FILM CRITICS

These days whenever I ask someone how a movie was they usually reply with
"It was alright but it was like 3 hours".
This grinds my gears. Firstly, these days we are paying near to $15 to see a movie.. closer to $20 when its in 3d or imax (which is like 1/3 movies nowadays). If I am paying this much, and the movie is good... 3 hours is A-OK with me. Commenting on the films time isn't a real criticism.
wolf of wallstreet was a fantastic film, however I heard countless people complain about how long it was. Personally, if the movie does its job, the last thing youll be looking at is a clock. Yes its true, some films would be better if they were shorter... but that's based on a number of factors.
Also, do some research if you have problems sitting in one spot for 3 hours (maybe seek some professional help as well?). Most movie theatres give you the exact run time before you purchase your ticket.. or simply ask if its going to be an issue.
Maybe im just becoming more frugal, but I would sit through a movie like Avatar if it was 12 hours!
While we are on the topic of cinema, Ive got one more complaint. And its about everyone who was so sure that Leonardo DiCaprio was going to win an Oscar for his role in The wolf of Wallstreet.
A) that movie appealed most to people between the ages of 18-28
(My mother would probably turn it off at the first scene simply due to its crude nature
B) the people who believed this had not even seen nor heard of the other movies or actors that at were nominated. In my eyes, when it comes down to it AIDS or Slavery will always trump a movie about that perks (and vices) of being a rich

maybe next time Leo.

The wolf of wall street

12 years a slave
Dallas Buyers club