SilverWook said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

DominicCobb said:

Little room for a review battle. 17% on Rotten Tomatoes and 32 on Metacritic.

I would consider checking it out if it weren't three hours long. I do enjoy some good robo action and Marky Mark funky bunching. But I take my popcorn in bits. Anything longer than 100 minutes for a movie like this is way too long for me. I can handle stupidity but only for so long.

That is one thing I liked about the last Mummy movie(Which I am going to get around to giving my thoughts on at some point)and Sky Captain,they were both under two hours long. We need more light adventure fair like that. Some times less is more.

If a movie is really really good, you often don't notice the running time. A bad ninety minute flick can seem like years. ;)

Interesting how the tendency of studios putting scissors to a movie to shorten it's running time, so theaters can cram in more showings per day, seems to have reversed in recent years.

It always amazes me that the first three Star Wars films are all around two hours long when it feels like more happens in then then most modern films. The same thing happens with the B5 episode Severed Dreams,for some reason I always remember that episode as a two parter because so must happens in it. It just goes to show you that a good story teller can do a lot in a short amount of time.

I have seen some 90 minute or less movies that feel really long because they are so bad but I do think a lot of today's movies could be shorter and not lose anything. I mean a lot of them have very simple stories and if action scenes were not dragged out longer then they needed to be then the movie could come in at around the 90 minute mark and tell the same story.

I mean WOK managed to tell the same story as ITD in about half the time and do it better and leave it feeling more complete. That is how much film making has changed in the past couple of decades.