Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:I haven't read many good reviews. 4 hours is a long goddamn time

53 positive reviews on metacritic

You could watch the Kermode review on YouTube like tree did

There's a group of us (friends of mine here in NYC) that are pretty critical of Marty in general, which I'm sure comes as no surprise to those I've posted with for a long time.

Anyway, of all of us in this tribe, I'm the one who has expressed the most interest in this movie. And obviously, even my interest is pretty minimal. But I am interested.

One of this group "reluctantly" (his words) saw the movie today and he said.... "Not worth it. It's at least an hour longer than it needs to be and the story unfolds about as slow as a story can unfold and it never takes an interesting turn even once."

He and I usually have fairly similar reads on movies, so that review isn't a good sign. But I do think I'll still see it eventually.

Did these friends like Barbie?

Monkey_Driven wrote:Did these friends like Barbie?

Duh

do these friends drool a lot?

Not to my knowledge, no. Do you?

The Argonaut wrote:do these friends drool a lot?

4 hours?!

BurtReynolds wrote:4 hours?!

there oughtta be a law (though the reality is that it is only 3h26m).

I googled "killers of the flower moon intermission" before I went and was sad but not surprised to read that there wasn't one. The article also included Scorsese justifying that by talking about people watch TV for five hours at a stretch all the time.

But that is pretty unfair. I've never sat un-moving on the couch for 3 and a half hours, let alone five. Sure, I've binged seven episodes of something in a day, but it's broken up with multiple bathroom breaks, snacks, maybe a meal. I don't love that these three-plus hour runtimes are a regular occurrence of late. Have a little humility, folks

Sounds like ol Marty is up his own ass right now.

There's artistic talent in being able to edit. I'll argue that maybe that is the truest art form. Editing.

It's a good movie. You'd like it. It's not indulgent and actually includes one of the most personally humble moments any filmmaker has ever committed to screen. Read a little about Osage involvement in the process and I think you'll be happy. This is not Scorsese up his own ass at all. This is Scorsese at his most humanitarian.

It's just long

fuck intermission

sit there and watch, and if you need to go to the bathroom hurry up

was this the best De Niro performance since....what...mm Heat maybe? He was very good on both CopLand and Jackie Brown so maybe since those two...

holy cow, you're right

epilogue wrote:Not to my knowledge, no. Do you?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Also, Lily Gladstone was good. Not an easy taskk to be around De Niro and Di Caprio and she was really good.

He's never been great at ending his movies. Many just kinda sputter out after the natural end. He's weird that way.

I really have no problem with there being 3 hour, even 4 hour movies. Some short movies can feel incredibly long and some long movies can fly right by.

All respect to Joe's grown-up theater kid tribe but I am very excited to watch this tomorrow

I can't speak for the rest of my Scorsese is overrated tribe but I hope you enjoy it.