Why the Fuck is SUPERMAN RETURNS 157 Minutes Long?

by clarencecarter
June 28, 2006 5:49 AM
9 Comments
  • |

clarkkent2.jpg
My future's so bright...

Can someone please explain this length thing to me? Because now that I know, I'll be spending my Fourth of July weekend manning the BBQ, relaxing in the sun, visiting with loved ones, re-reading Gravity's Rainbow or doing a double of Click and Garfield instead.

Further, could someone please explain why Caryn James hasn't done some follow-up work to her uber-brilliant piece on Malick from last Winter where she deduced that all the big serious dramatic pictures of the season were overburdened with idiotic contrivances like plot and characters leaving them all 20 minutes too long? Is someone afraid of missing out on the next big Warner Brothers junket invite?

Thx. Best,

Clarence

P.S. I suppose if Béla Tarr had directed Superman Returns instead of Hackforce One, I'd probably shut up and buy a ticket...

You might also like:

9 Comments

  • Mr. Mojo Rising | July 5, 2006 2:15 AMReply

    I know for a fact that I would prefer to watch profound and intelligent "French garbage" over mindless entertainment any day.

  • B-boy | June 30, 2006 7:53 AMReply

    You'd rather subject yourself to 147 mins of French garbage. I kid, it was pretty damn exciting actually.

  • filmenthusiast2000 | June 29, 2006 8:41 AMReply

    If you are over 16 years old and watch this movie, you are pathetic.

  • clarencecarter | June 29, 2006 5:02 AMReply

    Hey "Unnamed" you wouldn't happen to go by "Bryan Singer" outside of the blogosphere would you?

    Or maybe...Caryn James?

  • StayPuft | June 29, 2006 3:42 AMReply

    AND BY THE FUCKING WAY:

    "It's a fun filled, riveting story that succeeds on every level and offers up something wonderful for everyone.

    Neil Rosen's Big Apple Rating: Four Apples"

  • unnamed annoyed reader | June 29, 2006 3:19 AMReply

    it's more like why was this blog entry so long? besides being utterly stupid, it came off as childish complaints without any backup. when people that claim to like film try to link something like bela tarr to superman, it shows how idiotic they are. this sort of blog entry is exactly why no one pays any attention to reverse shot.

  • clarencecarter | June 29, 2006 1:24 AMReply

    Wow, you totally nailed that. And it sounds great. Bela, I hope you're reading.

  • Aaron Hillis | June 28, 2006 12:04 PMReply

    Couldn't you just imagine Bela Tarr's "Superman Returns?" 18 minutes of just tracking Supes flying around the world, listening to the cacophony of earthly disasters from above the atmosphere... 23 minutes of Lex Luthor overseeing his thugs shaving down a piece of Kryptonite... 11 minutes of Jimmy Olsen getting frustrated with his bowtie, tying and retying and grimacing behind closed doors... throw the whole thing in black-and-white and I'll watch that six-hour epic with a big stupid grin.

  • seanmcavoy | June 28, 2006 4:00 AMReply

    I remember that James article! I even blogged it: http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/006753.html