I've been invited out to see this four times, but can't invest time into it. Between two jobs, family, and spring property maintenance, I feel the movie just unintentionally lost some viewership.
I could stream it, but let's be honest, some movies should be seen in theaters. This seems like one.
I watched it and really liked it but yes, it was a bit long
Give it a shot streaming on a weekend
I loved it and I think it's worth the investment, personally. I'm in a very similar situation to you, in terms of the fact that I have many demands on my time (although they're probably different in many ways, I still feel the crunch). I rarely make it out to the movies between time and budget constraints, but I was glad I saw this one.
If you're a big Batman fan, it'll be worth it for sure. I don't know what your tastes are.
It doesn't feel that long.
shareThey'll probably ask Reeves to trim it down next time. Or make it 4 hours.
shareIt brings me back to the Hobbit. One story over three movies. Yeah, LOTR was great in theaters, but I couldn't muster enough interest for another 9 hour experience.
shareLOTR is really epic and required 9 hours give or take…The Hobbit was pretty bloated with some stupid extra scenes added, it’s a great book and should have been only 2 movies totaling less than 5 hours
shareNo movie caters to every possible viewer. And although you found time to post on a board like this, maybe you're just too busy to see movies in the theater. Most of the "should be seen in theaters" movies exceed 2 hrs these days.
sharePeople complain about a 3 hour movie, but the same people will stream 8 episodes in one day and have no problem with that. The Avengers was over 3 hours and I didn't hear much complaining about that. Also people who complain about wasting time are the same ones who have their nose stuck in their phone for hours. Everyone wastes time...I'd rather watch a cool movie for 3 hours than actually waste time on social media or whatever these people do on their phones. I have no idea what people do all that time, because I don't do that...you know...wasting time and all.
shareI see what you mean. I guess the ability to pause a show and watch it over your own schedule is why People do more of that. Typically I watch a 20 minute episode about every two days. If its longer, I tend to watch it over a week. Theaters aren't as flexible which is why this doesn't work for me.
shareThe Batman is now on HBO Max so you can pause it and pick it up later. I think it is worth it.
shareThis stuff kind of drives me nuts. Just like when it comes to watching and reading. I can post a wall of text comment on a YouTube video that is 15-20 minutes minimum, or sometimes I'll post a comment that is maybe 5-10 lines long or maybe just 5-10 sentences. People will tell me they have no time to read all that, which would probably take 90 seconds to read. But you serious though? (The question is aimed at the people lecturing me and stuff and complaining my comments/posts are too long.) You can't read a wall of text that takes maybe 90 seconds max and claim you have no time for that, but you can sit through a video that is about 15-20 minutes at the minimum and watch every second of it including the 90-second intros and outros? Ridiculous. And even when I do shorter posts/comments, I got people complaining I didn't give enough details or something. So that's why I do wall of texts to begin with. I throw in as much as I can in the first comment/post. It's pretty much a no-win for me no matter if I do wall of texts or a 2-3 word comment.
sharePeople who complain about wasting time on things that are worthwhile are probably the ones who waste the most time on things that are pretty insignificant.
share