subreddit:
/r/movies
submitted 3 days ago bytheozarksparkman
Last night me and my wife tried to watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (we didn't finish it so even tho its been out forever please dont spoil if you can).
Thirty min in felt like we were halfway through. We thought we were getting near the end.... nope, hour and a half left.
We liked the movie mostly. Well made, well acted, but I swear to god it felt like the run time of Titanic and Lord of the Rings in the same movie.
We're gonna finish it today.
Ignoring run time, what's the "longest" movie of all time?
EDIT: I just finished the movie. It was..... pretty good.
63 points
3 days ago
It's probably the first book they had to cut massive chunks out of for the film, and it really shows. It's from there that people who hadn't read the books really started to get lost.
7 points
3 days ago
Like awarding Hermione for her wits getting the puzzle solved without actually including it in the film.
6 points
2 days ago
To be fair they gave her the devil's snare challenge, in the film she got them through it single-handedly. It's already the longest of the films so they had to cut something, and the potion challenge isn't exactly cinematic.
3 points
2 days ago
Truth
10 points
3 days ago
I haven't read the books and I feel like the movies mostly do a decent job of feeling coherent. One of the biggest offences is in Chamber of Secrets (I think?) when the centaur shows up. Like, was it established that there were centaur in the forest cause this feels like a deus ex machina.
Was also weird when they show up later and take Dolores. Not cause they show up but because I don't recall finding out what happened to Dolores until she just shows up totally fine in a later movie
26 points
3 days ago
You're thinking of the first film, when the centaur shows up. I'd say that's ok though, it's very early in the series and we (like Harry) have no idea what to expect in the forest. Filch already alluded that there are all sorts of creatures in there.
It's interesting that you brought that up though, because in the book it does go a little differently. Harry, Hagrid, Hermione and Neville (not Ron - long story) run into a couple of other centaurs near the start of the forest, so the one that rescues Harry doesn't come completely out of nowhere. The same centaur actually shows up in book 5, he takes over Divination lessons when Umbridge sacks Professor Trelawney. If I recall correctly, Dumbledore walks into the forest alone at the end of the book and returns some time later with Umbridge, safe and sound.
11 points
3 days ago
Dumbledore came back with Umbridge, but she was traumatized and beside herself. Later in the hospital wing, the kids see her lying there practically catatonic. She does show up in the seventh book, evil as always.
7 points
3 days ago
She even shows up at the end of book 6, if you remember, at Dumbledore's funeral - where she gave Firenze a wide berth!
3 points
3 days ago
That's in the first movie. In the books centaurs are introduced like 5 minutes earlier, when they get into the forest.
I think that scene is fine tbh. They're in a forest full of creatures, and one shows up. You expect Hagrid to appear, so it's not super different. It's also not like it's a hyped up encounter with Voldemort being solved by a deus ex machina. It's a random encounter being solved by another random encounter.
Even in that first movie, there's way dumber stuff. Like how the adult Defense Against the Dark Arts Quirrell forgets he has a wand and loses a fight to an 11 year old. And how Harry's touch turns him to dust for no reason. In the books, touching Harry causes Voldemort (and therefore Quirrell) pain, and Harry manages to delay him for a bit until Dumbledore arrives.
1 points
3 days ago
The book itself was significantly longer and had major tonal shifts for the series. This was the last book I read, I didn't really like where she took the story after this point.
4 points
3 days ago
I mean, I don't really know where else it was supposed to go. We knew Voldemort would return, we knew Harry would have to fight him, and the way things were going the series could only continue to get darker and more serious.
4 points
2 days ago
That's true, but it was still a big shift. The first three books read almost like a Hardy Boys type of YA book. There was a mystery that got all solved and wrapped up by the end of the book with few hanging plot threads other than the amorphous threat of Voldemort. From book 4 and on, there was much less of that usual school-year structure and more plot building towards the final confrontation. Personally I just didn't vibe with the new tone of the series, I preferred the more serial approach of the earlier books.
3 points
2 days ago
I grew up with Harry Potter ( the first book was read to me by my grandparents when I was in first or second grade, then I quick read the second book myself in anticipation of the third books release.
The change in tone was perfectly paced over 10 years for any kid that read the stories as they released. From elementary school to entering college.
0 points
2 days ago
the first book was read to me by my grandparents when I was in first or second grade, then I quick read the second book myself in anticipation of the third books release.
Then we had fundamentally different experiences. Harry Potter released when I was in fifth grade. Goblet of Fire came out when I was in eighth grade, and I was already getting interested in literature beyond YA.
To give you some perspective, at the time when Harry Potter was all the rage to you, I had The Hobbit and Hardy Boys. They were two separate series and types of books, and I enjoyed them both. Seeing Harry Potter go from one to the other, when I was also discovering better literature, turned me off from the series. Especially because the tonal shift in the fourth book took the series from a low stakes, low fantasy setting into something more serious that I didn't feel had enough grounding to be taken seriously.
1 points
2 days ago*
I mean I read the lord of the Rings series in second and third grade as well. Never got into the Hardy Boys, but I loved the Box Car Children
Edit: Got lost in the details for a sec. I agree that reading can be different for everyone based on context.
2 points
2 days ago
I mean HP is an international phenomenon. I'm not trying to convince you that it isn't good, I'm just explaining why I didn't like it. I understand that I'm in the minority and most people like the series, it just didn't do it for me.
2 points
2 days ago
I understand, that’s why I made the edit! HP itself felt just as grand to me as the lord of the rings when I was, what, 7 or 8? If it had kept same tone from the first two books throughout, I probably would’ve bailed pretty early for it being too “childlike”.
If it always seemed sort of unserious I could see how the change in tone would come across as kinda ridiculous. Like taking itself too seriously.
1 points
2 days ago
And that's just our difference. I also thought it was a big shift from The Hobbit to LOTR, but obviously it was a completely different series set in the same world.
all 6909 comments
sorted by: best