Who has that much time to watch a movie?

I’m interested in seeing Steven Spielberg’s “Munich” movie, and would like to see the special effects of “King Kong” on the big screen. But why do these and other movies have to be so dang long? (“Munich” is two hours and 44 minutes, and “Kong” is three hours and seven minutes.) Haven’t filmmakers heard the adage “less is more”? Caryn James complained in a New York Times article that one way directors waste too much time is setting up the story. “If the audience knows that the English settlers will land (’New World’) and the cowboys will turn out to be gay (’Brokeback Mountain’), the movies shouldn’t waste 15 minutes getting there.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

4 Comments

  1. Jed
    Posted January 16, 2006 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Phillip,Gee, I’m glad you don’t read books- they can take a lot longer!

  2. kansassam
    Posted January 16, 2006 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Yet there are those that will camp out for several days to buy an X-Box 360!

  3. pancho villa
    Posted January 16, 2006 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Ben-Hur, Gone with the Wind, long movies have been around 60-70 years now. If people dont have a few hours to enjoy a movie they probably wound up way to tight.

  4. Ian Santiago
    Posted January 16, 2006 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Sitting for three hours to be entertained is one thing but sitting through three hours of tedious zionst proganda and fiction is another matter entirely!

    V.L.R.B!!