4 ms·
> Esp long movies like "Wolf of Wall Street" are not practical to watch in a single sitting. Ha ha, some moviebuffs will skewer you for saying that (about any
by praneshp 8y ago
> Esp long movies like "Wolf of Wall Street" are not practical to watch in a single sitting.
Ha ha, some moviebuffs will skewer you for saying that (about any movie). I feel your pain on the 48h limit though.
- darkpuma 8y agoMeh, Lawrence of Arabia had an intermission and I doubt many film buffs would say that ruined the art of it.
- praneshp 8y agoOh, I took OPs comments to mean several sittings per movie. While Lawrence of Arabia is an outlier imo, most Indian movies have an intermission (and make up the majority of what I watch)
- danbolt 8y agoThat’s really interesting. Is running length generally more common in Indian cinema?
- darkpuma 8y agoYes (and it's probably also good for snack sales.)
- praneshp 8y agoYeah, most movies hit almost 2.5 hours. For me, many movies build up really well to the intermission and then take some time to get back to that intensity and setting up for the climax. Then how well the climax is done determines where it ends up, rating wise. It's also standard to spend money on snacks during the intermission.
- chaosbutters314 8y agoAgreed. I wish more movies were 3-5 hours long with maybe a 10 minute intermission where the director shows something metaphorical. I love deep story telling and will gladly sit through a 3-4 hour movie
- pier25 8y agoAvengers Endgame is over 3 hours long.
- snegu 8y agoI assume he or she has a child. I know for us, with a two year old, it's very rare to have 3 hours of uninterrupted free time. We used to be big movie watchers, but no longer.
- praneshp 8y agoHaha, we are watching a movie with a close friend couple that have a kid. We went from a movie a week to once in 6 months or so
- justboxing 8y ago> I assume he or she has a child LOL. I have cats.