• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*** Official Film Thread ***

thfcsteff said:
Saw Killers of The Flower Moon.
See it in a theatre.
Turn the phone off.
Settle into the pace of it and allow one of cinema’s most incredible storytellers to tell the story his way.
An epic film.
If society has really got to a point where art of this nature is ‘too long’ then I’d suggest we officially declare Idiocracy a documentary of our times.
Click to expand...


I don't think I would go to the cinema to see a three and a half hour film. Nothing to do with the film, but comfort, gubers around you, and it's probably closer to four hours once the ads and faff is taken in.
Granted I have a projector and decent sound system at home so I'm not going to be missing much of the cinematic experience, but sitting in a cinema for almost four hours is too much for me.
I am looking forward to seeing it, do enjoy a good epic.
 
thfcsteff said:
Saw Killers of The Flower Moon.
See it in a theatre.
Turn the phone off.
Settle into the pace of it and allow one of cinema’s most incredible storytellers to tell the story his way.
An epic film.
If society has really got to a point where art of this nature is ‘too long’ then I’d suggest we officially declare Idiocracy a documentary of our times.
Click to expand...

I think the scepticism was more that, because it was Netflix funded, that it had been made as 4 TV episodes, and then had been shoved into cinemas as an afterthought to get it awards PR.

But anyone who has watched it will know that absolutely isn't the case. It's just the length of time the story took to tell.

I think most films are too long - 90-100 minutes is the sweet spot, but these often creep to 120-130 for no good reason.

But for a big fantasy or period epic, go for your guns - 3 hours, 4 hours whatever. The Godfathers, the David Leans, and LoTRs are all about 3 hours. But you just need to be really good to be able to do that. And Scorsese is
 
Gutter Boy said:
I think the scepticism was more that, because it was Netflix funded, that it had been made as 4 TV episodes, and then had been shoved into cinemas as an afterthought to get it awards PR.

But anyone who has watched it will know that absolutely isn't the case. It's just the length of time the story took to tell.

I think most films are too long - 90-100 minutes is the sweet spot, but these often creep to 120-130 for no good reason.

But for a big fantasy or period epic, go for your guns - 3 hours, 4 hours whatever. The Godfathers, the David Leans, and LoTRs are all about 3 hours. But you just need to be really good to be able to do that. And Scorsese is
Click to expand...

Apple TV, but yeh I think its been confirmed that this is the case (unless I imagined it)....Apparently as this is now likely to be the future of film they are talking about intermissions but then there are fears it kills the pace of the viewing.

Personally I am cool with long films as long as like you say, there is a reason for it. Long films ae not a new thing
 
Grays_1890 said:
Apple TV, but yeh I think its been confirmed that this is the case (unless I imagined it)....Apparently as this is now likely to be the future of film they are talking about intermissions but then there are fears it kills the pace of the viewing.

Personally I am cool with long films as long as like you say, there is a reason for it. Long films ae not a new thing
Click to expand...

Intermissions are fine if the director builds them in. Films from the 20s-60s used to do this all the time (everything from D. W. Griffith to David Lean). Scorsese even did in Once Upon A Time In America in the 80s. Asteroid City last month did too I think.

There's an indie cinema I go to that do their own impromptu ones. Basically they pause every film at about half time (unless it's a double bill showing). They properly open the bar and bring the ice cream usher out for 20 minutes, just like it was the theatre. It's very civilised.

But generally if the director makes it actively as a 2 act (or more) film, then it's fine. The digestion time can actually improve the experience.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Intermissions are fine if the director builds them in. Films from the 20s-60s used to do this all the time (everything from D. W. Griffith to David Lean). Scorsese even did in Once Upon A Time In America in the 80s. Asteroid City last month did too I think.

There's an indie cinema I go to that do their own impromptu ones. Basically they pause every film at about half time (unless it's a double bill showing). They properly open the bar and bring the ice cream usher out for 20 minutes, just like it was the theatre. It's very civilised.

But generally if the director makes it actively as a 2 act (or more) film, then it's fine. The digestion time can actually improve the experience.
Click to expand...
Where's that?
 
Grays_1890 said:
Apple TV, but yeh I think its been confirmed that this is the case (unless I imagined it)....Apparently as this is now likely to be the future of film they are talking about intermissions but then there are fears it kills the pace of the viewing.

Personally I am cool with long films as long as like you say, there is a reason for it. Long films ae not a new thing
Click to expand...
My sister in law and some mates went to see a play shown in the cinema
3 1/2 hours long with an interval
They let them in with drinks etc…
When they went to buy them at the interval they couldn’t sell them as they didn’t have a valid ticket for a show to come…
First world problems
 
Gutter Boy said:
Intermissions are fine if the director builds them in. Films from the 20s-60s used to do this all the time (everything from D. W. Griffith to David Lean). Scorsese even did in Once Upon A Time In America in the 80s. Asteroid City last month did too I think.

There's an indie cinema I go to that do their own impromptu ones. Basically they pause every film at about half time (unless it's a double bill showing). They properly open the bar and bring the ice cream usher out for 20 minutes, just like it was the theatre. It's very civilised.

But generally if the director makes it actively as a 2 act (or more) film, then it's fine. The digestion time can actually improve the experience.
Click to expand...

Most films are 3 acts no?
 
Grays_1890 said:
Apple TV, but yeh I think its been confirmed that this is the case (unless I imagined it)....Apparently as this is now likely to be the future of film they are talking about intermissions but then there are fears it kills the pace of the viewing.

Personally I am cool with long films as long as like you say, there is a reason for it. Long films ae not a new thing
Click to expand...

One of my favourite films is called Stalker. 3 hours. Slow but beautiful.
Midsommer...two and a half hours, half an hour too long.
80% of Paul Thomas Anderson's output is 30 mins too long.
Most or Kubrick's is too short!!!!

...it does, indeed, depend on the storyteller/director.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Intermissions are fine if the director builds them in. Films from the 20s-60s used to do this all the time (everything from D. W. Griffith to David Lean). Scorsese even did in Once Upon A Time In America in the 80s. Asteroid City last month did too I think.

There's an indie cinema I go to that do their own impromptu ones. Basically they pause every film at about half time (unless it's a double bill showing). They properly open the bar and bring the ice cream usher out for 20 minutes, just like it was the theatre. It's very civilised.

But generally if the director makes it actively as a 2 act (or more) film, then it's fine. The digestion time can actually improve the experience.
Click to expand...

IF the director builds them in...yes...
 
thfcsteff said:
One of my favourite films is called Stalker. 3 hours. Slow but beautiful.
Midsommer...two and a half hours, half an hour too long.
80% of Paul Thomas Anderson's output is 30 mins too long.
Most or Kubrick's is too short!!!!

...it does, indeed, depend on the storyteller/director.
Click to expand...

Stalkers been on my list for years, never got to it. Will get round to it one of these days.
 
Watched Stephen King Doc on Sky Arts and have been delving back into some of his films. Last night was Children of the Corn which felt like a TV Film (like many King films). Enjoyable though
 
thfcsteff said:
One of my favourite films is called Stalker. 3 hours. Slow but beautiful.
Midsommer...two and a half hours, half an hour too long.
80% of Paul Thomas Anderson's output is 30 mins too long.
Most or Kubrick's is too short!!!!

...it does, indeed, depend on the storyteller/director.
Click to expand...

I love Solaris and Ivan's Childhood but have never seen this. Will add it to my list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back