"King's Men" issue
One of the issues with All The King's Men (Columbia, 9.22), I'm being told, is "length." Director Steven Zallian "can't really part with any bit of it."
Best Picture toppers<< previous
|
next >>"Flags" poster
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 2, 2006 at 2:52 PM
comment #1
NYCBusybody says ...
So many movies these days would be so much better if they weren't so damn long. Filmmaker's, generally, I think, are these days too self-indulgent.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 2, 2006 3:11 PM
comment #2
ArchiveGuy says ...
Well, the original was just fine at 109 minutes. I wonder what "critical" parts were left out of that that Zallian's keen on keeping in his.
Posted by ArchiveGuy at August 2, 2006 3:29 PM
comment #3
gh says ...
Something tells me this movie is gonna be a long, dry march to sit through. It reeks of precious oscar bait.
Posted by gh at August 2, 2006 3:45 PM
comment #4
Haiku Harry says ...
Killing your babies
is hard but the best helmers
lose the extra stuff.
Posted by Haiku Harry at August 2, 2006 4:26 PM
comment #5
Mike Gebert says ...
It needs to be longer than the '49, because, each point needs to be underlined more fully to make it more obvious to audiences, and every third scene needs to end with a swell of music and a montage of ordinary people listening to Willie, wheat rippling in the bayou, people clapping, Jude Law going cluck-cluck, Seabiscuit winning the big race...
Posted by Mike Gebert at August 2, 2006 4:48 PM
comment #6
Pedro says ...
Does anyone know what the current running time of the movie is? That might give some perspective on the validity of this issue. Which may not be an issue at all. Or maybe it is. Who the fuck knows?
Posted by Pedro at August 2, 2006 5:05 PM
comment #7
Edward Havens says ...
According to the people who do recruitment screenings that I've been talking to, and according to the Sony Pictures Exhibitor Relations site, the film has been locked in at 129 minutes for several months now. 2:09 is the exact same length as World Trade Center, and 12 minutes shorter than Seabiscuit. But like with any other movie, if the film keeps the interest of its audience, it doesn't matter how long the film is. Thus, any perceived problem with ATKM isn't length but the composition of the film, or lack thereof.
Posted by Edward Havens at August 2, 2006 5:43 PM
comment #8
Neeb says ...
Since this is Sony we're dealing with, we can expect an inital DVD release of the Theatrical Cut. Then a release of a SE DVD of the Theatrical cut. Then a release of an extended cut. Then the Blu-Ray release and the cycle starts. All. Over. Again.
Posted by Neeb at August 3, 2006 1:33 AM
comment #9
D. N. says ...
This version is supposed to be true to the novel which tells a complex nuanced story. The original film was so oversimplified it lost all the soul of the book. The new movie looks very promising. If it's good, who cares how long it takes to say what it's got to say.
Posted by D. N. at August 3, 2006 3:00 PM
comment #10
Rosemary Storaska says ...
Those of us that frequent the Independent Film circles are hearing many things about the upcoming fall premiere of 'The Last King of Scotland' and you and others are listing it as a potential Oscar nom for Forest Whitaker. From what I understand it would be a travesty if that did not happen. However, many are applauding Gillian Anderson's supporting role in this same film? The role plays an important part within the book but does she get enough air time in this adaption, which seems to stray from the text, to land her such a nomination? I have seen Gillian Anderson on stage in London and in Bleak House and would not be surprised. Anyone have more information on why these people are getting mentioned?
Posted by Rosemary Storaska at August 8, 2006 7:55 AM