Word is that the current cut some have seen of Martin Scorsese’s Wolf of Wall Street clocks in at just under 3 hours. Is Marty seriously being pressured to trim it down closer to 120 minutes? Just because of an arbitrary time constraint predetermined months ago?
Slash an hour of a movie Scorsese says he’s happy with — just for the sake of squeezing in one more showing per day? Since the concept of sitting still for more than 2 hours of Scorsese is so unthinkable? Which 30 minutes would you want to cut from Casino or The Departed?
178 mins – Casino
175 mins – The Wolf of Wall Street
170 mins – The Aviator
167 mins – Gangs of New York
164 mins – Last Temptation of Christ
151 mins – The Departed
146 mins – Goodfellas
139 mins – The Age of Innocence
138 mins – Shutter Island
134 mins – Kundun
129 mins – Raging Bull
128 mins – Cape Fear
126 mins – Hugo
UPDATE: Roger Friedman at Showbiz411 is now saying he’s heard The Wolf won’t be released this year.
I’ve confirmed with sources the Wolf will not be at the door until next year. Disappointing for everyone, but good things come to those who wait… [Earlier] There have been rumors of three hour versions. The movie will not make its November 14th release date. Paramount is saying maybe they’ll make it for Christmas.
But that seems unlikely. Scorsese is committed to running the jury at the Marrakech Film Festival from November 29th to December 7th. That’s basically two weeks shot in the schedule. When Scorsese agreed to be the jury president he thought “Wolf” would already be in release. But rushing now, and having to be away for two weeks, seems impossible.
The Dude,
C’mon, a sports movie is a whole different ballgame, pardon the pun.
True, I’m not into wrestling, but there wasn’t too much in “The Wrestler” compared to everything else that was going on outside of the ring.
I’m a little more into baseball, but regardless, “Bull Durham” was funny and “Field of Dreams” was so much more, truly Oscar caliber.
“Rush” seems like (1) an action movie (2) about a sport I’m not into (3) with next to no Oscar potential.
The difference between The Wresler and Rush to my mind is The Wrestler dealt with more universal themes. Rush is basically about a rivalry between two racers and how that rivalry shapes their careers.
OT: Will someone like me who has ZERO interest in Formula One racing find anything substantial to like in “Rush?”
Yes! the reviews seem to indicate that at very least, it’s an exhilarating ride. Have you never liked a movie about a subject you previously didn’t give a hoot about? I love to watch most sports, except baseball -hate baseball- but absolutely love some baseball movies (MONEYBALL, FIELD OF DREAMS, BULL DURHAM)
plus if you happen to be gay: Chris Hemsworth
if you happen to be hetero: Olivia Wilde
if you happen to bi: Daniel Bruhl
asexual? Ron Howard directs
I’m going tonight midnight woohooo!!
p.s. I might not be the most sensible judge. I’m too pumped about it.
I had the same question in 2008: Will someone like me who has ZERO interest in pro wrestling find anything to like about The Wrestler?
Thank god for Marisa Tomei.
I have absolutely no interest in the methamphetamine and in genocide. Will I enjoy Breaking Bad and The Pianist?
For me, a three hour movie had better have a lot of dialogue, e.g., “Long Day’s Journey into Night” from the 60’s. I get antsy with lingering scenes that are wordless. The same thing makes me prefer opera to symphony, and Billie Holiday to Miles Davis.
I get antsy with lingering scenes that are wordless.
Wolf of Wall Street doesn’t look like it’ll be doing much wordless lingering.
True that.
Marty’s movies are pretty verbal and move along (although I still maintain that there’s almost always a little fat in most movies).
I get a kick out of studios (and audiences, for that matter) telling a filmmaker how long their movie should be, especially if the film has been completed and the money spent.
Whatever the filmmaker considers to be the final product should be what is released.
Imagine a 90 min. Lawrence of Arabia, a single volume Proust, or Hamlet with only one, easy to follow theme. Sorry, Homer, you have to cut some characters from The Iliad.
Not saying that Wolf will approach these, but it surely won’t be a 21 hr nonsensical filibuster, either.
Have to echo murtaza’s last sentence, “Hell i want to see another 3 hour movie by Scorsese and please let it be NC-17 if it is.” That’s what the studio needs to hear.
There are not enough visual effects to justify a 3-hour movie…on a side note, follow this link: http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/stories/is-it-really-lincoln-gettysburg-photo-stirs-debate
Apparently there is a pic going around of Lincoln as he prepares to deliver Gettysburg Address…do i smell a sequel to the original? Get to work Tony Kushner…
this is insanity, the only movie by Scorsese which needs a trim is Casino. The problem with Gangs of NY was Leo, very badly cast but the movie in fact should’ve been longer than it actually was, too much happens in the last half hour which makes the content look forced.
Kundun on the other hand, is Scorsese’s less good movie, though visually stunning it kind of tests the patience.
Hell i want to see another 3 hour movie by Scorsese and please let it be NC-17 if it is.
How sad! I love fat 3-hour+ movies: Titanic, Gone With The Wind, Ben-Hur, Barry Lyndon… Heck even Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit are basically 3×3-hour movies, but I must admit all these movies immerse spectators in a different universe or a different time, and most of them had a built-in audience.
Actually, I’m not sure I want to watch three hours of obnoxious golden boys stealing money and living it up. I sure hope Paramount will be handing out puke bags with this one. Thank god it’s not in 3D!
I’m going to update the post. If we can rely on Roger Friedman at Showbiz.411, he says he’s getting confirmation that The Wolf can’t be ready before Scorsese leaves the country for 2 weeks to be jury president at the Marrakesh film festival. (Nov 29- Dec 7)
I haven’t read anything that says he’s satisfied with the cut.
Very few movies, no matter who directs them, cross the 2.5 hour mark without some bloat.
“Kundun” is the only one in the above list of Marty’s oeuvre that I haven’t seen. All of the ones over 2.5 hours could use a trim.
Director’s cut is a good thing. But so is when a director doesn’t have total control, and with the opinions of others, makes a better, leaner film. ***We’ve seen the benefits of collaboration many many times, more times than some filmmakers would want us to believe (yup even the Hitchcocks and Kubricks. And I would stress that auteur theory is in some ways total BS, since no one can make a film completely on their own.*** I love Taxi Driver. And for its 113 minutes, it feels like a much longer movie. Casino was way bloated. The Departed, definitely bloated. Aviator and Gangs of New York, yup. Goodfellas, maybe a little, yes. I would always side with Scorsese first, but sometimes feedback and the editing process is essential to reaching a greatness unachievable by the filmmaker alone.
The ‘author theory’ has never defended that a movie is *made* by only one person.
Wait. So he’s happy with the cut? Then F that. Put it out as is.
Normally I’d agree, but sometimes I really yearn for that lean, raw feel of Mean Streets, King of Comedy or Taxi Driver again. Goodfellas, great as it is, feels bloated in comparison. Casino is just this big fuckin’ whale that sounds like the never-ending screams of Sharon Stone. I’d cut every minute Daniel Day Lewis wasn’t in Gangs of New York.
+1
+1
+1
(Looking at that chart, I am sorely tempted to say that Scorsese’s better the shorter his films)
Its Django 2. Some are not believing in Wolf because the movie is 3 hours long and things must be cut. In the end, it will get praised by critics and collect a couple of nominations.
Aside from maybe Gangs of New York, I’m okay with the time length to his flicks. He might trim it down simply because he might think it’s too much, but yes in all likely hood Paramount would probably like him to take some stuff out.
all likely hood Paramount would probably like him to take some stuff out.
For one thing, from what we’ve heard, they might be material in the 3-hour cut that would cause a rating of NC-17
I read that too. But I think it’s unlikely. We’re probably looking at material that would be NC-17 in some directors’ hands, but probably not Scorsese. I’m thinking it’s probably not violent content (not for this movie), and I don’t imagine Scorsese being the sort to push any sexual content so far that it’d reach NC-17 levels. I suspect that notion was floated hyperbolically.
I’m taking perverse credit for James misspelling “likelihood”
lol. I thought I might have done that. The internet at my finger tips and I was too lazy to check.
While wanting to keep an open mind and noting that for all we know. WOWS really drags and needs some cutting…..yeah, I’m siding with Scorsese and Schoonmaker, they know what they’re doing at this point in their careers.
C’mon. The studios by now should just let Mr. Scorsese do whatever he wants. He is an absolute legend. He is one of the greatest directors of all-time, and he’s still having to endure this SHIT!??? C’mon Paramount, we want to see Scorsese do HIS thing, NOT yours!!!!
Greatest filmmaker alive? Let me think for a minute… … …
Kubrick, passed
Bergman, passed
Polanski, still with us
Kurosawa, passed
Spielberg, still with us
Godard, still alive, by all reports
Kieslowski, passed
Coppola, still with us
Lynch, still with us
… … …
… … …
… … …
Yeah, wow. Martin Scorsese is the greatest filmmaker alive in the world today. And who are these assholes? Sinners.
Really, Bryce? Really?
What I do?
Yeah, it sucks, but the Studios really can’t afford to let Marty do a three hour movie. I mean Paramount’s still counting their losses from Hugo, and Hollywood has finally awakened to the fact that their big budget movies are totally out of control, bloated movies that are loosing bucketloads of money. At $100 million dollars, Wolf needs to have a prime release date as well as a manageable cut for the General Audience to come anywhere close to profitability. I’m sure all of us on here won’t mind a 3 hour cut, but think of the GA. Paramount wants to make money on this and this was the difficult choice they had to make.
Hugo did not cost Paramount a dime. Paramount was just the distributor.
Hugo was financed 100% by GK Films — GK Films did officially have to write off an $80 million loss on Hugo.
Sikelia Productions, Appian Way, Red Granite Pictures financed Wolf of Wall Street
Sikelia Productions, Appian Way, and Paramount financed Shutter Island
Paramount certainly has an interest in releasing Wolf of Wall Street on an optimal date. Naturally Paramount wants to maximize its profit as distributor. But they don’t stand to lose any investment money.
But more to the point, Richard, there is no correlation or guarantee that a 2-hour movie will earn more than a 2:45 movie.
If they are not planning to release Wolf of Wall Street during the holidays when multiplex screens are jam-packed, then I don’t even see much advantage to having 5 screenings on Saturdays instead of 4.
From “The Departed?” The love triangle subplot for sure.