3 ms·
Of course not. That would have been horrible. Lynch's version is great: it has superb sets and production design, actors, music. One thing it lacks is screentim
by Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Of course not. That would have been horrible. Lynch's version is great: it has superb sets and production design, actors, music. One thing it lacks is screentime: first half of the book takes 80% time, while the second half is rushed in the remaining 20%. If we could have 2 (3) part movies in 1980s, it could have been extremely great.
- toast0 6y ago> first half of the book takes 80% time, while the second half is rushed in the remaining 20% Yeah, once you get to the end of the first half, it's like oh crap, we're out of time, montage montage, end battle, fight with Sting, plot plot plot, end credits. The film that's supposed to be released this year is reportedly only the first half of the book; I guess we'll see how that goes.