Film Killers of the Flower Moon | Scorsese's next

Excited for this but 3h26m long? There is absolutely no excuse for a film to be that long - I don't like any Director or Producer taking a film beyond 2h30m because that's plenty long enough to make your point and make a good film.

Oppenheimer lost at least a point in my book for being too long... This really better be amazing!
 
Excited for this but 3h26m long? There is absolutely no excuse for a film to be that long - I don't like any Director or Producer taking a film beyond 2h30m because that's plenty long enough to make your point and make a good film.

Oppenheimer lost at least a point in my book for being too long... This really better be amazing!

I'm fine with a movie this long. Length isn't the problem. The issue is that some writers/directors don't have the capacity to write good structure and pacing for longer movies, and/or choose the wrong genre to attempt this with. It's not so much the length that hampers them, but the lack of understanding how to make that length irrelevant and the plot and exposition engaging. The below are all-time classics at their respective lengths and you wouldn't (obviously in retrospect) change them.

Godfather ran nearly 3h
Godfather II at 3h20m
Lawrence of Arabia at 3h40m
Schindler's List at 3h15m
Ben-Hur at 3h25m
Titanic at 3h15m
Good, the Bad and the Ugly at 3h
Green Mile at 3h
Dances with Wolves at 3h
etc,

It's surprising how many of the greatest films ever made skirted or exceeded the three-hour run-time.
 
I'm fine with a movie this long. Length isn't the problem. The issue is that some writers/directors don't have the capacity to write good structure and pacing for longer movies, and/or choose the wrong genre to attempt this with. It's not so much the length that hampers them, but the lack of understanding how to make that length irrelevant and the plot and exposition engaging. The below are all-time classics at their respective lengths and you wouldn't (obviously in retrospect) change them.

Godfather ran nearly 3h
Godfather II at 3h20m
Lawrence of Arabia at 3h40m
Schindler's List at 3h15m
Ben-Hur at 3h25m
Titanic at 3h15m
Good, the Bad and the Ugly at 3h
Green Mile at 3h
Dances with Wolves at 3h
etc,

It's surprising how many of the greatest films ever made skirted or exceeded the three-hour run-time.

Casino, for me Scorsese's best one, is 2h58min as well.

And among GOAT films, there's also Avatar 2 at 3h12m!
white text
 
I'm fine with a movie this long. Length isn't the problem. The issue is that some writers/directors don't have the capacity to write good structure and pacing for longer movies, and/or choose the wrong genre to attempt this with. It's not so much the length that hampers them, but the lack of understanding how to make that length irrelevant and the plot and exposition engaging. The below are all-time classics at their respective lengths and you wouldn't (obviously in retrospect) change them.

Godfather ran nearly 3h
Godfather II at 3h20m
Lawrence of Arabia at 3h40m
Schindler's List at 3h15m
Ben-Hur at 3h25m
Titanic at 3h15m
Good, the Bad and the Ugly at 3h
Green Mile at 3h
Dances with Wolves at 3h
etc,

It's surprising how many of the greatest films ever made skirted or exceeded the three-hour run-time.
3 of the top-grossing films of all time worldwide are over 3 hours long.
 
Excited for this but 3h26m long? There is absolutely no excuse for a film to be that long - I don't like any Director or Producer taking a film beyond 2h30m because that's plenty long enough to make your point and make a good film.

Oppenheimer lost at least a point in my book for being too long... This really better be amazing!
Social media has truly rotted people's attention span

Back in the 50s if a film wasn't 6 hours long we beat up the director
 
In principle there's absolutely nothing wrong with a 3+ hour film. In practice most mainstream 3+ hours runtimes are the result of a failure to cut material that should be cut rather than having an abundance of material that can't be cut without detracting from the film.
 
In principle there's absolutely nothing wrong with a 3+ hour film. In practice most mainstream 3+ hours runtimes are the result of a failure to cut material that should be cut rather than having an abundance of material that can't be cut without detracting from the film.

This is where I stand. The movies mentioned in the comment above are excellent, and the lengthy run time does contributes to their quality, but there's a lot of films around that kind of run time which are bloated and have massive pacing issues.
 
This is where I stand. The movies mentioned in the comment above are excellent, and the lengthy run time does contributes to their quality, but there's a lot of films around that kind of run time which are bloated and have massive pacing issues.


That's what I'm saying.

There's probably thousands of films that have been made with 3hr+ runtimes and in this thread there's been barely 10 justified.

But I bet you they could have been chopped to 2.5hr and still been classics.

The trouble is that modern Directors are scared of leaving anything on the cutting room floor - their rivals are all making long films so they feel they have to do the same to keep up.

You cannot make a 3hr+ film that's gripping for the entire time, even the classics mentioned in here have some downtime within them.
 
No problem with 3 hour + movies, but an intermission would be nice.
 
My issue with 3h+ films is that most cinema seats become uncomfortable around the 2h30 mark. I know that's not the director's fault but it's pretty well known. It has to be a genuinely all time quality film to sit through it in one go.
 
Most filmmakers working today can't be trusted with much over 90 minutes but I'm happy to give 3 and a half hours to a Scorsese film. I've sat through 5 hour long films in a single sitting and I've cut a film off after 20 minutes. It's hard to deny that most modern films are too long and often much too long but that's due to a lack of skill and discipline, and complicit hedge fund studios, whose sole aim is to fill up as much netflix space as possible. Scorsese has shown time and again that he and Schoonmaker can pace a movie properly.
 
qpu6eiz8n5c51.jpg
 
We have far too many traditional 3+ hour plot/character driven films that demand non stop audience attention. It feels exhausting and rarely worth the time sink. But there aren’t enough 3+ hour film which are purely vibe based.

We need to bring back all night cinemas that only show the works of Tarkosky, Akerman, Tsai Ming Liang and Theo Angelopoulos. Instead of getting popcorn and Coca-Cola you are given a couple of diazepam pills and warm hot chocolate.
 
People won't watch a 3 hour film but if you split it up into 180 1 minute tiktoks people will watch them all in one go

fecking plebs
 
I'm fine with a movie this long. Length isn't the problem. The issue is that some writers/directors don't have the capacity to write good structure and pacing for longer movies, and/or choose the wrong genre to attempt this with. It's not so much the length that hampers them, but the lack of understanding how to make that length irrelevant and the plot and exposition engaging. The below are all-time classics at their respective lengths and you wouldn't (obviously in retrospect) change them.

Godfather ran nearly 3h
Godfather II at 3h20m
Lawrence of Arabia at 3h40m
Schindler's List at 3h15m
Ben-Hur at 3h25m
Titanic at 3h15m
Good, the Bad and the Ugly at 3h
Green Mile at 3h
Dances with Wolves at 3h
etc,

It's surprising how many of the greatest films ever made skirted or exceeded the three-hour run-time.
Yeah, good post. Even some of the/my more recent favorites are all around 2.5 hours or so and it still felt fairly short -: Braveheart, Goodfellas, Gladiator, Shawshank redemption etc.
 
Seeing this at my local VUE on Sunday, they have one screening per day with a 15 minute interval.

Please let this become a regular thing for 3hr+ films.