*** out of *****
I have mixed feelings about Songbirds and Snakes. The movie starts off good, but once the Hunger Games fight ends it starts to drag. It eventually gets its momentum back but I was left feeling it was too long.
shareI have mixed feelings about Songbirds and Snakes. The movie starts off good, but once the Hunger Games fight ends it starts to drag. It eventually gets its momentum back but I was left feeling it was too long.
shareFilm editing is a lost art in Hollywood.
shareI think these movies are more and more aimed at streaming, that is why there are more and more 2 and half hours or even longer movies.
Because at home you can hit pause and go to bathroom, or even resume watching the next day.
A lot of these movies could have been made partially to kill the physical movie theatres. Because movie distribution is quite high cost, usually around 15% ~ 20% of box office income goes to distribution, and that is on top of 40% theatre take, that is why movie studios usually only get around 40% of box office. Overseas distribution cost is usually even higher.
Now major movie studios have their own streaming platforms (Of the Big 5 film studios, Sony seems to be the only one that doesn't have a major streaming service), killing the theatres means they once again have full control, and profit, of movie distribution.
Huh, didn't think of it that way. However I think in Ridley Scott's case, it's to withhold footage to release as a 'directors cut' to keep himself relevant.
shareThe movie ended, and then in just kept going for another hour!
Either the Hunger Games bit should've been cut down significantly, since it's not about them anyway (and they weren't that interesting imo). Or, the story should've been split into two movies. As is, it just felt like two different movies glued together.