Not An Issue
Once again the question about an upcoming movie possibly being "too long" is giving concern to writers with quarter-of-an-inch-deep sensibilities. (Like, for example, the Vulture writer behind this piece.) Unless a movie is absurdly long, all that matters to anyone who knows anything is "how good is it?" Nothing else matters.
I didn't feel that Steven Soderbergh's 4 hour and 20-something minute Che was long in the least when I saw it in Cannes. But I guarantee that House Bunny (Sony, 8.22) is going to feel very draggy for some of us within 15 or 20 minutes. (Unless there's lots of nudity.)
Anne Thompson has reported that "the early word on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is that [director] David Fincher has handed in a movie to Paramount that is quite long." Please! Then she delivers an update that says, according to the studio, that Button ran two hours and 43 minutes as of their last research screening. Fincher is still cutting to find "the length he is happy with," said one spokesman. "The final print is due in October."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 19, 2008 at 11:11 AM
comment #1
D.Z. says ...
I don't really blame Paramount on this one. Lengthy genre films only work for pre-established audiences. [See LOTR, Harry Potter, and TDK.] And let's face it: Any short story expanded to 2 1/2 hours is going to be as awful as Death Proof.
Posted by D.Z. at August 19, 2008 11:58 AM
comment #2
dre says ...
that didn't take long
Posted by dre at August 19, 2008 12:00 PM
comment #3
BurmaShave says ...
I'm just waiting for DZ to bring his insanity to the political posts. "We all know Tarantino is going to fuck up the Obama biopic by casting Fred Williamson"
Posted by BurmaShave at August 19, 2008 12:03 PM
comment #4
Mgmax says ...
"Any short story expanded to 2 1/2 hours is going to be as awful as Death Proof."
That was my first thought when I saw Nikita Mikhalkhov's Dark Eyes-- this is as bad as Death Proof!
That said, um... why do I want to see a movie about a guy aging backwards? There needs to be a lot more to it... than a guy aging backwards.
Posted by Mgmax at August 19, 2008 12:23 PM
comment #5
JHRussell says ...
Some movies ARE too long...movie that felt too long and suffered in quality as a result: TWBB, The Assassination of Jesse James...,, American Gangster, ant The Good Shepherd immediately come to mind...
Posted by JHRussell at August 19, 2008 12:36 PM
comment #6
dre says ...
I guess I like long movies. I liked all three of those a good deal, especially The Good Shepherd
Posted by dre at August 19, 2008 12:44 PM
comment #7
aspiringcrackaddict says ...
The convential wisdom is usually conventionally wrong.
For the life of me, I can't understand film-people who grumble about a movie's length.
Most of the top grossing films of all time are around or above 3 hours.
Titanic 3hrs 10min
Pirates of the caribbean2: 2hrs 31mins
The Dark Knight 2hours 30 mins
LOTR The Return of the King 3hrs 20mins
All time grate movies that ran over 3 hours.
The Godfather 2: 3hrs 20mins
Barry Lyndon 3hrs 4mins
The Deer Hunter 3hrs 3mins
Lawrence Of Arabia: 3hrs 36mins
The list is random but it can go on and on.
Anyone who says that a film has to be at or under 2hrs to be either great and or successful is talking with their mouth filled with half chewed peanut laced shit.
What you're selling stinks and I ain't buying it.
Posted by aspiringcrackaddict at August 19, 2008 12:50 PM
comment #8
Jack South P.I. says ...
As Roger Ebert likes to say: "No good movie is too long. No bad movie is too short."
Posted by Jack South P.I. at August 19, 2008 1:00 PM
comment #9
D.Z. says ...
addict: I don't ever remember Barry Lyndon being a hit. And most of the films you listed had bankable actors and/or digestible themes.
Posted by D.Z. at August 19, 2008 1:15 PM
comment #10
btwnproductions says ...
A long, drawn-out fable gives me pause, too, but based on his past work it's safe to assume that Fincher knows what's he doing. Right?
Posted by btwnproductions at August 19, 2008 1:18 PM
comment #11
alan says ...
Long movies win Best Picture, so it fits.
Posted by alan at August 19, 2008 1:22 PM
comment #12
aspiringcrackaddict says ...
D.Z
Notice that above the 4 movies listed is the heading "all time grate (obviously a typo I did mean great) movies that ran over 3hrs."
The top 4 movies on my list are the mega hits with running times that approach 3 hrs or over.
You really need to
read
digest
then respond to post dude.
BTW are you suggesting the CCOBB doesn't have bankable actors???? I don't understand your response. Am I missing something??
Posted by aspiringcrackaddict at August 19, 2008 1:33 PM
comment #13
Doug says ...
Don't judge "The House Bunny" before you've seen it. Anna Faris is a great comedienne and the script is from the "Legally Blonde" team.
Posted by Doug at August 19, 2008 2:26 PM
comment #14
cm65 says ...
aspiringcrackaddict to D.Z.--
"I don't understand your response. Am I missing something??"
Join the club, dude. Join the club.
Posted by cm65 at August 19, 2008 2:38 PM
comment #15
D.Z. says ...
addict: You have a point, but your argument is still undermined in both cases by Heaven's Gate. As for Benjamin Button, well, Pitt is bankable when he's doing a Troy or Ocean's 11. But any time he gets stuck in "Seven Years in Tibet", "Meet Joe Black", or "Jesse James" territory, he's as much dead weight as the premise.
Posted by D.Z. at August 19, 2008 2:51 PM
comment #16
Mr. Blood Vessel says ...
Doug [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...
Don't judge "The House Bunny" before you've seen it. Anna Faris is a great comedienne and the script is from the "Legally Blonde" team.
not helping.
Posted by Mr. Blood Vessel at August 19, 2008 2:52 PM
comment #17
aspiringcrackaddict says ...
DZ.
I don't have "Heaven's Gate" on my list despite the fact that I do enjoy that film very much.
READ
DIGEST
THEN RESPOND
I fear responding to your the rest of your post as I am certain you will inundate me with silly responses all night.
So I'll leave things were they are.
Posted by aspiringcrackaddict at August 19, 2008 3:02 PM
comment #18
Mark B says ...
I just did some quick math and the average running time of David Fincher's feature-length films is about 2 hrs, 10 minutes. You could argue that's a little higher than some other modern auteurs, but it's still not that high a figure. I'm sure Benjamin Button will be the right length to fit the material.
Posted by Mark B at August 19, 2008 4:01 PM
comment #19
Josh Massey says ...
I wouldn't be interested in Che at 35 minutes, but Fincher could get me into Benjamin Button with a five-hour running time.
Posted by Josh Massey at August 19, 2008 5:13 PM
comment #20
kinks541 says ...
Please, for God's sake, ban D.Z.
Each one of his posts feels like it's 4 hours long.
Posted by kinks541 at August 19, 2008 7:45 PM
comment #21
Kim Voynar says ...
DZ said: addict: You have a point, but your argument is still undermined in both cases by Heaven's Gate. As for Benjamin Button, well, Pitt is bankable when he's doing a Troy or Ocean's 11. But any time he gets stuck in "Seven Years in Tibet", "Meet Joe Black", or "Jesse James" territory, he's as much dead weight as the premise.
Okay, I know I really shouldn't be encouraging DZ here, but ... DZ, WTF does Heaven's Gate have to do with whether or not CCOBB will be a good movie? One bad, overly long movie does not invalidate all other movies longer than two hours.
One of Pitt's best films was A River Runs Through It, which, to my recollection, ran well over two hours and was hardly a mainstream flick. And if you honestly thought Pitt didn't bring anything to Jesse James, you are seriously loading your bong with the wrong shit.
And no, crackaddict, it is not just you. DZ rarely makes any sense at all, and when he does, I suspect it's by accident.
Posted by Kim Voynar at August 19, 2008 10:07 PM
comment #22
Richardson says ...
"And no, crackaddict, it is not just you. DZ rarely makes any sense at all, and when he does, I suspect it's by accident."
If anything DZ ever said made sense to you, you misunderstood it.
Posted by Richardson at August 19, 2008 10:48 PM
comment #23
Richardson says ...
"Any short story expanded to 2 1/2 hours is going to be as awful as Death Proof."
Can anybody name a movie based on a short story which is longer than 2:30? I'm lookng at a list of movies based on short fiction -- '2001' is very long, but not quite 2:30 ... 'Apocalypse Now' is long enough, but that's not quite a short story. 'Shawshank Redemption' is a bit under 2:30 and more of a novella... I really can't think of a single one.
Posted by Richardson at August 19, 2008 10:58 PM
comment #24
BrewsterMcGriff says ...
Jeff a month ago:
"I believe that any movie or novel or essay is always a little better if it's been pruned and tightened to within an inch of its life. "
Jeff today:
"Unless a movie is absurdly long, all that matters to anyone who knows anything is 'how good is it?' Nothing else matters."
Posted by BrewsterMcGriff at August 20, 2008 12:49 AM
comment #25
D.Z. says ...
Kim: "DZ, WTF does Heaven's Gate have to do with whether or not CCOBB will be a good movie? One bad, overly long movie does not invalidate all other movies longer than two hours."
True, but CCOBB is based on a short story, so I'm not sure why there's a need to drag it out over two hours. I hope this doesn't end up being Fincher's Speed Racer.
"One of Pitt's best films was A River Runs Through It, which, to my recollection, ran well over two hours and was hardly a mainstream flick."
It was mainstream for its time; nowadays, though, it'd be sent to the indie ghetto. And all I got out of it at IMDB is 123 minutes, which is hardly "well" over two hours.
"And if you honestly thought Pitt didn't bring anything to Jesse James, you are seriously loading your bong with the wrong shit."
It doesn't matter whether or not he brought anything to JJ; the point I'm making is his pedigree wasn't enough to sell it.
Brewster: I don't think Jeff's contradicting himself. He clearly has a certain tolerance level for movie lengths.
Posted by D.Z. at August 20, 2008 2:55 AM
comment #26
Dave Polands Gut says ...
A DZ post is like watching Che twice.
Posted by Dave Polands Gut at August 20, 2008 7:28 AM
comment #27
Richardson says ...
"I hope this doesn't end up being Fincher's Speed Racer."
DZ tops himself again, ladies and gentlemen. I just thought everybody should stop and savor the stupidity.
...
Ok, carry on.
Posted by Richardson at August 20, 2008 10:34 AM
comment #28
Richardson says ...
Brewster - It's a funny contrast, but they're not quite as contradictory as they might seem. The one statement has to do with filmmakers who are self-indulgent; the other statement has to do with studios demanding more cuts after (theoretically, at least) the film *has* been cut to an inch of its life.
Posted by Richardson at August 20, 2008 10:36 AM