OT: 1917

Advertisement
Just saw 1917 it had great cinematography and wasn't a bad movie at all it at least tried to tell a story which you don't see very often these days. It was indeed heroic
 
Advertisement
How about filmmakers quit making their films too long? Scorsese correctly calls Marvel films amusement parks, not cinema, but thinks he’s Proust.
 
How about filmmakers quit making their films too long? Scorsese correctly calls Marvel films amusement parks, not cinema, but thinks he’s Proust.

I can't stand Marvel films, but I also don't mind long movies. Some of the GOAT movies are extremely long. Its also not a new thing(like other posters, not you are insinuating). One of the first true classic films from 1915 was over 3 hours long.
 
I can't stand Marvel films, but I also don't mind long movies. Some of the GOAT movies are extremely long. Its also not a new thing(like other posters, not you are insinuating). One of the first true classic films from 1915 was over 3 hours long.
Yes, there are some great movies that are long. What I should say is if a filmmaker wants a 3 hour film have a 3 hour story. The first two Godfathers, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, and many, many others. What made them great was story, not length.

I remember seeing the Peter Jackson remake of King Kong. Jackson is a great filmmaker, and his Lord Of The Rings trilogy are long, epic, and great films (the source material helped). His King Kong remake was an excessive piece of garbage, just over 3 hours long, with an extended version nearly 3 and 20 minutes long. An excuse to spend over $200M on special effects.

The original classic was 100 mInutes.
 
Advertisement
Yes, there are some great movies that are long. What I should say is if a filmmaker wants a 3 hour film have a 3 hour story. The first two Godfathers, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, and many, many others. What made them great was story, not length.

I remember seeing the Peter Jackson remake of King Kong. Jackson is a great filmmaker, and his Lord Of The Rings trilogy are long, epic, and great films (the source material helped). His King Kong remake was an excessive piece of garbage, just over 3 hours long, with an extended version nearly 3 and 20 minutes long. An excuse to spend over $200M on special effects.

The original classic was 100 mInutes.

Couldn't agree more with everything you said. Even with the king kong schit. Original was a great film. The 3 hour one was trash. If a movie needs to be 4 hours long I'm cool with it and will watch it no question. But if you are just adding filler for whatever the **** reason to make it more pretentious and long. I'm not going to watch it. Then on the other hand you have 1:30 long movies that are straight filler and have no real story to them at all. Those are just as bad imo.
 
Back
Top