The long haul

Posted by · 4:06 pm · May 10th, 2009

Patrick Goldstein has already covered this matter in some detail, but I must admit the news that Judd Apatow’s “Funny People” is due to clock in at 150 minutes in length gives me some pause.

Editing is a sensitive and flexible art, and one shouldn’t presume to have a better sense than the director of the rhythmic requirements of an unseen film. And as Goldstein points out, if James L. Brooks-style dramedy really is Apatow’s creative touchstone here, a languid running time is par for the course.

But as someone who found both “Knocked Up” and “The 40 Year-Old Virgin” on the over-extended side of things, I’ll just say that the film will have to be very sharp indeed for me to enjoy two-and-a-half hours in the company of Adam Sandler.

→ 11 Comments Tags: , | Filed in: Daily

11 responses so far

  • 1 5-10-2009 at 4:34 pm

    andrew said...

    Yikes 150 minutes? That’s only 8 minutes shorter than There Will Be Blood, and that had a fascinating character with endless technical wonderment. Something tells me Funny People won’t be nearly as rewarding. I could be wrong though! We’ll see.

    On a side note, I immensely enjoyed Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin to a lesser extent, but they are a both a bit 10-15 minutes too long.

  • 2 5-10-2009 at 4:45 pm

    BobMcBob said...

    Judd Apatow is a hack is getting more exposed with each film he makes or has influenced; especially any turd starring Seth Rogen

  • 3 5-10-2009 at 4:51 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    They didn’t seem to have any trouble telling the whole story in three minutes in the trailer so there’s no doubt that 150 minutes contains a lot of fat.

  • 4 5-10-2009 at 5:11 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    Funny thing is, my first thought upon watching the trailer a while back was, “Christ, this feels long.” Little did I know.

  • 5 5-10-2009 at 5:24 pm

    Alex said...

    Apatow’s dramedy starring Adam Sandler will be 10 times better than James L Brook’s comedy starring Adam Sandler.

  • 6 5-10-2009 at 5:58 pm

    Matthew Lingo said...

    I saw this at a test screening, and it honestly uses the 150 minutes beautifully. You have to keep in mind there are two plots here, the story of Sandler dying, and the story of Sandler after he finds out he’s not going to die. It’s a lot of ground to cover. The film never drags and indeed is probably the best Apatow film yet. I’m glad they aren’t cutting it.

  • 7 5-10-2009 at 6:16 pm

    Zac said...

    I’ll just quote Roger Ebert and then duck on out of here:

    No Good movie is ever long enough, no bad movie is ever short enough.

  • 8 5-11-2009 at 2:12 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    It’s a neat enough little phrase, but I’ve always disagreed with Ebert there. There are plenty of good movies that could still use a little judicious pruning.

  • 9 5-11-2009 at 3:50 am

    Glenn said...

    Comedies in general are too long these days. Some deluded idea, perhaps, that people will only bother paying for a movie if they feel they’re getting their money’s worth.

  • 10 5-11-2009 at 6:50 am

    Aleksis said...

    Adam Sandler + Seth Rogen + Jonah Hill + 2.5 hours = no thanks^4.

  • 11 5-11-2009 at 7:38 am

    Alex said...

    Time is relative though….in some movies (sometimes irrespective of their quality), the passage of time is more discernible than in others. Often running time belies how long it ‘feels’.