‘Ideal’ movie running time is 92 minutes, poll claims

I think that movie is the perfect length

Going along with Crumbs gripe with the term, yes, it has been used as a perjorative in film criticism. I don’t think the term is verboten, myself, as, if the film is self indulgent to the point it detracts from the viewer enjoying the film, it’s fair game to use.
However, it can also be used glibly, as I’ve heard the term used against directors such as Welles, Fellini, Malick, and Tarantino himself.
So use at your own discretion.

Good points. I prefer closer to 2 hours, providing the picture has enough material to fill that time span interestingly. That way I feel I've gotten my money's worth...

I'm not saying it's verboten. Only that it has a antagonism in it that is not so much about making serious criticisms against the supposed indulgences, but that it is used as a one size fits all criticism that films shouldn't be doing certain kinds of things or breaking supposed rules.


And now I'll wait for FilmBuff to say he's never once heard anyone say anything about shoes and their sizes or who they fit in any film criticism on this board.

So your assumption is all movies are stories and when a filmmaker does something that doesn't satisfy the story it's a self indulgence?


Hmmm, to me it sounds like you are using this term to say what a movie is supposed to be. And if it doesn't do that thing properly, and includes scenes that detract from that one thing, you will whip out the old self indulgence claim.


Good to know I was correct about how people use that term

Right, but I kind of covered that in the succeeding paragraph.

Also, I think some people are confusing over produced with self indulgence here, which are two different things

Can you give one concrete example of it being used as a "one size fits all" criticism?

No.

If that's what it sounds like to you, you are 100% wrong.

There are movies that are over produced, overlong and over everything. But I don't think that's the same thing as a movie being self-indulgent. There may be some small amount of overlap, though, especially if the same person is acting as producer and director.

Then why are you suggesting a film can be grandiose but only when a story needs it?

No. I'm going to keep this on one annoying tangent at a time

Why do you want a movie to be grandiose when it doesn't need it?

I see, there is no concrete example of such a thing ever having been done. Got it.

What do you mean about not needing it? What does that even mean? What is grandiose? What is something that isn't needed? How do you determine this?


Let's start with that wildly indulgent movie Killers of the Flower Moon. If that qualifies for whatever youre talking about, how was that grandiose without needing it? What is grandiose? And why wasn't it needed?


Also, if that is your example of 'wildly indulgent', it might be possible you've never seen an indulgent movie.

Think whatever you want. I'm just not going to double and triple explain multiple posts to you at the same time. I'm a masochist but not that much of one.

Oh ****, I'm going to get a dictionary definition of 'grandiose' and 'need' now aren't I?

I retract the question. I don't care

Right, I know they’re different and suggested as much in my post. I just think some people are conflating the two

I don't think Scorsese was trying to be grandiose with that movie.

This is a doom brought about by our own hands