140 Minutes Plus

• email this story
• read comments (74)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Paramount, 5.21) is locked and runs around two hours and twenty-something minutes. Screened for the first time only recently (and apparently due to be shown "internally" once more early next week), the final elements will be sent to the printer next week, in part so the subtitled Cannes version can be prepared in time.

comment #1

JVD says ...

Not exactly a lean run time, considering most of the other ones clocked in at around two hours. This sounds like it's been padded to "Transformers" length.

comment #2

Karsten says ...

140 minutes sounds like a perfect of time to spend through an adventure with Indy!

comment #3

Karsten says ...

(Insert "amount" where it's supposed to be in the sentence above. Sorry.)

comment #4

JVD says ...

Karsten, I agree. But there is something to be said about how summer tentpoles are getting longer and longer. Where did the 90-minute B-movie go? Hell, where did the 120-minute B-movie go? However, as Ebert said, no good movie is long enough and no bad movie is short enough.

comment #5

Mr. Gittes says ...

And word around the Warner lot is that Nolan's Dark Knight is flirting with three hours long.

comment #6

Aris P says ...

3 hour dark night?? HAHA! good grief, talk about overweening and bloated.

comment #7

A.H. says ...

Seems like a few years ago, Spielberg just forgot how to end a movie. He's been dragging them out way past their welcome lately. Hope this one actually makes use of those 140 minutes.

On the other hand, I'd still go see The Dark Knight even if it ran 5 hours.

comment #8

Mr. Gittes says ...

I could sit for 5 hours of The Dark Knight, too. However, I'm betting the final cut will be 2 hours and 45 minutes.

The foreign press is going to burn Indy and piss on its ashes.

comment #9

jesse says ...

I totally agree that a lot of summer tentpoles have become bloated but SWEET JESUS would I be pleased with a near three-hour Dark Knight. I'm assuming it's going to be the most enjoyable x-number of movie-hours of the summer and/or year for me so the longer the better.

comment #10

soap-and-water says ...

HOLY SMOKES... the pent up Indy expectation around here is palpable - a rack of comments in no time flat off the back of an announcement on the two-hour plus running time.

there's so little chance this one won't be great: spielberg's 60 and there's no way he's going to blow 18 months of his life on a project that wasn't planned, scripted and choreographed to perfection long before cameras even roll. particularly one that the vultures would like to see fail on an Episode I scale.

just realsied iron man will open way bigger than expected. think about it: those trailers give the 300 promos a run for their money.

comment #11

mutinyco says ...

At least it's not...88 Minutes...

comment #12

actionman says ...

I'm so excited for Indy. I don't care how long it is; I just want to see it. Now.

comment #13

storymark says ...

140 for Indy and 3 hrs for The Dark Knight? I'm gonna be spending a lot of time with my ass in the seat. But those are the two characters I'm totally willing to surrender that time to.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Aris: As I said in another thread, I knew WB was hiding something when their executives were the only ones who were hyping the film. For example, we should be seeing more merchandise and tie-ins by now, but the studio's going for viral marketing, which makes you think it's lacking wider appeal.

As for Indy, I just hope those extra 40 minutes aren't going to be a pointless tribute to the 50s and that Shia will only get about 5-10 minutes of dialogue, tops.

comment #15

Geoff says ...

Interesting. I agree that THE DARK KNIGHT can be as long as it wants.

But INDY IV....

comment #16

K. Bowen says ...

I'm curious, where does all this enthusiasm come from? The series had one outstanding film and then two very mediocre ones.

comment #17

Rothchild says ...

Temple of Doom is the shit. The last 45 minutes are better than any action/adventure film I can think of.

comment #18

iamjoe says ...

Nolan is giving quality, no doubt about it. I was on set for a few days, and I'll take nothing less than 2:30 runtime. Chris Nolan know how to tell a cinematic story, so even at a longer than norm time, not a frame will be wasted. And the audience will respond favorably to that as well.

comment #19

storymark says ...

DZ - The didn't do marketing tie-ins with Begins, either. And word is Dark Knight is even more adult oriented. So if you were expecting Happy Meals, you were looking down the wrong road to start.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

storymark: Actually, there were tie-ins, just not obvious ones. (For example, the cars.) Plus they did in fact sell toys for Batman Begins. http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&rlz=&q=Batman+Begins+toys&um=1&ie=UTF-8&checkout=1&sa=X&oi=product_result&resnum=1&ct=checkout-restrict

Anyway, I'm ok with adult-oriented material, but a $150-$200 million soft-R style PG-13 film which is associated with a celebrity suicide might backfire-if it hasn't already. You could argue that Tim Burton's film did well, and it was dark, but it still followed the action formula, while this looks like Nolan doing a Se7en-type of movie.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

Sorry, Se7en actually made money. I meant Zodiac.

comment #22

storymark says ...

The toys for The Dark Knight hit shelves May 1st. The (few) tie-ins for Begins hit sooner, because the film was released sooner.

comment #23

storymark says ...

And there is a suble difference (I know, subtlety aint your thing) between an accidental death, and a suicide.

comment #24

Edward says ...

If Dark is half as good, even a quarter as good as Zodiac, I'll be happy. I'm pretty much in agreement with K.Bowen about the Indy films; although I'd call the first very good, 2 fun and three awful. Before you jump down my throat I'd like to postulate something. As good as Raiders is, can it be considered a great film? Does it say anything about the human condition, does it say anything relevant or pertinant about life or humanity? It's fun, rousing fun, at times amazing fun. But is it great? Schindler, Empire and Close Encounters are great films, Jaws comes close to greatness (The sequence with the three men in the boat, showing scars, drinking, waiting is one of films great sequences), but Indy is merely a fucking great popcorn movie; not that that is a bad thing.

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

storymark: He clearly had problems if he would blow his blossoming career like that, so I don't buy it being accidental. That recent cocaine story doesn't help, either.

Anyway, Japanese Indy 4 trailer.
http://www.apple.com/jp/quicktime/trailers/paramount/indianajones/

comment #26

storymark says ...

Never said he didn't have problems. People with problems make msitakes, too. Even moreso. Doesn't mean it was intentional. The cocain story, if true (lawsuit pending) would only reinforce the idea that it was accidental. Now if he was clean, and overdosed, you'd have a point, but that's not the case, so you don't.

Now, I know you have to be contrarian by default, but try to put some thought behind what you say once in a while.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=22&ContentID=68180

comment #28

Cadavra says ...

"Where did the 90-minute B-movie go?"

It's still here. THE LOST SKELETON RETURNS AGAIN, currently in the cutting room, will come in under 90. And you'll wish it were much longer.

comment #29

Zac Bertschy says ...

Who cares? Yeah people are really gonna hate this right out of the gate because it's slightly longer than your average tentpole! Well let's all piss on the shallow grave of this film, it's 10 minutes longer than people obsessed with early summer box office projections and Cannes reactions thought it would be! IT'S SUNK I SAY, THIS IS A WRECK

Seriously get the fuck over yourselves.

comment #30

christian says ...

THE LOST SKELETON RETURNS AGAIN?

Fuck you Dr. Jones!

comment #31

lawnorder says ...

Temple of Doom is the best of the series - and the one that holds up the best for me. Loved it when I first saw it and still do. The other two seem a bit creaky. I know we Temple of Doom lovers are in the minority, but I'll stand my ground against any Raiders fan.

comment #32

Rothchild says ...

Lawnorder:

Fuck yeah, sir.

comment #33

Spacesheik says ...

INDY fans have waited for a decade for this film, its a major event, so I welcome the fact that its 140 minutes plus, the more footafe the merrier as fas as I'm concerned - lets hope its a thrilling, rousing film a la RAIDERS, lots of baddies and occult elements, and less of the campy streak of CRUSADE.

Still no matter which way you cut it, the fact that we have new Indy film is a big cause for celebration.

comment #34

Craptastic says ...

Somebody has to say it....D.Z., shut the hell up.

Cadavra-- please say it is so! I LOVE the first Lost Skeleton movie! I've made a large portion of my friends believers in that film. Is there really another one? Is Fay in it? Will the skeleton have quick random cuts of "I sleep now?" or something better? Will Animala dance for milk or a healthy portion of Atmosphereum???

Honestly, you just made my day if there really is a sequel.

Skeleton aside and back to the subject, Temple of Doom of amazing. That's the one I watch the most out of that series.

comment #35

moorish says ...

I thought the whole point of the Indy films - as stated by Spielberg himself - was that they were quick and lean and kept him from being "self-indulgent"? 140 mins is pushing things a bit. I could live with a 2.5 hr Dark Knight but hope nolan doesn't get carried away. SO MANY movies now let themselves run on 15 or 20 minutes longer than the story actually needs.

comment #36

Drew says ...

"there's so little chance this one won't be great: spielberg's 60 and there's no way he's going to blow 18 months of his life on a project that wasn't planned, scripted and choreographed to perfection long before cameras even roll."

So says soap-and-water, who is wrong, wrong, wrong.

No matter how the final film turns out, that's EXACTLY what happened. There was no final draft of this script, as it was constantly being rewritten by Koepp during production. It's a hodge-podge of previous drafts and characters that were grafted on at the last minute.

I hope the film works. I reeeeeeeeeeeeally do. But the production itself was tense and difficult, and probably one of the harder shoots in Spielberg's recent career precisely because of the lack of a finished screenplay.

comment #37

Craptastic says ...

Drew, if that's true...about the finished screenplay that is... then we may be in for a treat.

Spielberg did the same thing on Doom and without his lead actor for a chunk of the film. He's better at improv than we (or he) give him credit for. He has his faults but the man knows the art of filmmaking inside and out... Color me excited as fuck.

comment #38

Spacesheik says ...

Drew, didnt Spielberg, Lucas and Ford spend over a decade unable to agree on a shooting script (including the recent fracas concerning the rejected Darabont script)?

Are you saying that the three principals signed on the dotted line and agreed to make INDY III without a full script? Or was the script meddled with during production? Did this affect any action set pieces?

It looks like this film opens in the Nevada desert and features a warehouse setpiece - a bit too Bondish for my taste as I was expecting an exotic temple or occultish ruin - seems like an inverted RAIDERS - with the warehouse at the beginning and the temple at the end --

comment #39

Mgmax says ...

Considering the running times, superhero movies really have become the Biblical epics of our time.

Which makes a three-hour Batman movie the Greatest Story Ever Told.

comment #40

Rich S. says ...

Sorry, guys. I'm looking forward to Indy and Dark Knight, but I wish that the "epic bloat" would stop. For those who don't spend their entire lives ensconced in a movie theater or in front of the DVD player, a movie that's 2 1/2 hours+ kills an entire afternoon or evening.

Films of this type should rarely exceed 2 hours. Star Wars was 121 minutes. Raiders was 115 minutes. The Adventures of Robin Hood, to me the gold standard of this type of movie, ran 102 minutes.

The best example of this is King Kong. Jackson's version did not say anything in 187 minutes that Cooper's version said in 104. Even Guillermin's bloated remake only ran 134.

Yes, Nolan is an impressive filmmaker, and I greatly enjoyed Batman Begins. But BB got the origin story out of the way, so there's really no excuse for DK to go three hours. I'm sure it will explore the motivations of the characters and the psychology, and blah blah. But it's still Batman and the Joker and it's still a freakin' comic book movie. It's not Lawrence of Arabia.

comment #41

calraigh says ...

I'm sorry but there's old and then there's irrelevant.Indy worked because he was virile and enthusiastic etc.I just can't get on board with an over 60's archaeologist that's still trying to hold onto his youth.

But then I'm salivating over the X-Files movie so what do I know...

comment #42

Mgmax says ...

Or to put it another way, all four Indiana Jones movies, including a bloated last one, are still only about a half hour longer than three Pirates of the Caribbean movies.

All comedies should be 92 minutes and all dramas should be 102 minutes.

comment #43

bents75 says ...

"I'm sure it will explore the motivations of the characters and the psychology, and blah blah. But it's still Batman and the Joker and it's still a freakin' comic book movie. It's not Lawrence of Arabia. "

Come on Rich S., there's no more "blah blah" to that description than there is Lawrence of Arabia. You're jinxing the whole thing here. You remove those elements from the film and you get something directed by Joel Schumacher. Beware what you wish for. You shouldn't marginalize the material simply because its deemed too "popular".

And as sacreligious as it might sound, the character of Batman is a lot more prolific and influential on a worldwide scale than Lawrence of Arabia ever was, or ever will be. People haven't been telling his stories for nearly 70 years for the hell of it. You ask someone who is five or sixty-five if they've ever heard of Batman and they will have. Lawrence of Arabia...ehh, not so much.

comment #44

Aladdin Sane says ...

I doubt TDK is gonna be 3 hours when all is said and done. First cuts are usually too long. If it's 2.5 I wouldn't be surprised, given the amount of stuff that is rumored to be in there - Joker, Dent and most importantly, Batman all need their stories told right. It should be a gooder.

A 140 min Indy better be freaking fantastic...and I gotta admit, as much as I love Raiders and Crusade, I think Doom is the easiest to rewatch. That doesn't mean it's my favourite, but it gets unduly dumped upon too much.

comment #45

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

Tickets are now $10 or over.

I want my money's worth. 140 sounds perfect for Indy, 160 sounds glorious for Dark Knight.

Spacesheik - "Sorry, guys. I'm looking forward to Indy and Dark Knight, but I wish that the "epic bloat" would stop. For those who don't spend their entire lives ensconced in a movie theater or in front of the DVD player, a movie that's 2 1/2 hours+ kills an entire afternoon or evening."

An extra half hour or so kills your afternoon or evening? That's so sad.

comment #46

Mgmax says ...

"And as sacreligious as it might sound, the character of Batman is a lot more prolific and influential on a worldwide scale than Lawrence of Arabia ever was, or ever will be."

When we go to war in a country whose borders were set as a consequence of Batman's actions in the middle-east in the 1910s, you'll have a point.

comment #47

Mgmax says ...

If you really want your money's worth and think longer is getting it, why don't they just show the unedited dailies?

comment #48

Howlingman says ...

I'm of the "less is more" approach to action films and Raiders' 115 minutes is a lesson in story economy I wish more of them followed. Given that Spielberg hasn't been able to properly end a movie since, well, Raiders, and likewise hasn't been able to tighten a film below two hours since (correct me if I'm wrong), Temple of Doom ... this news doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

A question has to be asked though -- where this 140 minutes figure comes from. If we're talking 7 reels with credits, the figure's probably 2 h 15m.

comment #49

Rich S. says ...

Okay, two points. First, I am a big comic book movie fan. I was a collector up until my teens and I'm glad the technology is finally there to tell these stories. I'll take as many of these things as they can pump out. I even enjoyed the Fantastic Four and X-Men 3.

That said, it's kind of tough to "marginalize" Batman. By their very nature, comic books are marginal to literature. They are necessarily melodrama, by virtue of the fact that they are serialized. As Mgmax points out, Batman may be very popular, but it ain't exactly "art." You can tell his story economically and entertainingly without in any way compromising it. I consider Spider-Man 2 to be the best comic book movie ever made. It made no compromises to the story or character and clocked in at a whopping 127 minutes.

Second, yes, an extra half hour can kill an entire afternoon or evening. The closest decent theater to my house is about 15 minutes away. But it is part of a complex with a huge parking garage where it literally takes about 10-15 minutes to get from your car to the theater. Now, factor in lines and the fact that you probably have to get to the theater at least 30 minutes early for new films to sit anywhere by the front row.

2 1/2 hours + 30 minute round car trip + 30 minute preshow + 10 minutes in line + 20 minutes to and from car=4 hours. That's a whole afternoon or evening. And since I work 10-12 hour days, my time is precious. What's sad is that someone's time is not so precious that they can afford to blow an extra half hour to hour on these kinds of flicks.

comment #50

bents75 says ...

"When we go to war in a country whose borders were set as a consequence of Batman's actions in the middle-east in the 1910s, you'll have a point."

Well to borrow your regularly used, condescending comment, Mgmax. You're 'still' missing the point.

I'm not not talking about historical-political relevence. I'm talking about the cultural impact of a story and its characters. We're talking about movies here, aren't we?

You really think modern generations in any country in the middle east are more familiar with a 40+ year old movie about what happened nearly 100 years ago than they are Batman?

Bullshit.

Plus, I said 'worldwide'. Someone living in Argentina or Greenland doesn't give a shit about Lawrence of Arabia.

comment #51

actionman says ...

I could care less how long any of these movies are.

What I care about is how good they are and will they deliver what they promise.

I loved all three Indy films and have been a Batman fan all my life. I'll take 3 hours with each, 2 hours with each, or 1 hour with each. Don't matter. Just as long as they deliver the goods.

comment #52

Edward says ...

Mgmax, "All comedies should be 92 minutes and all dramas should be 102 minutes." Where's this rule from, I don't remember it being in "The Poetics?" A film, play, novel should be as long as it needs to be. Many times less is more, but more can be more too.

comment #53

redmond says ...

3 hour Dark Knight? Oh hell yes. If you're a comic fan, no doubt you've spent hours pouring over the graphic novels at a time. Sadly, it'll suck to sit in a theater for that long, I had butt cramps during LOTR. But when Dark Knight hits DVD with amazing extras like the first one (And I hate DVD extras) this will equal big bucks for Warner on top of B.O. Now 2:20 Indy? I dunno... but nostalgia will get suckers in the seat. Including me.

comment #54

Mgmax says ...

"Mgmax, "All comedies should be 92 minutes and all dramas should be 102 minutes." Where's this rule from, I don't remember it being in "The Poetics?" A film, play, novel should be as long as it needs to be. Many times less is more, but more can be more too"

Oh, don't be so literal. Certainly I exaggerate by saying "every." Nevertheless, 97% of the time aiming for those two marks produces a better work than allowing the same story to extend to a flabby 130 or 140. Look at the movies of John Grisham's books, pulp fictions treated like they're masterpiece theater. Every one of them would have been better if they'd had a less pretentious running time like the B movies they should have been.

comment #55

Bocephus says ...

A sequel to the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra? I'm so there.

comment #56

Mgmax says ...

You said "influential on a worldwide scale." Not "popular." On a worldwide scale, hardly anyone may know who Gertrude Bell was but we're all living with the consequences of her influence to this day.

Popularity is fleeting-- they made tons of movies from 19th century stage hits like East Lynne and If I Were King, until they stopped making them. That's the level Batman is on-- hit today, gone tomorrow.

comment #57

MAGGA says ...

Since everyone else is reporting 121 minutes except those using Jeffrey Wells as a source, it seems fair to ask where the notion of that running time comes from...

comment #58

Edward says ...

Mgmax, you do raise a good point, but your use of "every" got me fired up. Art shouldn't have any rules, but filmmakers could use some common sense when something needs to be cut or not cut.

comment #59

breadlymoore says ...

There are few horrors in the world worse than a promise of a LOST SKELETON sequel.

Dear sweet jesus, haven't we suffered enough?

Camp is a lost artform, and the last person in the world who should be trying to recapture it is Larry Blamire.

Maybe MEET THE SPARTANS won't be the worst film of 2008 after all.

comment #60

hatchetface says ...

A small tangential gripe: in regards to statements that comics are "not exactly 'art'", and the term "comic book movie" being thrown around all over the place - some people need to figure out that comics are not all about superheroes anymore, so the terms are not interchangeable. As if GHOSTWORLD, BLACK HOLE and THROUGH THE HABITRAILS are the same thing as Fantastic Four and Batman and the Hulk, and all the rest of the superhero stuff - it's willfully ignorant of everything happening in the comics medium right now. To say that you 'used to' be into comic books, as if it gives you some street cred as you try to piss on whatever superhero adaptation is coming out this month - it's willfully ignorant. That is all.

comment #61

Rich S. says ...

Okay hatchetface, you were obviously sharp enough to discern the difference between serialized super-hero stuff and self-contained graphic novels or whatever they're calling them these days. I was not being willfully ignorant of the medium; I was discussing a particular genre within that medium.

Obviously, a Batman or Iron Man movie is not the same as Ghost World, Road to Perdition or A History of Violence. Regardless, my comments above still stand. You don't need 3 hours to tell an effective Batman story. And pretending that it's "art" don't make it so.

By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, copping to being a comic book fan at any age is about the last thing you would do to establish "street cred." Quite the opposite, in fact.

comment #62

pm123 says ...

Four hours of "Batman" is fine, but these same people can't sit through a Tarkovsky film if their lives depended on it? Oy. How much more cash can Hollywood wring from one 9th-grade story!? "No - you don't get it! He's a TORTURED, RELUCTANT superhero." Oy. I got it. Back in 9th grade, when I read "Catcher in the Rye." Please kill every damn of these comic-book characters, so I don't have to endure any more Iron-Mans or Steel-Mans or Rubber-Mans or Teflon-Mans or Wolf-Mans or whatever-mans and their shallow psychology and cheap moralizing...

comment #63

christian says ...

TEMPLE OF DOOM OWNS YOUR BURNING HEART!!!

DR. JONES will STUFF YOUR ASS IN A MUSEUM!!

Sorry. Just wanted to see what's it's like to be LexG. It hurts.

But TOD is my personal favorite Indy. ROTA is certainly the better written and directed film, but TOD for me perfectly captures the GUNGA DIN Saturday afternoon matinee feeling better. The action set pieces are dazzling and it's one of William's great scores. And I like Short Round, doll!

comment #64

CinemaPhreek says ...

Man that's a terrible still shot (sorry to bring this back to topic at hand), with terrible lighting. Did Spielberg, Lucas or Ford get one of their kids a job as the unit still photographer, because there have been several of these shots released

I don't hold out much hope that it will be a great or even very good film - Spielberg lost his magical entertainment "touch" years ago chasing "serious" gold. This project has the feeling of "one last hurrah" as all three have not exactly been in top form for some time. Ford's reign ended 11 years ago with AIR FORCE ONE and Lucas is once again retreating into his Star Wars franchise instead of pursuing new ventures or more experimental work (which he has been claiming to desire for 30 years now).

comment #65

bents75 says ...

"Popularity is fleeting-- they made tons of movies from 19th century stage hits like East Lynne and If I Were King, until they stopped making them. That's the level Batman is on-- hit today, gone tomorrow."

Fair enough MgMax. But I still think in this day of mass media, communication and distribution, that popularity doesn't necessarily translate to 'temporary' as it would have 2 centuries ago. Nor do i think popularity is incapable of causing influence. The rules always have and always will change.

You might simply call Batman popular culture, but the same could have been said at the time for Frankenstein, The Beatles or The Simpsons. Neither one is going away any time soon in its respective format, or influence.

And this is a character that has crossed over mediums from comic books to novels, radio, television, film, video games, and probably whatever comes next. The stories have been distributed internationally for 3/4 of a century already, and personally I dont see any reason why it won't continue for another 75 years or more.

comment #66

Cadavra says ...

Craptastic,et al: It is indeed so.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1199494/

comment #67

Richardson says ...

"2 1/2 hours + 30 minute round car trip + 30 minute preshow + 10 minutes in line + 20 minutes to and from car=4 hours. That's a whole afternoon or evening."

I still don't see how it's different than three hours and forty minutes.

"What's sad is that someone's time is not so precious that they can afford to blow an extra half hour to hour on these kinds of flicks."

Says the person who is deliberately going to a theatre where they will spend at least 20 minutes walking to their car and a half hour waiting for the show to start.

comment #68

Richardson says ...

"Given that Spielberg hasn't been able to properly end a movie since, well, Raiders,"

I gotta disagree with this. I know people are now too cool to like E.T., but I can't accept anybody suggesting that it's possible that the movie could end more properly than it does.

"and likewise hasn't been able to tighten a film below two hours since (correct me if I'm wrong), Temple of Doom ... this news doesn't exactly fill me with confidence."

I had thought that 'Always' was under two hours, but it's just over. Amazingly, though, 'War of the Worlds' is under two hours. Yet that certainly feels longer than 'Jurassic Park' (2:10 or so) or 'Last Crusade' (about the same). Post-'Doom', the shorter his movies are, the worse they tend to be (excepting 'Jurassic Park').

Just food for thought. I'm hoping it's good.

comment #69

Rich S. says ...

Actually, Richardson, the point of my rant was that it's not different and I ordinarily won't go to those lengths. Which is why I venture out to see only about 10 films a year, which is down from about the 50-60 I used to attend.

comment #70

Richardson says ...

But you're complaining about the extra twenty minutes as if it makes the difference between a fun movie (127, SM2) and taking up all of your free time for the day (under 140, IJ4).

I go to less movies now than I did too, but that's mostly because of the prices. There's very little that's worth $12 and rising to me to see on a bigscreen. Of course, I also won $100 in Fandango money in an Oscar pool, and have desperately wanted to spend it, but can't find *anything* playing worth seeing (admittedly, this is partially because Fandango has so few theaters).

'Indy', though, I'll be there for a midnight show if they're selling tickets for it.

comment #71

Rich S. says ...

Sorry, Richardson, I probably wasn't being clear. My point is that for me to go to a decent theater to see a movie is a hassle. I'm much more likely to want to see a movie clocking in at 120 minutes or less as a result. I don't mind spending the extra time on something like There Will Be Blood. But fun genre pics used to know their limitations and get you in and out quickly.

Recently, that trend has disappeared. The three Pirates movies, Spider-Man 3, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, King Kong, the LOTR films, etc. have all clocked in at well over 2 hours and 15 minutes. And not one of them wouldn't have benefited from trimming some of the fat. I mean, seriously. Just because a movie is long doesn't mean that it's epic.

I will see both Dark Knight and Indy, probably opening weekend. But I'll do it at a morning show where I'll at least have some of my day left afterwards.

comment #72

Aladdin Sane says ...

Spielberg's endings are hit and miss, but I'll be damned if the ending to Empire of the Sun isn't perfect. Still is my fave Spielberg film.
I'll also say that Jurassic Park, A.I. and Munich all had good endings...and can one really argue that Schindler's should have ended five minutes sooner?
While I think Spielberg could shave five-ten minutes off a lot of his films, it's not necessarily in the ending where the time could be saved.

As for the movie at hand, any idea if there's a second trailer coming out? I still know a ton of people who have no idea this movie is out in about a month. Yes the name may sell itself, but people actually need to see a trailer on whatever they're watching...and this screams to me to be the type of movie families will go see - good old fashioned PG-13 fun.

comment #73

bill says ...

welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!

comment #74

Rich S. says ...

Or, maybe the optimum length for a comic-book tentpole is actually 90 seconds:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_popculture_blog/2008/04/will-the-iron-m.html

Post a Comment