Sunday, October 10, 2010


In the article "The Hours and Times" film critics speak about the movie "Seven Samurai" and why it is such a uniqe film. The argument in the article is wheteher the movie is ok being its original leangth, three hours and twenty seven minutes. Critics say its too much of a stretch having a film that long, arguing that not everybody would be able to or want to sit through a movie that is that long for that matter. Akira Kurosawa, director of Seven samurai, seems to think other wise and has very supportive reasons on why he made the film so lengthy. He takes his time introducing every character and makes us get to know the character in a good way almost like on a personal level. Kurosawa explains everything with such detail from the characters to the scenery to the time period in which the film is taking place.

In my opinion the film itself did not seem as if it were 3+ hours. It might have been because of the intermission or other than the fact that it kept me interested (ish) the whole time. I think the director did a great job in deciding to make the film the length it is because, like the article said, it felt like you got to know all the charachters on a personal level. He felt it was important that he did a good job in explaining everything with great detail. Definately a movie worth watching and would watch it again if i ever had 4 hours to spare.


  1. I felt the same way. it didn't seem like 3 and a half hour movie. It did a good job of keeping you interested. I said the same thing about watching it again. It is too long to watch all the time but if i got the chance and had the time I would definately watch it again. just not all the time.

  2. Definitely, if the temperature in the room hadn't been freezing I would not have been able to feel time pass. I agree, the movie was interesting and is a film that can be seen again.

  3. I'm glad you all seemed to like and weren't too bothered by the length.

    Not a bad post, luis, but your summary feels a little off.