It seems to me that most discussions of a director's "pacing" are generally
smokescreens for an inchoate dislike of a film. It is such a vague and
indefinable term that it is a favorite scapegoat. Pacing involves almost
every aspect of a film from the most obvious - the rate of edits within a
scene,... to the more obscure - the style of the dialogue, the amount of
dialogue, the lack of or style of the musical score, the style of the
camerawork, the acting style of the performers, etc.
Complaints about pacing are akin to critics' comments about a film's "poor"
or "superb" editing -- things which most critics have no knowledge about. Or,
the condemnation or praise of a film's "photography" which likewise is far
more subtle and harder to categorize than the popular press would like you to
believe.
Beware such legitimate-sounding, but hollow criticisms. Consider the source.
Gene Stavis - School of Visual Arts, NYC