Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good 

> Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would 
> have been excellent.

  I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
been a regular hollywood blockbuster.

  If you want depth in a movie, you need to spend time with your characters.
You can see lack of depth in most hollywood blockbusters. They are too short,
they don't develop their characters, it's just fast food, not a delicate
cuisine.
  (One relatively recent prime example of this was IMO the first Fantastic4
movie: It was *way* too short, it didn't develop its characters *at all*,
and in the end it felt completely hollow. Like a cheap fast food ration.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message