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

[Robert Harris]

If my math is correct it comes to 3 hours 26 minutes, and I assume like all movie run times that includes credits. 49 years ago, not quite 50, Godfather Part II came out at 3:22, did it have an intermission? 20 years ago Return of the King came out at 3:21 and I know for sure it didn’t have an intermission. That extra 5 minutes demands an intermission? Really? I haven’t seen Killers of the Flower Moon, maybe it is just boring and that is why so many people keep saying it needs an intermission.

GF II did have an intermission.

 

[Kyle_D]

I wonder if the film would have been better without DiCaprio in the leading role? I find him too distracting.

This is my main issue with the film. DiCaprio is a fine actor, but he's miscast here. He's too slick and charismatic to play a character so dumb and pathetically subservient to De Niro. The film would have been stronger if Leo had stuck in the Tom White role and Plemons had played Ernest.

 

[SD_Brian]

Interesting. I have never equated running time with the quality of a film.

As Roger Ebert used to say, "No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."

 

[Jake Lipson]

20 years ago Return of the King came out at 3:21 and I know for sure it didn’t have an intermission. That extra 5 minutes demands an intermission? Really?

The industry is not the same as it was 20 years ago. There weren't as many trailers and ads running before a movie as there are now. Therefore, the total time commitment was less.

Also, the theatrical window was much longer. The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers didn't come out on DVD until the following August after December premieres. People knew they were going to have to wait longer to see Return of the King at home.

Killers of the Flower Moon doesn't have a streaming release date yet, but I think it is fair to assume it won't take until August 2024 for Apple to put it up.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Without addressing the intermission controversy directly, Scorsese did recently say this:

“People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours,” Scorsese said. “Also, there are many people who watch theatre for three and a half hours. There are real actors on stage — you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect; give cinema some respect.”

Theatre has an intermission, Marty.

 

[SD_Brian]

One of the greatest films ever made, in my opinion, is Bondarchuk’s War and Peace, at 8 plus hours.

War and Peace was only 7 hours, 11 minutes, but in 1966-67, it was released in 4 parts (147 minutes, 100 minutes, 84 minutes, and 100 minutes). When I saw the full movie theatrically, it had 2 15-minute intermissions, plus a one-hour meal break.

I don't know if this is true, but I recall reading somewhere that Erich Von Stroheim's intention with Greed was to show his original 9-hour version silent, with no musical score, and no intermission. Fortunately I don't think we have (m)any filmmakers who are quite that perverse these days.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Theatre has an intermission, Marty.

Exactly. Shows are designed that way. They benefit from the intermission. The Phantom of the Opera dropped the chandelier immediately before intermission. This got people really excited to come back for the second act but also provided time for the crew to get the chandelier off the stage before the second act began. It would be different if the show was produced without an intermission.

I think finding the right running time for a movie is one of the challenges of being a filmmaker. The Lion King is only 88 minutes. Avengers: Endgame is three hours. I think both of those movies are great as they are because both of them use the time that they take up to tell the story effectively. I don't think there's any fat on either of them. Both tell the story effectively in the time that they need to tell it.

That should be the goal. Filmmakers should find the right running time for each of their films based on what the story requires, and each one is going to be different. It seems to me that getting it right is one of the interesting challenges of the job.

 

[maxfabien]

To have an intermission during a 3-hour+ movie has nothing to do with its quality. The only concern is allowing the audience a potty break. Even if one goes just before the movie starts, not everyone, especially older movie-goers, can hold it that long. It's just a courtesy to your paying audience, especially if you want them to buy the giant cups of Coke that you advertise before the trailers start.

 

[TravisR]

If I had to take a whiz, I'd just create my own intermission and get up & go to the bathroom.

And I give some credit to the theater chains for not trying to force intermissions into movies just to sell more concessions.

 

[Jake Lipson]

If I had to take a whiz, I'd just create my own intermission and get up & go to the bathroom.

Sure. But then you'd miss the movie. This is part of why I never eat or drink at the movies.

And I give some credit to the theater chains for not trying to force intermissions into movies just to sell more concessions.

Intermissions take time, which adds to the total length of running the movie. That means fewer shows per day. So yes, you might sell more concessions to the people who are there. But theoretically, more shows mean more customers showing up for those additional showtimes.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Can we move on from this intermission discussion. It’s becoming repetitive as the subject matter has been fully discussed over the last several days.

 

[TravisR]

Sure. But then you'd miss the movie. This is part of why I never eat or drink at the movies.

Same here.

Intermissions take time, which adds to the total length of running the movie. That means fewer shows per day. So yes, you might sell more concessions to the people who are there. But theoretically, more shows mean more customers showing up for those additional showtimes.

Don't get me wrong, the theaters aren't doing it altruistically but if they wanted to push for intermissions on the many long movies today, I bet they could get it. Also, how long is an intermission? Ten minutes? This movie is so long that they don't have that many shows a day so ten minutes would really only add half an hour to the day.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Ultimately, the issue of whether or not there is an intermission only impacts the current, and most likely relatively brief, theatrical window. While it is a valid discussion, there is a natural end point for the problem. Audiences will be able to create their own intermissions anytime they want while watching at home without missing a moment of the film. The whole issue will disappear when the film is no longer in theaters. What will be left for all time is the film itself, and it is a very good one. In the long term, people won't remember it for the lack of an intermission because they'll be able to put one in. They will remember it for its quality.

 

[Richard Kaufman]

Dying to see this film in a theater, but my bladder will require two trips and I just HATE to miss things. Usually I can feel the beats of the screenplay well enough to time my exits, but still. An intermission would have been appreciated.
I might add that the intermission in "Heaven's Gate" produced one of the most artistic and intriguing moments in the film ... and it was stupidly removed when transferred to blu-ray.

 

[madfloyd]

I find myself avoiding 3 hour films, even at home. I know I'm missing out on a lot of good movies and I hope eventually I will watch them...

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

With my new A-List membership, gonna give my bladder a serious workout and try a 3-film marathon in following order today, not just the one for Marty's flick:

*My Heavenly City (very shortly at AMC Empire 25... partly because it's my last good chance for a friend's indy run over here)

*Killers of the Flower Moon (at AMC Lincoln Square IMAX in early evening)

*Probably Radical... although also considering The Holdovers or Priscilla or maybe The Marsh King's Daughter (all at 9-10pm also at AMC Lincoln Square)

_Man_

 

[Dick]

I hate to further the distraction, but intermissions can be extremely effective in dramas. Two particular examples come to mind where they greatly enhanced the movie. Fiddler on the Roof and Dr. Zhivago. Gone With the Wind wasn't bad either.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Best use of an intermission I can think of. It's brilliant, in fact.

 

[Dick]

I hope that Mr. Scorcese has some sort of clause in his agreement with Apple that allows for physical media release.

 

[Jeff_L]

All the people complaining about trailers and commercials, show up later if you hate sitting through them so much. And I don’t see how the release window of a movie should dictate whether or not it should have an intermission. Are you trying to say people will just wait and stream it if they can’t sit through it at the theater? That can be said for a 85 minute kids movie. If you want to stream it, then stream it. That is the argument being made right now by movie theaters, that a theatrical release benefits the financial prospects of movie. I guess you are saying a movie that is too long negates that benefit? Not if it is a good movie. Again, if the length of Killers of a Flower Moon is such a sore spot for so many viewers, then maybe it isn’t that great of movie.

 

[owen35]

GF II did have an intermission.

Was that upon its original release and then removed later? I honestly don't recall seeing one when I saw it in the theaters. When I saw the intermission appear in restored video release, I remember being surprised by seeing it and going "wow, okay, this film really needed an intermission." Just curious how faulty my memory has become!