Question:
I went to see Frailty at the weekend, and without giving any of the story away I thought it was pretty good, but that there was a bit too much repetition (of incident & dialogue) in the middle stages, which spoiled it a little.
Pic is only 100 minutes, but I reckon it would've been better at 90m or less.
I think most movies are too long nowadays, and that many would be a lot better for some pruning. A film with a duration of, say, 80m, makes you think "Must be a turkey", but this shouldn't be! It usually is though, as a running time of that nature in a mainstream movie nowadays suggests a poor preview screening followed by a trip back to the editing suite (i.e., The Avengers). But what's so wrong with a deliberately shorter length? -- in the 1930's features were around the 60/70m mark, with many classics among them.
What about more economy of storytelling? Comedies arguably should be shorter than other films, and they usually are, but I think that in many other genres the pics could use more editing -- in a lot of cases, a 'point' has already been made, and then it is dragged out far longer than necessary.
I realise it depends on the movie, and I have no complaints at all with, say, North by Northwest's 136m, or Pulp Fiction's 154m, but few films nowadays are so consistently good as these and yet so many seem to nudge (if not gallop) past the 2-hour mark and what could have been a pretty decent movie ultimately becomes tedious.
I agree :D
Pic is only 100 minutes, but I reckon it would've been better at 90m or less.
I think most movies are too long nowadays, and that many would be a lot better for some pruning. A film with a duration of, say, 80m, makes you think "Must be a turkey", but this shouldn't be! It usually is though, as a running time of that nature in a mainstream movie nowadays suggests a poor preview screening followed by a trip back to the editing suite (i.e., The Avengers). But what's so wrong with a deliberately shorter length? -- in the 1930's features were around the 60/70m mark, with many classics among them.
What about more economy of storytelling? Comedies arguably should be shorter than other films, and they usually are, but I think that in many other genres the pics could use more editing -- in a lot of cases, a 'point' has already been made, and then it is dragged out far longer than necessary.
I realise it depends on the movie, and I have no complaints at all with, say, North by Northwest's 136m, or Pulp Fiction's 154m, but few films nowadays are so consistently good as these and yet so many seem to nudge (if not gallop) past the 2-hour mark and what could have been a pretty decent movie ultimately becomes tedious.
Answers:
I agree :D
1 2