How can you guys watch to movies with more than 2 hours?
I mean, if the director can't express himself in about 2 hours he should go into series or some normie shit, because he is clearly doing something wrong.
Just look at Bergman's movies they have about 90 minutes and are masterpieces, Chaplin is another example and of course Hitchcock's best movie has 80 minutes.
There is not a excuse to make movies with about 4 hours, it's just like the director doesn't know what he is doing but he keeps throwing shit at you.
>>70187023
>thinking in predesigned definitions
how can you truly enjoy art when you are limited by what you think is the standard?
>Just look at Bergman's movies they have about 90 minutes and are masterpieces
What is Fanny & Alexander?
>>70187232
A miniseries.
>>70187191
Obviously you need to follow some "rules" otherwise it just become a load of trash.
>>70187023
I agree, anything over 2 hours always has this obvious shit that could be cut.
>>70187303
So if you put it all together it's suddenly shit or not enjoyable to watch?
>>70187232
>>70187776
The film is a flick with "only" 3 hours.
The minisseries has four episodes and is kino tier, but each of them is only sligthly longer than one hour.
There are drugs that address that frequent urination, anon.
>>70187023
>>70187023
>Andrei Rublev
>Seven Samurai
>The Human Condition
>Satan's Tango
>Lawrence of Arabia
>Ben-Hur
>Once Upon a Time in America
>Lotr
>Lagann
>Heaven's Gate
All Kino, and longer than 200 minutes.
>>70188013
>Satan's Tango
This is just the biggest waste of time in this planet.
Am I the only one that thinks Apocalypse Now Redux is better than the shorter version?
>>70188235
Yes, you are.
