Who was it on here who thought any movie under two hours was already a point against it?

^ I remember when he was around and was always railing against movies that were under 2hours and not rated ‘R’. The funny thing was that at that time I kind of understood his point. When I was younger I didn’t have a lot of money to spend on movies in the theater and felt that I was “getting more for my money” with a 2+ hour movie. (This was 10 or 15 years ago when it was a trend in Hollywood to have 2 1/2 - 3 hour movies on a regular basis). I would consider not paying for movies at the theater if they were only 90 minutes as I didn’t feel it was “worth” the price of admission. :shrug:

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve started seeing a lot fewer movies in the theater and see the vast majority of new movies at home so I couldn’t care less what the run time is.

As as far as the ‘R’ rating, I guess he liked the idea of “anything can happen” with an ‘R’ rating and a movie is a bit more restricted on what it can show in a lesser rating. I can sort of understand that line of thinking, especially for Horror and Action films (this was also the same time period that Hollywood was releasing a slew of terrible PG-13 horror movies) I’ve always felt that a competent director can make a great movie regardless of rating but if I try hard enough I can understand Chris’ point.

Unfortunately, the dude pounded the “It Has to be over 2 hours and rated ‘R’” narrative so hard that his opinion became a joke and was pretty hard to defend. :lol:

^ :lol:

What were the author’s thoughts on The Last Temptation of Christ?

Nolan’s Batman is a love letter to Neocons. Google it.