You’ve Just Gotta Go See . . .

It used to be said that, to keep conversations civil, the topics of politics and religion should best be avoided. That injunction may have been true at one time, but it’s no longer the case. For one

thing, most people don’t seem to take religion as personally as they used to. For another, people tend to congregate most often with those who share their political partisan-

ship. These days, if you’re really looking to start a fight, you need only voice an opinion, pro or con, about a movie. Any movie. And I’m not even referring to those zany Oscar nominations.

Not only am I reluctant to recommend movies to others, but I’d prefer it if my friends refrained from recommending them to me. Even after a few years, I find I still can’t get over the fact that two chums came close to threatening me with bodily injury if I didn’t run out and see “The Piano” and “Pulp Fiction.” True, I might have been sufficiently gulled by the critics to see them in any case, but I prefer hating strangers than resenting people I have to play poker with.

But I’m only too aware that it works both ways. I’m sure there are people who still think I’m nuts because I sold them on “American Beauty” and “Election” or told them to skip “Sweet and Lowdown” and “The Talented Mr. Ripley.” I’d bet anything several of them are walking around, muttering, “It serves me right for listening to the little fool. I should have remembered he’s the same schmoe who liked ‘Babe: The Sequel’ and hated ‘Titanic.’ ”

*

I have no idea what it is about movies that makes it impossible to predict how other people will respond to them. It could be that there are so many variables that go into a movie that, beyond such obvious components as script, cast and genre, there are any number of things, ranging from the dramatic score to the running time, that can ruin the viewing experience.

For instance, an otherwise entertaining 1985 movie called “Ladyhawke” was ruined because someone--presumably a producer hoping to sell soundtrack albums--insisted that a romantic fantasy set in medieval times be scored with disco music!

As for running time, I tend to be of the school that believes less is more. Although I accept that some movies require more time than others to tell their story, unless it has an epic “Lawrence of Arabia” sweep to it, there better be a darn good reason for any movie to run more than two hours. Rarely, these days, does the story demand it; instead one feels that the running time is dictated by the star’s ego and the director’s self-indulgence. Does it make sense that such classics as “Casablanca,” “Double Indemnity” and “Sunset Boulevard” ran between 90 and 110 minutes, while movies such as “JFK” and “Malcolm X” demanded more than three hours of our time? Is it reasonable that, all by itself, “Magnolia” runs just about as long as a double-bill of “Sullivan’s Travels” and “Annie Hall”? And just which would you rather sit through?

Is it any wonder that now, when somebody asks me if I’ve seen any good movies lately, my first instinct is to put up my dukes?

Burt Prelutsky is a TV writer whose credits include “MASH” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and such movies as “Hobson’s Choice.” He is executive story consultant on CBS’ “Diagnosis Murder.”