Who Needs Longer Movies?

Mike,

You're gonna love this. Here's another entry for your superfluous movie list collection. Seriously, how far can one guy be off?

I heartily disagree with ALL of his choices. Who lets these guys publish stuff on the net? Oh right, nobody does, they are self-appointed douche bags!

• SPIDER MAN 3 should be a few plot point shorter not an hour longer.
• FROM DUSK TILL DAWN is perfectly timed--it stops exactly at the right moment, just before the gore gets repetitious (and the gore CAN get repetitious). It's a fun ride; what the hell did he expect? A Sergio Leone epic?!?
• HARD CANDY is a downright ridiculous, a tight psycho-drama that wastes absolutely no celluloid.
• SMOKING ACES?!? That film should never have been made in the first place, let alone with a longer running time.
• THE WARRIORS? Yeah, maybe, if Scorsese had messed up the project. Walter Hill is, thankfully, one of the meanest, leanest director's out there. He trims every ounce of fat off his movies, and for a purpose.
• 28 WEEKS LATER? Who needs cash-in sequels anyway? Want more fuck for your buck, go visit a pig farm!
• Maybe a slight case could be made for X-MEN 3. It felt about ten minutes too short.

Sorry for my rant, just had to get this of my chest. Talk about senseless movie lists... pah...

- Jérôme