View Single Post
Old September 29 2008, 03:58 PM   #21
John Picard
Vice Admiral
John Picard's Avatar
Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch
Re: "Quickness" of Solace

JKTim wrote: View Post
John_Picard wrote: View Post
I agree that stretching a story is also bad, but to me, a short running time is akin to not getting my money's worth.
If a movie is short, but ridiculously entertaining (see my earlier example of WALL·E), have you not gotten your money's worth?

X-Men 3 and Spiderman 3 were both woefully inadequate in the story telling department and should have been longer.
The problems with those movies were not with their running times (at 139 minutes, Spider-Man 3 was longer than both of its predecessors) but rather with the quality of their scripts. To say that "longer movie = better movie" is an at-best spurious argument that has little to no foundation in logic -- see my earlier point about the length of books.

I mean, heck, Psycho is barely over an hour and a half long, and it's phenomenal. Same with Reservoir Dogs. There's no reason to say that in order to be good, a movie needs to have a length of X minutes. There's just as much room for The Godfather and Casino as there is for Cloverfield (84 minutes) and Good Night, and Good Luck (92 minutes).
I guess you don't like long movies. Ghostbusters, which I just re-watched this past weekend, didn't really delve into the characters much. It was just a "fun" movie.

Then again, Raiders of the Lost Ark was 115 minutes, while Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was 122 minutes, yet with KotS, I felt like it was missing *something*.
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote