folks would adamantly disagree.
People just like different things and look to get different satisfaction from cinema.
Personally, Lord of the Rings put me to sleep three times in the exact same scene...some folks would adamantly disagree.
People just like different things and look to get different satisfaction from cinema.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 11:23 am to Baloo
I have a buddy that absolutely hates long films...I've always countered him with this great Simpsons Quote:
Homer: Wait, I'm confused about the movie ... so the cops knew Internal Affairs was setting them up?
Man: What are you talking about? There's nothing like that in there.
Homer: Well, you see when I get bored I make up my own movies. I have a very short attention span
Lady: But our point is very simple, you see when...
Homer: Oh look! A bird! Hee hee hee!
Homer: Wait, I'm confused about the movie ... so the cops knew Internal Affairs was setting them up?
Man: What are you talking about? There's nothing like that in there.
Homer: Well, you see when I get bored I make up my own movies. I have a very short attention span
Lady: But our point is very simple, you see when...
Homer: Oh look! A bird! Hee hee hee!
This post was edited on 12/15/10 at 11:24 am
Posted on 12/15/10 at 12:23 pm to Tiger Ryno
quote:
Pitt was just playing Pitt in my opinion. He is vastly overrated in most everything he plays in.
I thought he kicked arse in Kalifornia.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 1:39 pm to Cajun Revolution
You know, I usually can account for differing tastes. It's all pretty subjective. But to those who simply say they were bored, I suggest just watching a DVD of Silverado or Young Guns and leave this film to the grownups who appreciate character, narrative, solid performances and cinematography.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 1:42 pm to Cajun Revolution
quote:
Personally, Lord of the Rings put me to sleep three times in the exact same scene...
I'm with you there, pal. That entire trilogy looked good on film, but the story and solemn acting was absurd. I think there should have been a group award for just being able to maintain a straight face while delivering the lines.
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.
Posted on 12/15/10 at 1:49 pm to VOR
quote:
leave this film to the grownups
The other guy was calling non-fans of this movie 8-year olds.
So how old exactly are you and Blue Velvet?
Posted on 12/15/10 at 1:57 pm to uway
quote:
So how old exactly are you and Blue Velvet?
Between 21 and 65.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News