Scorsese can truly fuck himself if he thinks a 3.5 hour movie doesn’t require an intermission. His last was 4, but you could also pause it to piss. The man is a fucking sadist.
Any movie over 2.5 hours should have an intermission when shown in a theater. It wouldn’t ruin the experience as much walking out and missing a key scene because your eyeballs are floating
But Connery, playing an Egyptian pretending to be a Spaniard while also being the only one with a recognizeable Scottish accent amidst a an entire cast of non-Scottish people playing Scots? That was something special.
As someone with a bladder over 40 yrs old now (ugh), I think intermissions ought to be mandatory in anything over 2.5 hrs.
If studios want cinema to survive (and at this point I’m not sure they do), they need to stop trying to cater exclusively to the 29-35 yr-old demo.
My parents used to go to movies often. Now they find it a daunting chore because of the online reserved seating. So they just don’t go anymore. I don’t imagine they’re alone in that.
So we skip watching in theaters and just wait for it on streaming service(s). Maybe a good theater flop will teach Martin to make reasonable length movies or to add an intermission if he can’t.
I didn’t know the second Spiderverse movie was 3 hours long when I started it and by the end I was like “Wrap it up, man! I need to hit the hay.” But instead of wrapping it up they just ended it without wrapping anything up. I was disappointed tbh.
I’m honestly a bit conflicted about discovering this is a thing. My gut reaction is that highlander the series does not need a reboot. Leave it be.
But Henry Cavill? I could actually see that work. The immortal characters will need much more fleshed out back stories for today’s standards, but damn, I can’t believe I’m actually curious about a highlander reboot.
Edit - ugh. Just realized this was a reboot for the movie. Meh. Not enough time to develop and interesting world with intertwined immortal histories with complex alliances.
I think that’s the real problem, they often shove tragic, supposedly heavy backstories on us with no time devoted to actually developing it and giving them weight- we are TOLD to care, instead of given actual reason to. If the movie can’t invest in their backstory, why should I?
Yeah, over time, I’ve come to care a lot less for movies. For most things, I’d rather have a TV show so that there’s more time to get invested in characters and do world building. Plus more bite sized viewing sessions.
Modern TV has such high production values that movies have lost their biggest competitive edge. Plus showrunners have more options for how to perform the show. No longer do shows need to be bloated with far too many episodes. Public opinion has also changed, so they don’t even try to get away with bullshit like clip episodes anymore (mind you, those were mostly for sitcoms in the first place). Streaming has also made shows more accessible than ever.
I don’t understand why today’s standards require background for everything. We don’t get Ripley’s backstory in Alien and it’s not needed. Even in Aliens, we only get her backstory (her having/outliving a daughter) in service of the plot and themes.
I hate being forced to sympathize with characters because of their tragic backstory. Why not write a compelling character through their actions? Tight plots with no filler are where it’s at for action movies.
movies
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.