A Few Words About While we wait for a few words about… Killers Of The Flower Moon - in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I’ve been hearing a reasonable amount of negativity about Killers of the Flower Moon - based solely upon two attributes - length - it’s 206 minutes long, and it’s depressing.

Having seen the film yesterday, I can attest to the fact that both are true.

But in this situation, neither is a negative that should keep you away from seeing this film in a theater.

At 206 minutes, the film could have used an intermission, and had the film been made fifty years ago, would have had one. But this is not a film that could have been produced in that era. While I would never question Thelma Schoomaker’s editing abilities, I wondered how the film might be shortened. A few frames here, a foot there. And finally realized that if a minute or two were deleted, the film would still be long, and nothing would be changed - possibly aside from the film’s very delicately insistent pacing. In a way, it brought to mind Costa Gavras’ Z.

As far as depressing or dark, we’re viewing from the outside, and the film only allows a sample of what the Osage people endured.

There is a great deal to learn from this film, and a great deal to be digested.

I’m hopeful that, in some way, it aids the Osage Nation.

The film demands your time.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think it's a fine film that I plan on seeing again in a movie theater. I have some minor quibbles, but overall, it's a film that deserves the accolades it is receiving from critics and film goers.

 

[Wes Candela]

I’ve been hearing a reasonable amount of negativity about Killers of the Flower Moon - based solely upon two attributes - length - it’s 206 minutes long, and it’s depressing.

Having seen the film yesterday, I can attest to the fact that both are true.

But in this situation, neither is a negative that should keep you away from seeing this film in a theater.

At 206 minutes, the film could have used an intermission, and had the film been made fifty years ago, would have had one. But this is not a film that could have been produced in that era. While I would never question Thelma Schoomaker’s editing abilities, I wondered how the film might be shortened. A few frames here, a foot there. And finally realized that if a minute or two were deleted, the film would still be long, and nothing would be changed - possibly aside from the film’s very delicately insistent pacing. In a way, it brought to mind Costa Gavras’ Z.

As far as depressing or dark, we’re viewing from the outside, and the film only allows a sample of what the Osage people endured.

There is a great deal to learn from this film, and a great deal to be digested.

I’m hopeful that, in some way, it aids the Osage Nation.

The film demands your time.

Beautifully said, sir, beautifully said

 

[Stephen_J_H]

At 206 minutes, the film could have used an intermission, and had the film been made fifty years ago, would have had one. But this is not a film that could have been produced in that era. While I would never question Thelma Schoomaker’s editing abilities, I wondered how the film might be shortened. A few frames here, a foot there. And finally realized that if a minute or two were deleted, the film would still be long, and nothing would be changed - possibly aside from the film’s very delicately insistent pacing. In a way, it brought to mind Costa Gavras’ Z.

Agreed. If filmmakers are serious about preserving the theatrical experience, they would extend the olive branch of intermissions, which have the potential to increase concession sales.

 

[Josh Dial]

I actually think intermissions are rather classy. Like it elevates the movie (or theatre) going experience. Maybe it's silly thought.

But I'm surprised some of the marquee movies like Killers don't have intermissions--if only to make it feel even more special.

I'm also a sucker for a good entr'acte.

 

[Wayne_j]

Intermissions are definitely more classy. When a movie is 3+ hours they should be required. Although not like they do it in other countries where I hear that they randomly insert intermissions in movies that aren't designed to have them.

 

[Malcolm R]

I imagine most modern filmmakers don't want to interrupt the "narrative flow" of their film with an intermission.

 

[titch]

I’ve been hearing a reasonable amount of negativity about Killers of the Flower Moon - based solely upon two attributes - length - it’s 206 minutes long, and it’s depressing.

Having seen the film yesterday, I can attest to the fact that both are true.

But in this situation, neither is a negative that should keep you away from seeing this film in a theater.

At 206 minutes, the film could have used an intermission, and had the film been made fifty years ago, would have had one. But this is not a film that could have been produced in that era. While I would never question Thelma Schoomaker’s editing abilities, I wondered how the film might be shortened. A few frames here, a foot there. And finally realized that if a minute or two were deleted, the film would still be long, and nothing would be changed - possibly aside from the film’s very delicately insistent pacing. In a way, it brought to mind Costa Gavras’ Z.

As far as depressing or dark, we’re viewing from the outside, and the film only allows a sample of what the Osage people endured.

There is a great deal to learn from this film, and a great deal to be digested.

I’m hopeful that, in some way, it aids the Osage Nation.

The film demands your time.

Where would you have considered the optimal placement for an intermission? I certainly thought the film easily could have had one. And The Irishman, equally long at a bladder-prostate-and-kidney exploding 209 minutes, could absolutely have had an intermission.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I imagine most modern filmmakers don't want to interrupt the "narrative flow" of their film with an intermission.

True, but I can think of several longer films where I have forced an intermission for home viewing. Babylon, the first three Lord of the Rings movies, Gladiator.... a well placed intermission can actually strengthen narrative flow.

 

[Robert Harris]

Where would you have considered the optimal placement for an intermission? I certainly thought the film easily could have had one. And The Irishman, equally long at a bladder-prostate-and-kidney exploding 209 minutes, could absolutely have had an intermission.

Before Mr. Plemons entrance.

 

[JoshZ]

This is already a long movie, and an intermission would further cut down the number of screenings possible to fit in per day. I expect that theaters are opposed to them.

Yes, a few viewers might go to the concession stand during the break, but nowhere near as many as an additional screening would send that way before the show.

 

[plektret]

What's wrong with long movies? One of my all-time favorites, Rivette's Out 1, is 13 hours long.

 

[Kyle_D]

Have any Apple-owned productions received a physical release? I assumed this would be an AppleTV+ exclusive for the foreseeable future, unless Scorsese somehow managed a deal that would allow Criterion to license it after an exclusivity period. I have quibbles with the film, but I plan on revisiting it and wish I could own a copy.

 

[JoshZ]

What's wrong with long movies? One of my all-time favorites, Rivette's Out 1, is 13 hours long.

And you saw that in a theater in a single continuous screening with no intermissions?

 

[battlebeast]

I wonder if the negativity will hurt the film’s chances, especially Scorsese. He deserved an Oscar for RAGING BULL, and probably GOODFELLAS, could this be his year again?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I wonder if the negativity will hurt the film’s chances, especially Scorsese. He deserved an Oscar for RAGING BULL, and probably GOODFELLAS, could this be his year again?

I think the negativity is overstated and are minor issues to say the least.

 

[Tino]

I wonder if the negativity will hurt the film’s chances, especially Scorsese. He deserved an Oscar for RAGING BULL, and probably GOODFELLAS, could this be his year again?

I think this is Nolan’s year.

 

[TravisR]

I think this is Nolan’s year.

It might be but I think the fact that Flowers is coming out now (and Oppenheimer was three months ago) is going to get Scorsese another win.

 

[Interdimensional]

The last film I saw theatrically with an intermission was the 70mm Hateful 8. A superbly placed intermission.

I thoroughly enjoyed Killers of the Flower Moon. It's a brilliant and evocative film from a master who has not lost his touch. The underlying conflict unfolds very believably and is all the more damning in its unsentimental, matter-of-fact approach.

I would probably rate Oppenheimer's chances better, but Flower Moon was more my cup of tea. It won't be everyone's cup of tea.

 

[battlebeast]

I saw “Oppenheimer,” and I thought some of it was good; but a lot of boring talk (for me.)