Last movie watched...

[JOE SOAP]

When I heard the complaints regarding the length of Wolf of Wall Street I remember thinking that Scorsese might have been better off making it in the same episodic format to which he treated Boardwalk Empire

As a mini-series it would require a completely different take than 3 hour bawdy comedy. A lot cheaper too.

[Frank]

The screenwriter of Wolf Of Wall Street, Tezza Winter, managed to decompress the hell out of the source novel of Boardwalk Empire for three series *, and balanced the ratio of laughs to shots of folk's heads being smashed to a bloody pulp (held for at least a beat too long for comfort) as well. A six or eight part prestige series from Scorsese and starring DiCaprio would probably have made House of Cards's Netflix numbers look pish, and they could have padded it with an origin for the Duchess, glimpses of Donny's cousin-fucking homelife, Rugrat at the barbers ...


* not so much in series four

[JOE SOAP]

The screenwriter of Wolf Of Wall Street, Tezza Winter, managed to decompress the hell out of the source novel of Boardwalk Empire for three series

Despite the attraction of Scorsese, that goes some way to explaining why I never watched it. There's only so many hours to devote to TV. 3 hours I can give easily but 48 is a big ask.

[Spikes]

Sorry for the bum steer, neebs.

Not a problem, Wolf was always on the 'to do' list.
And that Room 237 looks right up my alley. Just need that Jon Ronson Doc to pop up as well.

I loved every minute of (Wolf Of Wall Street) - almost three hours of genuine hilarious entertainment. It's been a long time since I left the cinema feeling absolutely satisfied with what I'd just watched.

That's a relief; the only thing worse than wasting a trip to the pictures on a rotten film is when someone with whom you think you're in synch has recommended it to you as the best thing they've ever seen. Not only did you hate the film, but now you hate them a little too.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the comments above regarding two hours plus becoming the default length for every film, with one caveat - I don't mind it when I really enjoy the film. Obviously anyone wasting three years of their and other people's lives (and huge sums of their money) bringing a film to your local fleapit is hoping you'll really like it - and some people will love the same film that just gave you a sore bum - so it seems difficult to come up with a hard and fast rule.

Films such as Zodiac and Full Metal Jacket don't really pass Colin's test of epic scale and scope, yet I honestly can't remember checking my watch or pausing them to go for a slash when I saw them for the first time. The only (unsatisfactory and subjective) reason I can think of to explain the difference in my response to those films and the equally lengthy Man Of Steel (three toilet breaks, a snack, and some housework) is that I thought they were good and Superman wasn't really.

Yes, one man's meat.... and all that. Ive watched plenty of film's where a 90 minute running time has dragged, and other times an film of epic length has flown by, and left me wanting more.
Usually they've been a Scorsese film, as well.

If the news of a longer cut of Wolf are true, can we have a longer cut of Gangs, as well?

[Link Prime]

There's only so many hours to devote to TV. 3 hours I can give easily but 48 is a big ask.

Yet you did for Breaking Bad didn't you?
I know exactly where you're coming from though- there's a certain aversion to starting a new box-set that you're quite sure you're going to like.
It's a personal time and financial commitment that seems almost like a chore beforehand, yet when you're knee deep in the machinations of season 4 it beggars belief that you ever considered not watching this great show.
As an aside, I've been the owner of Boardwalk Empire season 1 on Blu since Christmas 2012, and it's sat there on the shelf unwatched and unloved, waiting for that 3-day stomach bug sick leave that's always just round the corner.

[JOE SOAP]

There's only so many hours to devote to TV. 3 hours I can give easily but 48 is a big ask.

Yet you did for Breaking Bad didn't you?

That was the only TV series* I followed seasonally for the past 3 years. If I followed everything in-between since then, I'd never leave the house.


* let's be honest, how many series/stories live up to that standard of sustained viewing? I doubt Boardwalk Empire does.

[Link Prime]

* let's be honest, how many series/stories live up to that standard of sustained viewing?

Fair point.

[Ghost MacRoth]

* let's be honest, how many series/stories live up to that standard of sustained viewing? I doubt Boardwalk Empire does.

It does.

[JOE SOAP]

Going back to the point I was supposed to be making with Wolf..., most stories don't demand a 4, 6 or 12 hour running time to make/dramatise their point(s).

[Recrewt]

I was driving to work the other day and Radio 1 was on (yeah, I'm still youth).  Anyway, they were talking about Breaking Bad and someone was telling Grimmy about it.  He said something along the lines of 'it starts a bit slow but after the first 8 hours it really picks up'.  Grimmy replied that he doesn't have the time and 8 hours is quite a while for  something to take off - would you sit through 8 hours of a movie waiting for it to get good?   

[JamesC]

I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a formula for what films should or shouldn't break the 1.5-2 hour mark.
Some of my favourite films have longer running times - even action classics like The Rock or superhero flicks like Superman.
I think I could probably think of a good, long film in just about any genre so I guess it all comes down to whether the script, stars, chemistry and all the countless other factors can keep your attention.


This may be food for thought: The opening scene of Once Upon A Time In The West goes on for 11 minutes. Nothing happens and there's no dialogue but it's absolutely mesmerising. 

[HdE]

I picked up the original Universal Soldier on Blu Ray a little while ago for MUCH cheapness, remembering how I thought it was a pretty cool little movie back when it came out in 1992.

Now that I've watched it, I want to go back in time and PUNCH 1992 ME IN THE FACE. This movie is DREADFUL!

[Frank]

would you sit through 8 hours of a movie waiting for it to get good?

I'll rent the first Hobbit film and get back to you.

[GrinningChimera]

Fargo

Great film. I wouldn't say depressing (see Requiem For A Dream) but there is a definite bleakness about the whole thing. Not just the characters but the locations. I still don't get how people choose to live in places like that. A great film that everyone should see. (makes a great double bill with No Country For Old Men IMO)

[NapalmKev]

American Hustle - good acting and quite funny in parts but on the whole I found the film very 'average' indeed.

Cheers