Babylon - Damien Chazelle; Margot Robbie; Brad Pitt | Paramount | December 23, 2022 nationwide

[Krissykins]

3hrs8mins is a bit pretentious for something like this. 

[dudalb]

13 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

3hrs8mins is a bit pretentious for something like this. 

Given the story covers over 25 years......

[filmlover]

11 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

3hrs8mins is a bit pretentious for something like this. 

I mean, this has been drawing comparisons to The Wolf of Wall Street from the very beginning (down to Robbie and reports of them needing to make edits to avoid an NC-17), might as well go all the way with a running time only a few minutes longer.

 

I can already tell the "why are movie's so long today?" articles are going to be everywhere this holiday season because there's also been reports going around that Avatar is really long too (not a surprise given the runtime of the original). If it turns out the Whitney movie is 2.5 hours or more as well I'm gonna be planning to spend half the holidays in a theater.

[dudalb]

On 10/21/2022 at 12:41 AM, babz06 said:

Yeah unless Pitt is charged with something it’s not going to affect the film. 

Agreed. unless it's really bad, ugly breakups are pretty common in Hollywood.

[dudalb]

24 minutes ago, Maggie said:

The Wolf of Wall Street was three hours too and it did good in theaters.

Then there was Avengers Endgame;.........

 

 

[dudalb]

4 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I mean, this has been drawing comparisons to The Wolf of Wall Street from the very beginning (down to Robbie and reports of them needing to make edits to avoid an NC-17), might as well go all the way with a running time only a few minutes longer.

 

I can already tell the "why are movie's so long today?" articles are going to be everywhere this holiday season because there's also been reports going around that Avatar is really long too (not a surprise given the runtime of the original). If it turns out the Whitney movie is 2.5 hours or more as well I'm gonna be planning to spend half the holidays in a theater.

It makes one laugh.

You heard similair comments in the late 50 and early 60's when  Three Hour plus films were commonplace.

One comic joked when "Exodus" clocked in at three hours and 40 Minutes, that you did not get an intermission in the movie, you got a parole......

I think True lies was the last Cameron film in come in under three hours.....

[baumer]

Since when is north of three hours a bother to anyone here?  Titanic, LOTR, Avatar and other are all north of three hours long.  If the film is entertaining and engaging, no one will care.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Paramount didn't sell this to a streamer , let's see if it pays off

[Saul Goodman]

Hoping it doesn't turn out to be another Amsterdam. I still wish Tarantino got to release his 4 hours cut of OUATIH.

[Ryan Reynolds]

12 minutes ago, Saul Goodman said:

Hoping it doesn't turn out to be another Amsterdam. I still wish Tarantino got to release his 4 hours cut of OUATIH.

its quality if we go by early screening , but we don't know how limited the appeal is , Chazelle is not Tarantino or even Fincher, so it may not find an audience at first

[Joel M]

10 hours ago, dudalb said:

I think True lies was the last Cameron film in come in under three hours.....

 

Avatar's theatrical cut I think was 2 and half hours.

 

I agree with @baumer about the runtime whining every time a movies is 2,5-3 hours. People gotta pee but if a movie is good, a movie is good. Maybe if they bring intermission back in a casual way for all longer movies people will stop complaining. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Joel M

[JustLurking]

31 minutes ago, Joel M said:

 

Avatar's theatrical cut I think was 2 and half hours.

 

I agree with @baumer about the runtime whining every time a movies is 2,5-3 hours. People gotta pee but if a movie is good, a movie is good. Maybe if they bring intermission back in a casual way for all longer movies people will stop complaining. 

Funny you say that because we have intermissions here in Italy and I despise it, just takes me out of the film. Is it really that hard to hold it for 2.5-3 hours?

[TheDarkKnightOfSteel]

Just a question...why i am only seeing people talking about Robbie when it comes to the film being a flop, and not her male co-stars? I mean Bale is right there, a much more experienced A-list actor and the trailer shows him much more.

 

I am not calling Bale a box office poison either. The days of an actor 's name alone selling tickets are long gone. If you make a movie that audiences want to see then they will see it.  A critically panned drama by David o Russell  ain't it .

[excel1]

Bale is not an outright box office draw. He is like Joaquin Phoenix on steroids - a highly intriguing actor in certain roles which he can make into mass appeal roles, i.e. when he played Dick Cheney, but he isn't Leo.

Edited October 28, 2022 by excel1

[XXR vs XXR]

As we all know, it’s not the length that matters but how well you use it. Some 2 hour films are more dense and complete than 3 hour films, while some 3 hour films are more engrossing and more brisk than 2 hour films. By either measure it’s not the runtime that makes or breaks the film.

[Krissykins]

16 hours ago, filmlover said:

I mean, this has been drawing comparisons to The Wolf of Wall Street from the very beginning (down to Robbie and reports of them needing to make edits to avoid an NC-17), might as well go all the way with a running time only a few minutes longer.

 

I can already tell the "why are movie's so long today?" articles are going to be everywhere this holiday season because there's also been reports going around that Avatar is really long too (not a surprise given the runtime of the original). If it turns out the Whitney movie is 2.5 hours or more as well I'm gonna be planning to spend half the holidays in a theater.

Yeh, I know last year there were a few 2hr40m+ movies in a row, maybe Eternals, House of Gucci and West Side Story. 
 

I just think with this film, watching drunk and drugged people partying might get a bit grating at 3 hours plus. 

[Maggie]

14 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 

I just think with this film, watching drunk and drugged people partying might get a bit grating at 3 hours plus. 

It wasn't grating in Wolf of Wall Street. The budget is apparently 78M, not 100M

 

The problem with this movie is Margot is doing her Harley quin thing and that was annoying the first time around

Edited October 28, 2022 by Maggie

[filmlover]

19 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

Yeh, I know last year there were a few 2hr40m+ movies in a row, maybe Eternals, House of Gucci and West Side Story. 
 

I just think with this film, watching drunk and drugged people partying might get a bit grating at 3 hours plus. 

I'm sure there's much more to it than the trailer is indicating (especially with that runtime). The "come see big stars do crazy stuff" angle will help sell it to the masses. 

[Krissykins]

52 minutes ago, Maggie said:

It wasn't grating in Wolf of Wall Street.

Yeh it was lol

[Pinacolada]

3 hours ago, filmlover said:

I'm sure there's much more to it than the trailer is indicating (especially with that runtime). The "come see big stars do crazy stuff" angle will help sell it to the masses. 

Yeah the movie I think is the best comparison is Boogie Nights. Everything is fun in the first act, tons of sex and partying, but then at the New Years party it takes an immediate dark turn. Babylon is very similar. It goes to a very dark place in the last hour or so. Tobey Maguire's sequence will be very similar to Alfred Molina's sequence in that movie. You can see some glimpses of it in the trailer and it looks freaky