Nancy's Nonsense

Friday, January 06, 2006

What happened to the 90 minute movie?

After nearly walking out of "MUNICH," not because it's a bad movie, but because it was and seemed and is sooo long that I got antsy. I wondered what makes filmmakers think they can go on and on to tell their story? Even the great Steven Speiberg should have whittled the two and a half hours of "MUNICH" down to a much more watchable two hours. He'd have a better movie, for sure. I remember when I was a picture editor for Roger Corman. His edict; no movie will ever be more than 90 minutes. My edict; if you can't tell a story in an hour and a half, maybe you need to rethink your story. I mean, why does a feature like "KING KONG" need to be three hours? What justifies that? How can director Peter Jackson actually think the audience will be spellbound watching gorilla on girl love for three hours?

Now back in the day, when the Chinese Theater was only one screen, and The Sound Of Music was considered a blockbuster, there were intermissions in really long movies. And I looked forward to them . Intermissions gave me time to visit the little girls room, and refuel on some bon-bons before Maria von Trapp climbed every mountain. Intermissions were exciting, the vibe of the moive radiated from the crowd and we all looked forward to going back in and watching the second half.

Maybe if film directors insist on making their movies inappropriately long, an intermission would be the perfect half-time stretch. Good for the moviegoers as well as the exhibitors who would make money on those intermission treats.

Though it would'nt solve the problem of concise, 90 minute storytelling it would liven up a dull situation.

What do you think??