movies

[JL21]

1. Audiences today don't have the attention span to handle a lot of the long, character and dialogue-driven quientessential movies of the 70s.

That's probably true. I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm a big proponent of films that are clean and neat, free of excess. So, films from guys like Clint Eastwood tend to annoy me a little because you could easily hack off about 20 minutes from all of his movies. I'd rather have 90 minutes with a wallop than 180 minutes of soul-sucking drudgery, bloated with too many pointless scenes.

On the other hand... back in the day, you had 2 1/2 to 3 hour movies that were at least packed with art and were well-made. The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, the Godfathers, etc...

Now? You get the same 2 1/2 to 3 hours dedicated to a movie, but for what? Transformers 2. (not to pick on Michael Bay; it's just the first movie that comes to mind amid a billion examples I could've picked)

/film snob

[TimeForGuinness]

1. Audiences today don't have the attention span to handle a lot of the long, character and dialogue-driven quientessential movies of the 70s.

That's probably true. I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm a big proponent of films that are clean and neat, free of excess. So, films from guys like Clint Eastwood tend to annoy me a little because you could easily hack off about 20 minutes from all of his movies. I'd rather have 90 minutes with a wallop than 180 minutes of soul-sucking drudgery, bloated with too many pointless scenes.

On the other hand... back in the day, you had 2 1/2 to 3 hour movies that were at least packed with art and were well-made. The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, the Godfathers, etc...

Now? You get the same 2 1/2 to 3 hours dedicated to a movie, but for what? Transformers 2. (not to pick on Michael Bay; it's just the first movie that comes to mind amid a billion examples I could've picked)

/film snob

What's bad is when you end up looking at your watch during a 90 minute film.

[Freed Roger]

I fell asleep during parts of the Deer Hunter. Two things I think I think:

1. Audiences today don't have the attention span to handle a lot of the long, character and dialogue-driven quientessential movies of the 70s.
2. Damn, some of those movies really could have used more editing. Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter immediately spring to mind.

also: They're making movies of David Foster Wallace books now? I'll have to check that out. I'll keep waiting for the 12 hour long film version of Infinite Jest, complete with 2 hours of endnotes in the closing credits.

I don't consider myself having a short attention span - often I like movies enough to watch the DVD extras.

But I don't count Deer Hunter in the good long movies category. Why all that character development if the movie's intent was to morph to action thriller, and jump the shark with the Christopher Walken character?. Anyhows I still feel the same as i wrote on Page 2 of this thread.

Watched "The Deer Hunter" for the first time last weekend. the movie is 30 years old now.

great actors - including younger Deniro, Streep. the actor who was "Fredo" from the Godfather played the same great role in this film.

Overall, the movie was a bit of a disappointment. because

it spends a lot of time showing the relationship of these guys and their background in the steel town. but overdoes it IMO -The wedding and reception seemed eternal, after an hour or so of this, I was saying to myself "OK they are steeltown buddies, I get it." then they move onto Vietnam, and the movie morphs into a bit of action/thriller mode, which is ok. The whole deal with Russian Roulette seemed like a reach. Nicky (Christopher Walken) could have been portrayed as messed up and AWOL for other more realistic reasons provided by Vietnam War. Then the last scene- not that great.


Glad I've seen it now though.

[PujolJunkie]

Maybe it's just because I'm a total, huge nerd for the whole series but the Harry Potter movies were 2 1/2 hours and they weren't nearly long enough. Not even close. And the downfall of those movies (when compared to the books) ended up being the complete lack of detail, character development and everything else that takes precious building. I guess it's more of the fact that these movies were made more for younger kids, but man they really screwed the pooch on that entire series.

My attention span is fabulous when it comes to a movie I'm really interested in. I'd rather sit through 3 hours of a film and get what I paid my good money for than sit down for 90 minutes and watch a movie flash by my eyes. However, as JL said, Transformers 2.

I think that's what makes a great movie great. Knowing how much that is integral to the story and knowing how to build the rest of the script around that. The people who did Harry Potter failed miserably. The people who did Lord of the Rings nailed it right on the head. Michael Bay is somewhere on another planet where he never needs to be seen again.

[TimeForGuinness]

I saw Where the Wild Things Are...I enjoyed that movie. Definitely picking it up when it goes on sale.

[JL21]

btw, I'm trying to get more into 70s cinema, because (1) I'm really uneducated in film from before my time, and (2) my childhood buddies and writer/directors of Humboldt County really love this era of cinema.

So, fairly recently I've rented Taxi Driver (wow), Last picture show (superb), the first two Godfathers (I was long overdue, what can I say) and Apocalypse Now (too long in many places). I have Five Easy Pieces in my netflix queue. What else should I see, oh film experts?

Start by director and go crazy.

-Hal Ashby (Being There, Harold and Maude)
-Scorsese: Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Mean Streets
-Robert Altman: M*A*S*H, Three Women, Nashville, McCabe & Mrs. Miller
-Eastwood: High Plains Drifter
-Woody Allen: Love and Death, Interiors, Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex, some other ones that I hate
-John Cassavetes, kind of the Kurt Cobain of directors: A Woman Under the Influence, Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Opening Night
-John Huston: Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, Chinatown, The Man Who Would be King
-George Roy Hill: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting, Slap Shot
-Kubrick: 2001, Clockwork Orange, The Shining
-Milos Forman: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Cool Hand Luke was '67 but it's a must.

Oh, and it must be said... Mel Brooks: Young Frankenstein, Silent Movie, Blazing Saddles, High Anxiety

[JL21]

Maybe it's just because I'm a total, huge nerd for the whole series but the Harry Potter movies were 2 1/2 hours and they weren't nearly long enough. Not even close. And the downfall of those movies (when compared to the books) ended up being the complete lack of detail, character development and everything else that takes precious building. I guess it's more of the fact that these movies were made more for younger kids, but man they really screwed the pooch on that entire series.

My attention span is fabulous when it comes to a movie I'm really interested in. I'd rather sit through 3 hours of a film and get what I paid my good money for than sit down for 90 minutes and watch a movie flash by my eyes. However, as JL said, Transformers 2.

I think that's what makes a great movie great. Knowing how much that is integral to the story and knowing how to build the rest of the script around that. The people who did Harry Potter failed miserably. The people who did Lord of the Rings nailed it right on the head. Michael Bay is somewhere on another planet where he never needs to be seen again.

Tough call. When you're talking about book adaptations (LOTR, Harry Potter), I'm not going to break anyone's chops for racking up 3 hours to adapt those huge books. That makes perfect sense.

But there's another one out there... Wedding Crashers? 40 Year Old Virgin? and it was 2 1/2 hours. That's uncalled for. Knocked Up is 2:15... is that really needed? That's just sloppy editing.

[omaha_red]

btw, I'm trying to get more into 70s cinema, because (1) I'm really uneducated in film from before my time, and (2) my childhood buddies and writer/directors of Humboldt County really love this era of cinema.

So, fairly recently I've rented Taxi Driver (wow), Last picture show (superb), the first two Godfathers (I was long overdue, what can I say) and Apocalypse Now (too long in many places). I have Five Easy Pieces in my netflix queue. What else should I see, oh film experts?

Start by director and go crazy.

-Hal Ashby (Being There, Harold and Maude)
-Scorsese: Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Mean Streets
-Robert Altman: M*A*S*H, Three Women, Nashville, McCabe & Mrs. Miller
-Eastwood: High Plains Drifter
-Woody Allen: Love and Death, Interiors, Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex, some other ones that I hate
-John Cassavetes, kind of the Kurt Cobain of directors: A Woman Under the Influence, Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Opening Night
-John Huston: Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, Chinatown, The Man Who Would be King
-George Roy Hill: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting, Slap Shot
-Kubrick: 2001, Clockwork Orange, The Shining
-Milos Forman: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Cool Hand Luke was '67 but it's a must.

Oh, and it must be said... Mel Brooks: Young Frankenstein, Silent Movie, Blazing Saddles, High Anxiety

the 70's are my least favorite movie decade.. but JL has
nailed it here..

[Michael]

Never heard of John Cassavetes. I gotta check his films out.

[Jocephus]

The 80's, ftw:

how many times has that story been done