'Chuck and Larry" two hours and 20 minutes long?So sometimes I try to figure out when I'll be able to get home after a screening -- you know, like, should I set the TiVo for something I wanna watch, or will I be home in time before it starts? And so I just discovered that my Dreading flick, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, may be two hours and 20 minutes long. True, reports conflict: some sources say the film has a far more reasonable runtime of one hour and 50 minutes. More reasonable, but still: this movie shouldn't be more than 87 minutes. It's a totally standard thing at screenings for critics to ask the publicists running the screening how long the film is, and to hear groans of despair from famous, big-name, way-influential critics when the response is anything more than "87 minutes," which usually makes me groan. I usually figure that a movie should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story that it's telling. Some three-hour films are "shorter" than some 90-minute movies. But two hours and 20 minutes of Adam Sandler and Kevin James in fagface is too much. One hour and 50 minutes is pushing it. Better souse up on alcohol before the screening... (Technorati tags: I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry) support
Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus |
posted:
Mon Jul 16 07, 3:30PM categories: movie buzz permalink 18 pre-Disqus comments Disqus comments tip jarshare
relatedbloggyprevious post: my week at the movies: ‘I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,’ ‘Charlie Bartlett,’ plus the week that was next post: 10 years of Flick Filosopher: worshipping Peter Jackson |
|
|
search
follow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in case of site outages or other emergencies, I'll update my status on Twitter and Facebook)
|
||
follow FlickFilosopher.com no matter where you are online
|
||
share and enjoy
shop to support
support FlickFilosopher.com when you click through here and buy almost anything at:
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
pre-Disqus comments
posted by bats (Mon Jul 16 07, 4:44PM)
Obviously you don't expect the subtle nuances, the tempered acting, and the delicious drollery that one has come to expect from Adam Sandler's work..."Little Nicky" -- Dante's Inferno for the 21st Century.
As for that big guy from the TV show, I got nothing...
posted by MaryAnn (Mon Jul 16 07, 10:08PM)
Turns out the film is more like 1:50 than 2:20. And good thing, too...
posted by Rob Vaux (Tue Jul 17 07, 1:07AM)
To paraphrase Roger Ebert, "No good movie is ever too long, and no bad movie can possibly be short enough."
posted by Josh (Wed Jul 18 07, 4:05PM)
There is often confusion because some theaters will report what the running time is with all of the ads and trailers before the film. Chuck and Larry may be 2 hours and 20 minutes after all of the ads are through and the film actually starts
posted by Mat (Sun Aug 26 07, 11:38PM)
Great movie!!!
posted by MaryAnn (Mon Aug 27 07, 2:00PM)
Well, Mat has made me a believer! Who could fault his logic?
posted by Mat (Mon Aug 27 07, 10:05PM)
Yea, I thought it was really good. Oh I am so glad it didn't go any longer though. Yea. Oh sitting in that chair was killing me!!!!!!!! Oh and I am so important with so many important things to do I just couldn't be bothered any longer!!!! I think those publisists are starting to catch on man. They better recognize!!!!
posted by Tonio Kruger (Tue Aug 28 07, 2:49PM)
Well, I really didn't want to go see "Chuck and Larry" but now that I've read Mat's post, I really really don't want to go see "Chuck and Larry."
posted by Josh (Tue Aug 28 07, 3:14PM)
MaryAnn, why must there be a smartass remark to someone expressing how much they enjoyed the film? Are you that offended when someone likes a film you did not like? I walked out of Chuck and Larry but I have talked to a lot more people that liked it than did not. I don't make remarks, I just carry on
posted by MaryAnn (Tue Aug 28 07, 11:53PM)
Of course I'm not offended when someone likes a film I didn't like! But what the hell is the point of posting "Great movie!" and NOTHING ELSE in a thread like this one? Honestly, what is the purpose? Is that supposed to be an argument to counter what I've written?
I welcome contrary opinions, but they have to be more than "Great movie!" before I'll take them seriously as anything meant to engage me in conversation.
posted by Josh (Wed Aug 29 07, 10:42PM)
Does it has to be taken as an argument? It could just be someone who got back from the movie and decided to express their feelings on it. Not everyone will sit down to write out long passages about why they liked a film.
posted by MBI (Thu Aug 30 07, 12:55AM)
Mat's original comment is worthless, and it deserves to be derided as such.
Furthermore, it doesn't come close to responding to MaryAnn's post, which is what this thread is for.
posted by MaryAnn (Thu Aug 30 07, 3:43PM)
When it's posted here, yes. This isn't a wall for anyone to scrawl their "I was here" graffiti upon -- it's a place to discuss movies, and this thread in particular is a place to discuss one particular movie. Mat offered nothing to the conversation.
I'm paying for the server space and the bandwidth. I think it's perfectly within my rights to see that it gets used for constructive purposes.
posted by Mat (Mon Sep 03 07, 10:30PM)
But how valid are your comments and opinions really Mare? Take this "review" for instance. You talk about how long the movie is and how critics have publisists shaking in their boots, worried about movie length. You say essentially nothing about the content of the movie. Do you think you have enough of a handle on reality to make valid comments? Your review above reaks of New Yuck.
posted by MaryAnn (Tue Sep 04 07, 12:18AM)
This isn't a review, Mat. What on earth makes you think it is? And where do I say or imply anything about publicists shaking in their boots?
Oh, and I would LOVE to hear you explain what "reaks of New Yuck" means. Seriously. Please.
For the linkage impaired, my review of *Chuck and Larry* can be found here. It could also have been easily linked to via either the prominent "2007 films ranked" or "all reviews" links in the nav bar at the top AND bottom of every page.
posted by Mat (Thu Sep 13 07, 11:38PM)
I did notice you chose not give any indication of how valid (or not valid) your comments and opinions are. I didn't say your post was a review. What on earth makes you think that I think it is? Are they not your comments? It really was a great movie. I watched it again over the weekend and once more last night. Maybe you should try it again. I am sure you would agree that everyone deserves a second chance.
posted by MaryAnn (Thu Sep 13 07, 11:57PM)
Yes, you did.
posted by Jurgan (Fri Sep 14 07, 4:46PM)
It's hilarious that someone would deny saying something everyone can read by simply scrolling up. Mat could be the next Bill O'Reilly.