Not even 1.5 hours... sign of a bad movie

There's also the school of thought that a movie under an hour and a half is the sign of a tight screenplay that doesn't fill the screen with a lot of unnecessary exposition or scenes added for shock value or unnecessary violence. A story was told in an economical manner and I was not troubled at all by the short running time. Some might consider that a plus.

Actually, I am greatful that it was so short. I see a running time of 80 minutes or less and thank the heavens. Most movies are crap anyway, so whether it takes 20 minutes or two hours for me to find that out, doesn't really matter, but its nice when they don't stretch it out too long.

How does a movie's length make it good/bad?

For the record, this movie wasn't that good, but it had a few good parts. Eugene Levy is one of the best when it comes to comedic timing, and he shows that here in some scenes. He is an expert at timing and delivery. Jackson and Levy had very good chemistry. However, the problem was that most of the jokes have been done before, in other movies, and were executed better in the other films. Not a horrible movie, but by no means great. Levy and Jackson's chemistry made it watchable. If it wasn't for Levy and Jackson's chemistry, it would have sucked. It was average, overall. I give it 5.5/10.

_____________________________
"You...went into outer space. You?"
"Sure. You've never been?"

[deleted]