Bad Times at the El Royale | Jon Hamm’s next film | October 5, 2018 | Fox | Drew Goddard | Also has Chris Hemsworth, Jeff Bridges, Russell Crowe, Dakota Johnson

[The Futurist]

8 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Premiering at Fantastic Fest.

 

https://deadline.com/2018/09/fantastic-fest-bad-times-at-the-el-royale-set-as-mid90s-under-the-silver-lake-1202463741/

It s Sci-Fi then.

[DMan7]

Daaamn, how much "Fests" are there?

[Valonqar]

On 9/2/2018 at 2:57 PM, Nova said:

I have heard really good things about this. I'll definitely be watching out for it come October. Sucks that it's getting released in such a crowded month but hopefully it can be a a good counter act type of movie and attract a crowd to make some decent money at the BO. 

I'm hoping for huge OW and shockingly good legs because everyone expects it to fall off the cliff after OW. 

[filmlover]

Embargo is over.

 

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/bad-times-at-the-el-royale-review-1202959552/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/bad-times-at-el-royale-review-1145093

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/09/bad-times-at-the-el-royale-review-1202007676/

https://www.thewrap.com/bad-times-at-the-el-royale-film-review-chris-hemsworth-jon-hamm-dakota-johnson/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/09/27/review-bad-times-at-the-el-royale-dakota-johnson-jeff-bridges-chris-hemsworth-jon-hamm-cynthia-erivo/#515857891a57

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/09/28/bad-times-at-the-el-royale-review

https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/bad-times-at-the-el-royale-review/5132881.article

[WrathOfHan]

This will probably end up in the 60s on RT. Ehrlich was extremely positive at least

[Eric Atreides]

Checking the Variety review, and I noticed this shiz is 2h21m.

 

😕

[WrathOfHan]

Just now, CoolEric258 said:

Checking the Variety review, and I noticed this shiz is 2h21m.

 

😕

That definitely won't do its box office any favors.

[filmlover]

This is probably destined to make between $30-40M total at best regardless of running time.

[Nova]

4 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

Checking the Variety review, and I noticed this shiz is 2h21m.

 

😕

And there goes me seeing it in theaters. 

[Krissykins]

I knew this would happen with the reviews when it didn’t play at any of the earlier festivals. 

 

Exact same runtime as Wonder Woman: 2h21m

 

Fine with me.  

[Firepower]

Are there people who really don't watch movies just because of a runtime?! (and 2.20 is not too long) What's wrong with you?

[Nova]

3 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Are there people who really don't watch movies just because of a runtime?! (and 2.20 is not too long) What's wrong with you?

Yes? I have a busy schedule where I only get a certain amount of free time in the day so now if a movie is very long, I usually wait to watch it at home on my own time as opposed to going to the theater which for a 2 hour and 20 minute film ends up up being a 3.5 hour trip between getting there, the trailers, the film and driving back. 

 

Unless I really really wanna watch the movie in theaters, which in that case, I will free up time in my schedule later down the line to be able to see it. Otherwise I'll just wait to see it on streaming. 

[CoolioD1]

it's genuinely exciting when i find out a new movie that's getting great reviews is only like 95 minutes long. same thing when a much praised album is only 35 minutes. like that new lil wayne album is 88 minutes long. i'd have listened to it if it was half as long but nah no interest in that much lil wayne. same deal here this is the new lil wayne album of movies.

[Eric Atreides]

I've got mild anxiety, and it's gotten to a point where whenever I go to a movie, I'm wasting my time, that I should be doing something else important instead of wasting 2+ hours in a theater. That's why I'm often multitasking when I'm watching something on streaming. There's only so many hours in a day after all. When a movie is 2+ hours, it's even worse, because I feel like I'm wasting even more time. Obviously I can enjoy 2+ hour movies, but typically my anxiety is less annoyed when something is only 100 minutes long or something.

[Firepower]

53 minutes ago, Nova said:

Yes? I have a busy schedule where I only get a certain amount of free time in the day so now if a movie is very long, I usually wait to watch it at home on my own time as opposed to going to the theater which for a 2 hour and 20 minute film ends up up being a 3.5 hour trip between getting there, the trailers, the film and driving back. 

 

Unless I really really wanna watch the movie in theaters, which in that case, I will free up time in my schedule later down the line to be able to see it. Otherwise I'll just wait to see it on streaming. 

So... you have less than 3 hours of free time on Sunday/Saturday and watch only 90 minutes movies? I'm really sorry, life sucks I guess, but there are very few good movies with 90 minutes running time these days. And 2:20 is not very long, most of the cbm movies have a similar running time.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Firepower

[filmlover]

If the reviews were negative I could see the argument for the running time being a detriment (FYI First Man that same weekend is just as long and A Star is Born is only 5 minutes shorter than either so we're just in the season of long movies). But since they're mostly positive (it's at a 66 on MC) I doubt that'll be a factor if this underperforms (which is possible I guess, this always looked like something that would be limited in appeal regardless of running time).

Edited September 28, 2018 by filmlover

[WrathOfHan]

I'm normally a big proponent of movies under 100 minutes, but 3/5 movies in my top 5 of the year so far are over 2:15 and another is just under 2 hours. It's not so much that long runtimes suck, just that many directors can't handle making long movies.

[Nova]

1 minute ago, Firepower said:

So... you have less than 3 hours of free time on Sunday/Saturday and watch only 90 minutes movies? I'm really sorry, life sucks I guess, but there are very few good movies with 90 minutes running time these days. And 2:20 is not very long, most of the cbm movies have a similar running time.

As I said in my initial post: if it is a movie that I really really wanna watch, I will schedule it ahead of time and watch it. So if there is a comic book movie I want to watch, I will make time to watch it. I really wanted to watch A Simple Favor so I made time to watch that. A Star Is Born is over two hours long but since I am very interested in that movie, I am going to make time watch it. So when I know a movie is going to take over three hours of time on any given day I have to weigh where my priorities are at (spending time with my fiance, medical school, seeing my family etc) versus how badly do I want to see a movie in theaters. So not every film that I have mild interest in, I am going to go out of my way to make time to watch in theaters. It's just not realistic given my schedule right now. Hopefully once I am done with school, this won't be a problem but as it stands now, I don't have that kind of time. I have to keep my priorities in check otherwise I'd be at the theater several times a week, probably failing out of school and having my wedding get cancelled lol 

[CoolioD1]

speaking of all this i've been watching maniac and most eps are about 40-50 minutes but i just got to one that's only 26 minutes long and i was very turned on. 

[DAJK]

I never understood the obsession with runtimes. Some movies lend themselves to longer runtimes and some to shorter ones. It depends on the movie itself, so I never understood the standard placed on all movies to be “over/under” X time