A Movie Question (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Hewell]

What was the last movie, released in the US, that included a musical intermission?

A friend asked me this question the other day and I thought the collective minds of everyone here would help me answer him.

 

[Ejanss]

The last 3 hr.+ movies I recall that HAD intermissions, even silent ones, were Reds in 1981 and The Last Emperor in 1987.
(Titanic had written in a break for one, but studios thought audiences wouldn't return to the theater to see the ship sink; Peter Jackson didn't want to break the worlds of the Lord of the Rings movies, and nobody's used them since.)

That would put it sometime in the 70's...Did "A Bridge Too Far" have one in '77?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Maybe Che. ?

 

[Mark-P]

The last 3 hr.+ movies I recall that HAD intermissions, even silent ones, were Reds in 1981 and The Last Emperor in 1987.
(Titanic had written in a break for one, but studios thought audiences wouldn't return to the theater to see the ship sink; Peter Jackson didn't want to break the worlds of the Lord of the Rings movies, and nobody's used them since.)

That would put it sometime in the 70's...Did "A Bridge Too Far" have one in '77?

The Last Emperor certainly did not have an intermission in 1987 and it only ran 2 hours and 43 minutes. The longer cut from 1998 may have had one but I don't know if this was ever released theatrically or not.

 

[Richard Travale]

Monty Python's the Meaning of Life? This was in '83

 

[FoxyMulder]

I Googled it, it came up with Ghandi, although if you are in India then Bollywood films to this day still have intermissions.

 

[Malcolm R]

The last 3 hr.+ movies I recall that HAD intermissions, even silent ones, were Reds in 1981 and The Last Emperor in 1987.
(Titanic had written in a break for one, but studios thought audiences wouldn't return to the theater to see the ship sink; Peter Jackson didn't want to break the worlds of the Lord of the Rings movies, and nobody's used them since.)

That would put it sometime in the 70's...Did "A Bridge Too Far" have one in '77?

The theater where I saw "Titanic" had an intermission. I still recall it because it was so odd, never having been to a film before that had one.

I don't know why anyone would care if some people don't return to the theater. They've already paid for their tickets. It would be no different than someone walking out in the middle of a bad film.

Plus, it might trigger a few more concession sales for the theaters as people restock on food and drinks.

But if you don't need to use the restroom, and don't want more food, intermission can be just annoying.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Any movie longer than three hours needs an intermission. Especially one where the last hour has as much sloshing water as Titanic does.

 

[TravisR]

The theater where I saw "Titanic" had an intermission.

That must have been a call made by that theater because Jim Cameron vetoed the idea of an intermission on Titanic because he correctly reasoned that if he had the audience halfway through the movie, he'd rather keep ratcheting up the tension and keep their attention.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

re: Titanic, I specifically remember one friend complaining about having to sit through three hours of sloshing water with no intermission!

 

[Kevin Hewell]

So, "Ghandi" seems to be the answer.