Has there ever been a slower, more self-indulgent movie?
I don't think so.
shareSo you watched the whole thing?
And you ended up with that opinion over all?
I really liked the movie.
If you hated it all that much, what a boring life you must lead to continue to watch something you disliked so much.
And just to use a double edged sword...
If you did not watch it all the way through, maybe you missed something.
Sorry it was so horrible for you.
So you watched the whole thing?
Yes.
And you ended up with that opinion over all?
Yes.
I really liked the movie.
Good.
If you hated it all that much, what a boring life you must lead to continue to watch something you disliked so much.
Well, I was hoping the movie would have some redeeming feature. It didn't.
And just to use a double edged sword...
You're using that phrase incorrectly.
If you did not watch it all the way through, maybe you missed something.
I watched all of that wretched & boring movie.
Sorry it was so horrible for you.
Thank you, but I don't think you are sincere. share
[deleted]
You thought this was "slow" and "self-indulgent?"
How many films have you watched that didn't include Harry Potter, a comic-book super-hero or seven, or was set in New Zealand make-believe land? One?
I'd guess at least three. But more than enough to know that there hasn't been a slower and more indulgent movie. share
jimmysmitsimdb^
Your responses are funny LOL
However, I do think there have been slower, more self-indulgent movies.
'Parts Per Billion', for example.
~~ Never trust the teller, trust the tale ~ ~ D.H. Lawrence
I think you are probably in your twenties and have not done much reading outside of periodicals.
Your of the class that "watches" movies.To hold your interest,cgi and loud noises need to be involved.
Try reading one of the classics and see if you can get through it.Then pick up Bram Stokers Dracula.Only because Byzantium is born from the story.
Don't rush to get through life.
Actually I didn't find this to be very slow moving. It's more moderately paced than modern superhero blockbusters, sure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This movie was more about character study than action, and it was my favorite vampire film since Let the Right One In. If you think this is slow, look at some classic Academy Award winners (which are super-self-indulgent) such as The Godfather (1 and 2), Lawrence of Arabia, The King's Speech, Ordinary People, The Piano, or Out of Africa just to name a few off the top of my head. There are horror and action films that may be much more your cup of tea, and that's fine. This was also classified as a drama which can be an acquired taste.
shareMany of my favourite films are very often called slow. Blade Runner, Let The Right One In, The before trilogy and this film. I also like some high octane action films, but they don't tend to be something that I revisit often long after release (their are of course exceptions) whereas this 'slower' films I continue to revisit far more often.
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
This movie was NOT "good slow" like Bladerunner or 2001. It was, as OP says, poorly paced and noticeably self-conscious.
It's one thing to take a leisurely pace because it suits the movie and the mood, and quite another to move slowly for the sake of moving slowly. If you're going to fill two hours, you should be certain that you have two hours of narrative that justifies the length, otherwise you're just bloating the film with filler.
Don't get me wrong, the performances (particularly Saoirse Ronan and her love interest) were solid, and the cinematography was exceptional at times. The soundtrack was also moving and moody. But for a movie that takes so much time to move the narrative forward, it did an awful job explaining particulars of the backstory and patching plot holes.
For example, the Brotherhood: Who were they? Why did the organization exist? Why were there no women? Why was the secret of immortality theirs alone? And why did they conveniently show up just as the military character was dying and looking for a fountain of eternal youth?
And to the people ridiculing OP's apparent taste in movies, jump down off that high horse. Just because a movie aspires to be art, or presents itself as art, doesn't mean it actually is art. At its heart this is a genre film. A genre film dressed up in artsie trappings, but still a genre film.
"It was, as OP says, poorly paced and noticeably self-conscious".
Actually, the OP doesn't say either of those things.
"And to the people ridiculing OP's apparent taste of movies, jump down off that high horse".
They're ridiculing his knowledge of film, not his tastes - if he really thinks it's the slowest movie ever made, or even anywhere close, he cannot possibly have seen many films outside the contemporary popcorn fare.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I watched it last night and have to agree with the OP. Very slow paced movie.
share