Now that my name was brought up (as I was being thrown under the bus, thanks Zach, :) ) I'll chime in.



As much as I was a huge fan of Forrest Gump, I feel that I was too young when I watched it to find all the picky issues you two have with it. And unlike Zach, I didn't recently watch the movie (and my movie memory is shot). So when you guys are done analyzing this old movie, let's move on to the now and the future.



Matt, I think we mentioned this last time, but I have a new question for you about the subject. I'm a big fan of The Wolf Of Wall Street. As soon as I learned about the movie, I went out and got the book (and the second book "Catching The Wolf Of Wall Street"). I LOVE the book. It takes you into this crazy world of the success and failure of Jordan Belfort. And I recently heard a discussion, on one of the (east cost) podcasts that I listen to, about how the movie (which is full of great actors, writers, and directors) is going to be too long, two hours and 45 minutes, I believe. I usually don't love long movies because they can't keep you that entertained for so long. However, I was happy to hear about the length of this movie because after I read the book, I thought to myself, how the hell will they fit this into 90 minutes or even two hours?



What do you think about the lengths of films? And does it depend on content?