Critical Reviews, Word of Mouth & Internet Shenanigans

The Denzel one?

83 minutes or get outta here

Yes she is.



I like my movies how I like my dicks; in a variety of lengths.

The point being made is that hacks are looking at Seven Samurai and beefing up their movies to insane lengths with the idea of "This movie is 200 minutes long, why can't my movie?" I see nothing wrong with that statement.

The difference is that while Seven Samurai can be much shorter, the film has a pace and it works at its length. Then you get movies lime Justice League which clearly don't work at their runtimes but do so because of self indulgence and ART!!! Which is a movie that can and should be much shorter.

It comes off as a dig at Seven Samurai but I read it more as a dig at other movies that think they're Seven Samurai.

By a half hour.



If talking about Seven Samurai then yes. If talking about Snyder Cut then HAHAHAHAHAH no.





I think you're mostly taking her sarcastic jab at lengthy run times of trash movies with simple stories way too literally. The idea of someone taking a movie that has a simple story and making it much longer than it needs to be needs to be handled with care. Seven Samurai is handled with care. Her point is not every god damn movie needs to be over three hours long, especially when you're just throwing empty scenes into it like Snyder did.

The Snyder Cut is nothing if not an argument for how running time can improve a movie, it was plainly more successful and better-paced than the theatrical cut.

Meh. I'm in the camp of a movie needing to compromise to tell its story, if a movie works at three hours then let it. If a movie can work at 80 minutes, then do it. Seven Samurai works because it has content and it uses its time well. Magnificent Seven works as a tighter version of the same story.

Avengers: Endgame has content, pace, and works at three hours. Justice League is cluttered up trash of easily cut nonsense.

I'm still bitter, if nothing else.

Especially after that Army of the Dead trash.

That I don't disagree. It's a case by case basis.

If she's digging at Samurai's runtime then I disagree with her assessment and find the movie fine as is. But her jab at hacks is spot on.

Ouija Shark is perfect the way it is. With the disappearing character that suddenly reappears and everything.

But everyone has different opinions about which movies do or don't have the "content" and "pacing" so at a certain point you're not really arguing about runtime at all, you're just arguing about whether or not you like a movie in the first place and whether or not it left you wanting more.  The old Ebert adage "no good movie can ever be too long and no bad movie is ever short enough" comes to mind.  I get the impression you wouldn't have particularly liked Justice League if it were 80 minutes, so yeah, an extra two hours probably wasn't going to win you over.

Incorrect. Most of the last hour of Justice League is quite good (bullshit use of the black costume aside). It's the first three hours I have a problem with.

But if we're going to do this, let me take a deep breath and list all the craps that doesn't need to be in this movie off the top of my head:

The scene with Iris West, poorly constructed and an awkward introduction to Barry. Chuck it. The intro at the prison was better, and the scene with Bruce is a better intro to his power set (Brunch line aside).

The scene between Aquaman and Willem Dafoe, dreadfully scripted and adds nothing to the movie except setting up the Aquaman movie. The only reason it's here is because Snyder promised the fans it would be here. Waste of time.

The song for Aquaman. Bullshit. Cut it and set it on fire.

Martian Manhunter being in the movie at all. Henry Lennix is great casting, but he's only in the movie to be here. And his use in the scene between Lois and Martha objectively makes the scene worse. Get rid of him.

Knightmare sequence. Even worse than the BVS one. No thank you.

The shot where Wonder Woman is all "Get dressed" and Cyborg goes "I'm always dressed." What? Why the fuck...? Ugh. Cringier than anything Whedon added to the movie.

This is off the top of my head. I could list more things that need to be excised from the movie, but that would require watching it again and I'm not going to. You can drop the slow motion from the Amazon fight for example and easily make it better.

The problem with Justice League is that there is a movie here, they took two stabs at it and did it dirty in two entirely different directions. What one needs to do is take the Snyder cut and just make it leaner. There is a movie that runs a little less than three hours that is actually quite entertaining. Until that cut happens, I prefer the Whedon cut, because I'd rather wade through Whedon's studio work than Snyder's attempts to make angry social media fans feel good about themselves.

My argument is on the basis that editing can make or break a movie. North By Northwest is my favorite Hitchcock movie. Do I want more of it? It depends on what's added to it. If added footage doesn't ruin the flow of the film or adds something interesting to it, I would enjoy it. But unless you can prove to me such a cut would be worthwhile, I'll prefer it at its lean length. On the other hand, Godzilla vs. Kong was a movie I enjoyed, but I can tell by watching it there is a longer version of it that could possibly breath much easier. The director denies this, but unless I were to see that version I wouldn't be so sure. I guess I'll take it as is, but there is a doubt in the back of my head, even though there is a high probability that everything that was cut out was cut because it didn't work. The Snyder Cut was a lingering doubt in the back of my head too, because I did feel the original version of the movie likely was much better than what was released. I got a Snyder Cut, and I saw stuff that I enjoyed in it. It's just surrounded by junk that doesn't need to be there, bores me to tears, and drives my internal editor up a wall.