Your most underwhelming critically acclaimed multi award-winning films

[Spymaster]

Long films never put me off. Never understand why so many here are down on the length of a film.

Some films can pull it off, many can’t. If it’s used up all its interest (or lack thereof) in the first couple of hours, the additional time can often be torturous. One of the best ways to fuck-up a film is to make it too long.

 

[Cloo]

La La Land is cute but not sure what the fuss was about.

 

[A380]

Everyone remembers the end of Paddington Two.

It was Paddington’s sledge in the end.

 

[A380]

La La Land is cute but not sure what the fuss was about.

Yeah, I’m still not sure if it’s just quite a good fun film or one of the greatest films ever made. Be a few years yet.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

.

 

[Raheem]

Goodnight and Good Luck. Fell asleep.

Perhaps they titled it with you in mind.

 

[surreybrowncap]

Oscars are often too slow to react to the truly great films, and usually end up piling honours on mediocre crap by directors who were great several decades ago - I give you, as an example, Martin Scorsese.

Scorsese has only won one Oscar....

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

.

 

[A380]

The English Patient.

Shitloads of Oscars, absolute pile of wank.

The book was great though.

 

[8ball]

Titanic
Avatar
The Greatest Showman

ugh never mind I'll be here all day if I go on

I thought these were generally acknowledged as being shite.

 

[Flavour]

Days of heaven

 

[Mrs Miggins]

On the basis of how I felt when the credits rolled at a showing on Saturday, I might add Killers of the Flower Moon to this list.

Is it dull then?
My feeling is that it probably is.
Because the posters are absolutely insisting that it's some gigantic masterpiece with career best performances all round.

 

[Sue]

Long films never put me off. Never understand why so many here are down on the length of a film.

I've nothing against long films when they genuinely merit their length. Five and a half hours of Abel Gance's Napoleon? Bring it on. 185 minutes of Barry Lyndon? Absolutely.

But three flabby hours of Damien Chazelle's, Babylon? Three and a half self-indulgent hours of The Irishman? Absolutely not.

Most contemporary films that are heading towards two and a half hours have absolutely no need to be that long and would be tighter, better and more interesting with some judicious editing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

7.5 hours of Satantango.

I did it in shifts...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The English Patient.

Shitloads of Oscars, absolute pile of wank.

I really liked it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My go-to on these lists:

Schindler's List. Saccharine sweet and manipulative in a really misjudged way.

I had a similar feeling about the more recent Mudbound.

 

[persimmon]

I've nothing against long films when they genuinely merit their length. Five and a half hours of Abel Gance's Napoleon? Bring it on. 185 minutes of Barry Lyndon? Absolutely.

But three flabby hours of Damien Chazelle's, Babylon? Three and a half self-indulgent hours of The Irishman? Absolutely not.

Most contemporary films that are heading towards two and a half hours have absolutely no need to be that long and would be tighter, better and more interesting with some judicious editing.

Thanks for the reminder about Napoleon. Must watch this.

 

[DaveCinzano]

The Deer Hunter, was further hampered by the fact that it’s fucking boring.

And where was the sexy casino scene I was expecting?!

 

[surreybrowncap]

The English Patient.

Shitloads of Oscars, absolute pile of wank.

 

[rubbershoes]

Has anyone mentioned Jerry Maguire?

Such a terrible film

 

[krtek a houby]

Has anyone mentioned Jerry Maguire?

Such a terrible film

Apart from the "show me the money" quote, can't remember anything about it.

 

[scifisam]

Shakespeare in Love. Painful to watch in every way and won mainly because postmodernism was en vogue.

I suspect most people have forgotten that it won a boatload of Oscars.

 

[Sue]

Apart from the "show me the money" quote, can't remember anything about it.

You had me at 'show me the money'.

 

[surreybrowncap]

Shakespeare in Love. Painful to watch in every way and won mainly because postmodernism was en vogue.

I suspect most people have forgotten that it won a boatload of Oscars.

The despicable Weinstein made that happen…

 

[rubbershoes]

Apart from the "show me the money" quote, can't remember anything about it.

You're lucky.

It won a bunch of acting awards. Presumably the judges misread the brief and thought they were handing out overacting awards

 

[Sweet FA]

I've nothing against long films when they genuinely merit their length. Five and a half hours of Abel Gance's Napoleon? Bring it on. 185 minutes of Barry Lyndon? Absolutely.

But three flabby hours of Damien Chazelle's, Babylon? Three and a half self-indulgent hours of The Irishman? Absolutely not.

Most contemporary films that are heading towards two and a half hours have absolutely no need to be that long and would be tighter, better and more interesting with some judicious editing.

I agree re: long films. Though I loved The Irishman first time round; less so on repeated viewings.

Kermode talks about this on his Killers of the Flower Moon review. Basically there's a cinematic length and a 4 part series length; films are getting caught between the 2 - basically what's your story and how long do you need to tell it?

Fwiw, I saw Killers of the Flower Moon on Saturday and loved that too, though I love Scorsese/De Niro/DiCaprio so was always going to be biased. I didn't mind the running time but others in our party had to make a run for it at the 2.5 hour mark.


Kermode saying what Sue said from 7:12 onwards:

 

[scifisam]

I think some of these long movies merit the run-time - Oppenheimer did, IMO. With some others, it might just be hard to tell because you're exhausted by the second half and probably missed something when popping out to the loo.

What we need is the return of intermissions. Cinemas would fucking love it because although they'd be able to show fewer movies they'd make more money from snack and drinks sales, viewers would love it, and the film-makers would get more bums on seats. And it's not a sign of "modern viewers having short attention spans" - the peak time of long epics at the cinema always included intermissions.

AFAIR, cinemas are not allowed to show long movies with intermissions unless it's been specifically agreed.

 

[skyscraper101]

I'd like the option of seeing films either with or without intermissions. I can see the appeal of it, but then I can also imaging not wanting to prolong an already long experience. It would be nice to be able to select like when we could choose between 2D or 3D movies.

 

[scifisam]

I'd like the option of seeing films either with or without intermissions. I can see the appeal of it, but then I can also imaging not wanting to prolong an already long experience. It would be nice to be able to select like when we could choose between 2D or 3D movies.

Yep, good point. Pretty sure the multi-screen cinemas could manage that.

 

[AverageJoe]

We genuinely need Reno back