54 replies to this topic

[MarcAngeDraco]

2:20! Great news!!

[Qwerty]

Outstanding news!

[Stax]

As long as its 2:20 and it doesn't drag ...

Longer running time=less showings per day=less potential revenue. Sony could make up for it by adding it to more screens but it's still a gutsy gamble.

[Tiin007]

Sweet news!!

[Harmsway]

2:20 seems like the right running time for CASINO ROYALE, all things considered. There's a solid amount of material in there.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Can we make it 2:17 and dump that crappy song? How about an instrumental by Arnold instead, ah la OHMSS?

[Publius]

This could work, and I hope that it does. The amount of both action and plot being promised almost necessitates this, it seems.

And the average run time for recent Bond movies is only ten minutes or so shorter than 2:20, so I doubt people will have a problem so long as the quality's good. And even if it isn't, they ate up DAD, didn't they.

[killkenny kid]

YES YES YES!

Ahem...I know it's not a very intelligent reply, but YES YES YES!

indeed, jimmy you took the words right out of my mouth.

[DLibrasnow]

The real question is will it be 2 hours and 20 minutes that drag on, or fly by?!

[JimmyBond]

The producers must have great confidence in Craig, and how the film plays, to insist it remain this long (if that's what they are doing, so it seems).

[Qwerty]

The real question is will it be 2 hours and 20 minutes that drag on, or fly by?!

What do you think, DLibra?

[Blofeld's Cat]

The real question is will it be 2 hours and 20 minutes that drag on, or fly by?!

What do you think, DLibra?

Proof will be in the pudding.

I saw Cameron's Titanic and it felt like only two hours, but I saw Beatty's Reds and it felt like it was twenty-two.

[SecretAgentFan]

Somehow, I can

[Double-Oh Agent]

I love this news. I like my Bond films 2+ hours long and the more the better (figuratively speaking of course). This film has so much in it with Bond's relationship with Vesper and the poker and torture scenes that they all need to be included in their entirety. This news is a good indication of the producers really believing in Daniel Craig and the film--and I can't wait to see it.

[Satorious]

They could get the runtime down a bit more in my view by:

Spoiler

dropping that Aston Martin medi-pack scene we've been hearing about, sounds more like an overblown ER episode than Bond. There has already been a more exciting "stairwell" incident, so this other scene is not really required. I do like the idea he's been poisioned, but that scene sounds melodramatic. Keep the film clipping along!

This said, 140mins is fine with me.

[Bon-san]

Before anyone harps anymore, the fact I mentioned that (For me anyway) "Godfather" sailed along was because I found it very compelling.

IMO.

It was just as an expample to say that a 2+ hour film - or any lengthy film - if it's appealing and entertaining, you don't think about running time and it never stops you from viewing it again.

Maybe I'm finally showing my age.

Hey, the Director's cut of JFK is almost 3 and a half hours. I'll watch it at the drop of a hat. Just me, but running time, IF THE FILM/STORY IS WELL DONE by YOUR OWN standards, then it doesn't really matter.

You enjoy it for your own reasons.

Eh....

I'm rambling.

I hope that expressed my point.

Everything you say is correct - but the movie JFK is a joke and one of the most ignorant films ever made.

I disagree entirely. I concur with the points made in the two reviews of the film (links below) by Roger Ebert. The first was written at the time of the film's initial release. The second is part of his Great Movies collection of reviews from a decade later.

1991 Ebert review

2002 Ebert 'Great Movies' review

[Bucky]

sounds good to me. as long as its good and so far it looks like it will be.

[DLibrasnow]

The real question is will it be 2 hours and 20 minutes that drag on, or fly by?!

What do you think, DLibra?

I really don't know....it's too early to say right now.

Trailers are not a good indication of how good a movie is. I was reminded of that last night when I rewatched the 1998 version of THE AVENGERS. I remember in '98 being really excited by the trailer and looking forward to the movie and then feeling really let down when I saw the movie on opening night.

But then, since I haven't liked the Casino Royale trailers - perhaps that is a good sign.

[Qwerty]

Trailers are not a good indication of how good a movie is. I was reminded of that last night when I rewatched the 1998 version of THE AVENGERS. I remember in '98 being really excited by the trailer and looking forward to the movie and then feeling really let down when I saw the movie on opening night.

Fair point. Thank God though that we've seen nothing (in my opinion anyway) that would put this anywhere near the level The Avengers sits on.

[Scottlee]

Before anyone harps anymore, the fact I mentioned that (For me anyway) "Godfather" sailed along was because I found it very compelling.

IMO.

It was just as an expample to say that a 2+ hour film - or any lengthy film - if it's appealing and entertaining, you don't think about running time and it never stops you from viewing it again.

Maybe I'm finally showing my age.

Hey, the Director's cut of JFK is almost 3 and a half hours. I'll watch it at the drop of a hat. Just me, but running time, IF THE FILM/STORY IS WELL DONE by YOUR OWN standards, then it doesn't really matter.

You enjoy it for your own reasons.

Eh....

I'm rambling.

I hope that expressed my point.

Everything you say is correct - but the movie JFK is a joke and one of the most ignorant films ever made.

I disagree entirely. I concur with the points made in the two reviews of the film (links below) by Roger Ebert. The first was written at the time of the film's initial release. The second is part of his Great Movies collection of reviews from a decade later.

1991 Ebert review

2002 Ebert 'Great Movies' review

Reading those reviews has made me interested in buying JFK. I'd never had any interest in seeing it before. Thanks for those.

[Jack Spang]

I can't see how people would think this film will drag when there is a great deal of action and suspense scenes in the film. Having read the script, the character driven scenes are minimal if you ask me. As someone said, the previous few Bond films have been over 2 hours, so this film isn't much longer. The Brosnan films went by so damn fast. They seemed like they were in a huge hurry to get the film over with. This is no biggie.

I'd be stoked with a 3 hour Bond film. Didn't that reviewer say that the film was 2 hours and 30 minutes in the test screening? I hope the 10 minutes that they cut out wasn't character or plot development. 10 minutes is quite alot. The ratings board worries me. They could be cutting out even more - the good, gritty, violent bits! Damn! They should have kept the film at 2 hours and 30 minutes!

I bet the people who went to this test screening were of the mindset that this should be the usual fast paced, action fest like the previous few Bond flicks so they told Eon it dragged in parts and Eon listened to them unfortunately.

Edited by Jack Spang, 29 September 2006 - 11:30 PM.

[tdalton]

I hope that CR ends up being a 2 hr. 20 minute film. Just from looking at the trailers and pictures and such, it seems like there is so much material in the film that it warrants being longer than the typical Bond film. Hopefully this film will be just as good (if not better) than the last 2:20 Bond film.

[Double-0-Seven]

Great news! The longer the film is, the better.

Although wasn't On Her Majesty's Secret Service technically 2 hours and 22 minutes? So if Casino Royale is 2 hours and 20 minutes, then it won't tie because it's 2 minutes shorter.

[Cody]

Didn't that reviewer say that the film was 2 hours and 30 minutes in the test screening? I hope the 10 minutes that they cut out wasn't character or plot development. 10 minutes is quite alot.

Yeah. Hopefully he was just estimating and the run time was somewhere between 140 and 150 minutes/closer to 140.

[Qwerty]

Although wasn't On Her Majesty's Secret Service technically 2 hours and 22 minutes? So if Casino Royale is 2 hours and 20 minutes, then it won't tie because it's 2 minutes shorter.

Well if you want to get technical!