Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kai Lord" data-source="post: 1173116" data-attributes="member: 3570">When has a movie ever underperformed because of its length?  Not to pick on you, but this amuses me and I've seen a number of people say this.  Did everyone really crap their pants over one twenty minute fight sequence in an almost two hour long movie?Watch Braveheart.  A lot more fighting, and save for Sophie's arm and the Yakuza dude's head, a lot more gore.  And it was three hours long.Saving Private Ryan ran about two and a half hours and had two twenty plus minute gorefests that were so authentic they triggered traumatic flashbacks for many WWII veterans who saw them.  Did Spielberg cut Private Ryan in two?  Or Schindler's List?If people who actually suffered such horrendous acts can sit through two and half to three hours of shocking re-enactments I think we can handle a three hour movie with a tongue in cheek Uma Thurman swordfight in the middle.Volume I was mostly a snooze fest.Or did the overlong Okinawa sequence have you hyperventilating in your box of popcorn?  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it didn't.  Ditto for the toe wiggling and anime.The film was cut to double the profits.  Plain and simple.</blockquote>