What ponderous dreck.
Over three and half hours approaching four when including previews
The source material deserved a better movie.
Everyone I saw it with didn’t like it and thought it was too long.
The acting was good
I probably won’t watch it again
I went with my wife and 78 year old aunt. We left 1.5 hours in to the marathon. Horrible.
What ponderous dreck.
Over three and half hours approaching four when including previews
The source material deserved a better movie.
Everyone I saw it with didn’t like it and thought it was too long.
The acting was good
I probably won’t watch it again
I saw it last night and didn’t hate it. It was twice as long as it needed to be and moved really slow. How long did we watch blurred shots of King’s farm burning?
Oppenheimer was long but they used the time to tell a longer story. If you’re going to spend that much time on a movie, please develop more than 3 characters.
I enjoyed all the musician cameos. Jason Isbell can actually act a little bit.
There’s some controversy over a few theaters breaking the movie up with an intermission. Apparently the filmmakers are pissed about that since there was no planned intermission in the editing.
Well now I’m intrigued. Every review I’ve read has called it a masterpiece and I had assumed it was an immediate best picture contender. Huh. Book is incredible, I had high hopes.
Haven’t seen it. But why is there such a preponderance of movies that are too long these days?
Maybe TV? How can you be a master storyteller in the movie format if you keep it at 110 minutes while prestige TV can follow characters for 80 hours?
Well now I’m intrigued. Every review I’ve read has called it a masterpiece and I had assumed it was an immediate best picture contender. Huh. Book is incredible, I had high hopes.
A group of dads from the neighborhood try to go to the movies when we can get critical mass so there was a decent cross section of movie tastes and cinema appreciation. We all disliked it even the artsy fartsy one
I appreciated the unique way that Scorsese presented the “postscripts” — instead of just using title cards on a black screen
.
3.5 movie that I can’t pause… Yeah, hard pass. Can’t imagine sitting in a theater for 4 hrs. That’s just ridiculous and uncalled for. What were they thinking not putting an intermission in there. Thats just stupid.
Oh well sounds like they got people at least here to give them their money.
I appreciated the unique way that Scorsese presented the “postscripts” — instead of just using title cards on a black screen
That was probably the best part of the movie
.
rotten tomato has very good reviewer score and audience score.
I want to see it, but I’m not going to a theatre. It’s too long
I haven’t read the book. Should I read the book first?
Having not seen the film yet I couldn’t say. But I’d recommend the book if you like detailed, sparely written procedurals that pack their punch based on the accumulated horror of what actually happened. It’s not historical fiction where the author spends a lot of time imagining what the characters must have thought or may have said to each other to give you a more visceral reactionary . If you read and liked in Cold Blood for example, I’d give it a go. I definitely finished the book grateful for the extraordinary amount of research the author did.
What ponderous dreck.
Over three and half hours approaching four when including previews
The source material deserved a better movie.
Everyone I saw it with didn’t like it and thought it was too long.
The acting was good
I probably won’t watch it again
I watched it because it was nominated for best picture, I generally like DiCaprio movies, and it got decent ratings.
God did it suck.
There just wasn’t anything interesting happening, at all, anywhere in the movie. The plot went nowhere. Like, De Nero said somewhere in the beginning, “we marry and then kill off the indians to get their oil money,” and then they pretty much just did that for the next 3 hours. And I can’t think of a single scene anywhere in the movie that stood out in any memorable way.
While I think Dicaprio did a fine job playing his character, his character wasn’t good enough to carry the movie.
I’ve not seen the movie, but the book is the complete opposite. It really gets on with the story…told as a whodunnit. The 2.5 David Grann books I’ve read (this, The Wager, and I’m currently reading “the lost city of Z”) all move at a good pace and are relatively short stories.
What ponderous dreck.
Over three and half hours approaching four when including previews
The source material deserved a better movie.
Everyone I saw it with didn’t like it and thought it was too long.
The acting was good
I probably won’t watch it again
I watched it because it was nominated for best picture, I generally like DiCaprio movies, and it got decent ratings.
God did it suck.
There just wasn’t anything interesting happening, at all, anywhere in the movie. The plot went nowhere. Like, De Nero said somewhere in the beginning, “we marry and then kill off the indians to get their oil money,” and then they pretty much just did that for the next 3 hours. And I can’t think of a single scene anywhere in the movie that stood out in any memorable way.
While I think Dicaprio did a fine job playing his character, his character wasn’t good enough to carry the movie.
They changed the original plan for the movie