|re: Dear Evan Hansen at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes|
|Last Edit: AnyaS 01:10 pm EDT 09/10/21|
|Posted by: AnyaS 01:06 pm EDT 09/10/21|
|In reply to: Dear Evan Hansen at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes - dbdbdb 10:20 am EDT 09/10/21|
|One of the many criticisms I keep hearing about this movie is that it's much longer than it needs to be. I'm unsure why so many film directors are unable to keep their movies under two hours. Maybe it's an ego thing. Nearly every movie nowadays is about 20-30 minutes too long and I find myself editing the movie in my head, thinking, "this scene wasn't needed" or "axing this subplot would have lessened the sluggish pacing." Do directors think their film won't be taken seriously if it's under two hours? Lady Bird is the only recent movie I can think of where I didn't find myself looking at my watch during the last 30 minutes. I just looked up its running time and it was only 94 minutes long. That didn't seem to hurt its awards potential though.|
|Previous:||re: 47% now (and based on only 15 reviews, so the data is meaningless) - dbdbdb 02:16 pm EDT 09/10/21|
|Next:||re: Dear Evan Hansen at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes - taplady 03:08 pm EDT 09/10/21|
Time to render: 0.051355 seconds.