MovieChat Forums > Se, jie (2007) Discussion > Great film, but is it really that slow?

Great film, but is it really that slow?

posted 17 years ago by pablo-taylor
5 replies | jump to latest

Saw this for the first time last night and found it to be overwhelmingly good; I'd heard great things about it, yet my expectations were still exceeded. However, I'm rather taken aback by the number of "serious" critics who've commented on it's "slow" pace. Now I'm aware that it may be slow compared to the average movie showing at your local multiplex, but this shouldn't be a problem to the types of people who've been raving about Zodiac, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood, should it? I was gripped from the first frame through to the very last and found that the 2.5 hrs seemed to fly past, have I really got a longer attention span than say, Roger Ebert (who laughably is often complaining about the hyper-kinetic editing of modern cinema)? Or is it just a case of them not wanting to heap praise on the director again so soon after his success with Brokeback Mountain?

Saving Private Ryan = Forty minutes of steely violence and two hours of cliché-ridden flab.

[–] zwot 17 years ago

I think it's too slow only for the viewer with a taste for action-adventures or romcoms, or those viewers who like the quick hit of youtube and MTV. (That's not a criticism, just a recognition of individual preferences.)

I wouldn't put any stock in anything Roger Ebert says. I really think he's just going through the motions nowadays. I stopped reading his reviews a few years ago when I noticed so many mistakes that it seemed he wasn't really paying attention to the films he reviewed.

[–] pablo-taylor 17 years ago

I agree with what you say but sadly Ebert wasn't alone; several other prominent critics have also mentioned it.

Saving Private Ryan = Forty minutes of steely violence and two hours of cliché-ridden flab.

[–] zwot 17 years ago

Y'know, I wonder if it isn't a cultural thing. Would those critics have all said the same thing about a similarly paced American film where they're able to more easily read the nuances because they're attuned to the actors' body language and facial expressions? I watch a lot of foreign films and I've acquired some cross-cultural understanding so, for me, this film was rich with unspoken meaning. Maybe that's why I (and you?) enjoyed it so much more than the critics who merely found it slow.

[–] pablo-taylor 17 years ago

Good point, maybe the idea that people "don't like reading films" is more prevalent than I thought and even extends to some so called "Film Snobs"?

Saving Private Ryan = Forty minutes of steely violence and two hours of cliché-ridden flab.

[–] PVarjak 16 years ago

I tend to love long, atmospheric, epics and have no problem with a 2.5+ hour film; but I do think this film dragged on a few occasions. This is not just a function of run-time; but of dramatic tension. And, as mentioned in a few other threads, there were opportunities to fill us in a bit more on some of the other characters.

In some minor respects, this film reminded me of what I felt like after seeing 'La Vie en Rose,' another long-ish film. At the end, I felt, 'that's it?' I felt that there could have been more packed into the time elapsed without too much difficulty. That said, I still think it's a very good film.