"Now that I know that you were only 15 when 'Heat' came out explains many of your movie critiques. Did you get to see 'Silence of the Lambs' when it came out? I liked 'Red Dragon' alot because it gave a similar dark mood that 'Silence of the Lambs' had. Not as dark, but soo much better than 'Hannibal'

It is pretty tough to give quality movie critiques when you admit that your attention span has gotten shorter as you have gotten older. Many of the short modern day movies are mostly action and teenage comedies which don't amount to much. Try and find that desire to watch longer movies like you said you used to because many longer movies are long because there is more substance and plot that require that length to develop everything. (Except for Cosner epics) "

What does age have to do with taste in movies? I never understood this. When I was in high school, there were two main people who introduced me to the majority of movies that I love. One was my 70 year old aunt, and the other was my 25 year old co-worker. It was my aunt who showed me most of my favorite action films from the 80s, and my coworker who showed me most of my favorite noir films from the 40s. Or maybe you were referring to a certain amount immaturity or lack of knowledge on my part? Well, I guess you've got me there.

No, I didn't see THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS when it first came out. I didn't see CITIZEN KANE when it first came out, either, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I saw THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS when I was 16. I loved it, still do. A few years ago, it was playing at a theater here in Chicago and I went to see it then, so I have seen it theatrically. You liked RED DRAGON because it had a similar mood to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS? That's one of the main reasons why I hated it. One of the reasons why all of the Hannibal films worked so well up until this point is because they each had their own distinct feel. MANHUNTER was not particularly dark and moody. It did not have that horror movie vibe going for it. Instead, it worked more as a detective story. THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS undoubtedly works the best for the reasons you stated, and if one of the three styles must be ripped off, I suppose that this is the one to rip off. HANNIBAL was a beautiful movie. It didn't try to scare people by creating a feeling of dark mysterious terror. Instead, it stepped out from the shadows and showed the audience what it was that they were afraid of. The fact that it was portrayed, more than anything else, as a love story (granted, the most sick and twisted love story ever) is brilliant. The emotion created by HANNIBAL is not so much fear as it is disgust. I appreciated that this film did not try to replicate the experience of viewing THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, but instead gave the audience new aspect to the story.

When I said that my attention span has gotten shorter over the years, I was sort of half-joking. What would be more accurate to say, and I'm sure I've said this before, is that I have developed a lower tolerance for crap. I'm more likely to be forgiving of a short movie than a long movie, simply because less of my time has been wasted. Maybe that does mean I have a short attention span. I don't know. But in my defense, let me say that I see somewhere around 90 movies a year theatrically, and I've only walked out of one, WHERE THE HEART IS (which was only 2 hours long). In addition to this, I do not pick movies to watch based on their length. Hell, I just sat through John Frankenheimer's PATH TO WAR again yesterday, and that thing's 2 hours and 45 minutes long. It's also good, by the way, but not as good as Frankenheimers 3 hour plus GEORGE WALLACE picture. I should also note that my favorite movie of the past twenty years or so is 3 hours and 8 minutes long.

You said that "many longer movies are long because there is more substance and plot that require that length to develop everything." I disagree with that statement, and it's why I hate most long movies. Yeah, sometimes that's true. But those films are the exception. In most cases, I think that what the filmmakers have to say could be said in a lot less time. The ultimate example of this, the one that I always give, is THE LIMEY and THE PATRIOT. Aside from their messages, these two things are basically the same damn movie. They are about a father who seeks revenge for the death of a child. The difference is that THE PATRIOT is nearly twice as long as THE LIMEY. Sure, there's some other stuff going on in THE PATRIOT, but not nearly twice as much stuff, and that stuff detracts from the film's main objective. THE LIMEY works because it does not waste any time at all. The PATRIOT, on the other hand, does. Just look at the opening sequences of the two films. It takes THE PATRIOT 2 reels to reach the point which THE LIMEY reached in ten minutes. That's frustrating.

You're right when you say that many short modern day movies suck. But what if those movies were long? They'd suck more. There is no need to make a movie 3 hours in order for it to be good. Take this post for example. It's extremely long, but it doesn't have much more to offer than me simply stating that I prefer shorter movies to longer ones.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

I recon I can get about 155 mins on my 36er. Does that sound about right?