"Hey, Bill! Buy your tickets yet?"
It took me about seven seconds to realize that my friend and co-worker Caleb Hutchins was referring to advance tickets to "Avengers: Endgame" which hits theaters today. "No," I smiled. "I'll just wait for the Blu Ray."
You see, friends, here's the thing. I'm a long-time admirer of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I find it truly remarkable the number of balls that producer Kevin Fieg, the real mastermind, is able to keep in the air and still have everything make sense. In fact, I'm SUCH an admirer that I've gotten to the point of purchasing the BluRay titles of the Marvel films without even SEEING them in the theater. They're THAT consistent, and THAT good.
That night, however, I got to thinking. Maybe Caleb is right. Maybe for THIS climactic adventure, I SHOULD spring for the $15 ticket and see it in a room crowded with other fans. Why not? So I logged into Fandango and saw something that made me say ... uh ... no. Price? No. Negative reviews? No. Running time. "Avengers: Endgame" clocks in at a full three hours and one minute. Add to that the Coke ads, coming attraction trailers, etc., and I'd be looking at a three and a half hour endurance test that my posterior is unlikely to find remotely fun.
What ever happened to the days of the ninety minute movie? Lately I've been delving into the past during my weekends, enjoying the classic detective and horror films of the 30s and 40s, ALL of which were well under ninety minutes. The best ones were tightly constructed, well-paced, and thoroughly diverting. In fact, these plotlines were SO compact that, back in the day, folks could enjoy cartoons, newsreels, and usually a second feature on the bill without realizing that they just consumed a half-day's worth of soda and popcorn.
Now, you go into a theater, and while the image is almost always perfect and enthralling (particularly in IMAX 3D, my preference), the sound is almost never exactly right. There's usually an adorable little moppet kicking my seat in Morse code. There's a patron two rows down and three seats over playing Candy Crush. And who can afford the payments on a large popcorn and drink, which you really NEED to make it through the film unless you smuggle in rations.
I suspect that part of the problem lies in the business model. Network television no longer has any interest in devoting weekly two-hour timeslots to motion pictures, since cable pretty much has sucked the industry dry. So there's no NEED to make a ninety-six minute movie in order to get it to television with only minor editing. TNT doesn't care if they need a three and a half to four hour block to show "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring," or two and a half hours to show "Road House," which seems to be on 24/7 if you surf long enough.
You don't need to be long or loud to be a great movie. Both "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" are classics and are under ninety-minutes long. "Stand by Me" and "The Lion King" also get the job done. So do "High Noon," "The Producers," and the delightful "This is Spinal Tap."
I wish Caleb and the rest of y'all the best time at "The Avengers." I have no doubt that it will deliver. Marvel's just that good. But I'm looking forward to screening the movie in the comfort of my own home ... with my volume control and 3D glasses. And I'll enjoy every moment. Even if it takes me a month of sittings.
http://accesswdun.com/article/2019/4/788303/avengers-endgame-no-spoilers-epic-adventure-or-endurance-test