sub3over40 wrote:
No movies are made better by making them longer or adding scenes.
I'm not sure if you are really serious about this. There are numerous instances of terrific movies that, prior to their theatrical release, have been cut down to two hours or less for no better reason than to fit into standard theatre schedules and the expectations of average viewers with average attention spans.
The original theatrical release of "Apocalypse Now" was pretty long, but some competent critics nevertheless thought that it gave short shrift to Kurtz after the long trip down the river. I tend to agree with that view. I also agree that the Redux version needlessly expanded the trip down the river with the French plantation scenes and the odd little scene of the soldier and the playmate.
I don't think there's much justification for some of the absolute statements being made on this thread -- people under thirty are disqualified from serious discussions, people who think that some movie is too long must be incapable of appreciating careful character development, people who dislike some particular film must be imbeciles, and so on. There are films that I love that others routinely dismiss as boring, and there are films that others love that I find virtually unwatchable. I wish that I could enjoy more of these movies, and I tend to think that my inability to enjoy some of them is, more than anything else, a product of my own limitations, and not necessarily a fault within the films.