Pacing
issues slow the film down so that nothing ever seems to happen, even when it does.
Not exact matches
Just like «Mud,» however, «Joe» has some serious pacing
issues — not because it's a
slow burn, but because it's easily 20 minutes too long — and that ultimately hinders the
film from being as great as it could have been.
In both
films, the affected zone is expanding: in the Tarkovsky
film, the expansion is (not surprisingly) ambiguous, whereas in Garland's
film the expanding Shimmer is a known
issue that constitutes the
film's central, epidemic threat, as its
slow expansion could result in its eventually swallowing the entire planet.
It is a difficult
film to like for its
slow pacing and somnambulant performances, but it earns a minor recommendation for the courage to be about thornier
issues.
The biggest
issue with the
film is that everything happens under the surface and it makes it difficult to sit through a
film that has really unique elements but such
slow pacing.
I do have
issues with the
film and many would probably disagree with me but I found it to be a tad
slow and too long.
The
film also suffers from
issues with pacing — racing forward in the beginning then
slowing to an almost tedious drip by the end.
The
film is long, it's quite
slow to start with and the aforementioned mid-air ending does mean the pacing
issues tell a little as it wears on.