Good morning Mick:Regarding yourarticle on movie lengths: Are there movies you feel would have benefited from alongerrunning time?

Paul Sheinfeld, Novato

Good morning Paul:That’s hard to say, because a movie might be at the right length if it leaves you wanting more. Still, I’ve always felt that “Before Sunset” (2004), the second of Richard Linklater’s movies with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, should have been longer. I loved it, but that ending, with Delpy imitating Nina Simone, was flat and a trifle silly. Also, the languorous rhythm that Linklater established had prepared the audience for a longer movie, perhaps one running well over two hours. As it stands, the entire running time was only 80 minutes.

Also, consider this: In the three “Before” movies, we see Jesse and Celine’s courtship in Vienna (1995’s “Before Sunrise”). Then we see them starting to get back together in “Before Sunset.” And then we see them practically estranged in “Before Midnight”(2013)。这个浪漫的情侣一样生动有蜜蜂n for its many fans, we never got to see their relationship at its best. We never got to see them definitely together and definitely happy. Maybe such an ideal state is inherently undramatic, but I’d have liked to have glimpsed some of it, anyway. That’s exactly what we would have seen if “Before Sunset” had gone on a little longer. Alas, that missed opportunity can never come again.

Hey Mick:If you weren’t writing about movies, what would you be writing about?

Robert J. Sawicki, San Anselmo

Hey Robert:I can’t say, because it wouldn’t be up to me. It’s up to readers who either want to read what I write, or don’t. I know I would definitely be writing, because I wake up in the morning wanting to write. But what the public would accept from me would be up to the public to decide.

Dear Guru Mick:As a child of the ’60s, I felt “Easy Rider” was a brilliant movie in that it best expressed the decade, both the pursuit of freedom and its crushing by the dominant society as the decade closed. However, the review by Vincent Canby in the New York Times completely dismissed it, almost as a piece of trash. Was Canby right and I’m entirely wrong? Or did Canby miss something?

Jeffrey Bortz, Boone, N.C.

Dear Guru Jeffrey:Canby saw the movie he saw; it just wasn’t meant for him.He was too old. Roger Ebert didn’t like “Flashdance,” either. He didn’t get it, but of course I did, because it was meant for me.(All this, of course, makes me wonder what I’m missing now.)

There have always been movies that are very much of their time. They express their moment, and very often they express the utter nonsense of their moment. And then years pass, and they either maintain their quality or become historically significant relics. As a child of the ’70s, I see “Easy Rider” as the product of laughably paranoid hippiedom. But it’s not trash. It spoke to people for a reason and is, on balance, some sort of good movie.

Good Afternoon Movie Lover Mick:In your column (posted online June 12), you answered the question of which nominated movies should have won best picture Oscars. Why not “E.T.” instead of “Gandhi?”

John Daugherty, Santa Cruz

Good Afternoon Movie Lover John:I saw “E.T.” for the first time when it was rereleased in 2002. It’s a nice-enough children’s picture, but I wanted E.T. to go home as soon as he got there. “Gandhi,” on the other hand, was a fairly great film, and so I’d leave 1982 as it is.

Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.