Thread: Are longer movies inherently better?
View Single Post
Old 05-09-2012, 03:52 PM   #1
El Fangel
ELF ANGEL
 
El Fangel's Avatar
 
Posts: 39,476
El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)El Fangel makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Are longer movies inherently better?
I was thinking of something Requiem mentioned to me the other day about Tombstone. It is a movie that is outside the norm on length. It also is a movie I very much enjoy.

Then I thought of other movies that were longer then most. LoTR, Scarface and The Assassination of Jesse James. All excellent well received movies.

90-120 mins isn't a long time to develop characters or plots. With a longer film it doesn't need to be as rushed and more focus can be put on individual characters and gives you a better experience.

Are there any movies you can think of over 2.5 hours that weren't at least average?

What are some others you have enjoyed where the credits were the starting pistol for the bathroom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathtotheSwiss View Post
Kane Knight is just sticking it to the man, ya'll. In this case the man being Fallen Angel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyman View Post
The Angel......that has Fallen upon us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poit View Post
Cock around the clock.

The Order of The Dangle
Taker It Easy - Ser Taker Maplesap
DttS - Ser Swissy Beavercleaver
Requiem - Lord HC Wreckem
Innovator - Ser Inn Payne

=== RIP Jeri ===
March 9th/86 - May 16th/2011
El Fangel is offline   Reply With Quote