It could have been a great movie...

Rating: 6/10 (4 March 2020)

After so many years watching movies I have come to an only and simple rule: not watching movies that lasts over 100 minutes... Of course there are exceptions, and if someone wants to turn a very long book into a movie I can give it a try, but someone filming and original script and a making a 147 minutes long movie... that's simply telling me about a director's huge ego, and that's no good. And i think this movie is the perfect example to confirm my theory... the plot is great, the acting is fantastic (Toni Collette creates a wonderful character), but it is soooooooo slow. I swear I tried, but I was feeling so bored watching it... and then, suddenly, after 90 minutes of slow movie, the plot takes a twist... and there's still one more hour to get to the end. Such a fantastic story could have been told in 90 or 100 minutes. The long, silent scenes, make no impact as drama, they just happen to be boring.
The history of cinema teaches us that limitations are good. No good, wonderful!. Time limitations made wonders to create an effective cinematographic language; budget limitations did the same to create wonderful ways to tell something without actually showing it, even censorship was great to force screenwriters to tell what they wanted to in a clver way... but a writer and director's ego of today doesn't understand that. It's HIS work and he feels it has to be perfect like that...
So sad, because it could have been an excellent movie.

I have also seen Midsommar, by the same director... and the same can be said about it. It really freak me out that the director's cut lasts almost 3 hours. It's a beautifully filmed movie, but three hours for such a movie is way too much!