which is why i can't imagine this being a good movie. i mean aren't there rules to movies being good? and the fact that i've never heard of this doesn't that means this can't be a good movie?
shareI believe there aren't any absolute rules when it comes to cinema, unless the filmmaker--or we, the viewers--willingly choose to apply and follow them. There have been great horror films in the past that were well over the 2 hour mark (two that spring to mind immediately are Rosemary's Baby and Aliens) so I don't feel this is a justifiable reason to dismiss a horror film, or any film for that matter.
That being said, I think Midsommar could have used some tighter editing, actually. Probably a couple of scenes could have been excised where the point was already established in other scenes. Also, some scenes could have been more efficient with some of the dialogue shortened. But regardless, the film still works as it is now and I'd rate it as an above average horror film.
(For comparison's sake, if you liked the previous film of this director's, Hereditary, you'll like this one. Also, the tone of this film reminded of The Witch quite a bit, too. Just so you know what you're getting if you're still on the fence about seeing it.)
see i've never watched rosemary's baby and aliens is a sci-fi movie. and i don't think i've watched the shining uncut and watching it on basic cable tv or network tv would mean it's hard to judge how long it was because of the commercials. so i can't remember it being really long as far as a movie being shown in this way.
shareok thanks for the info and facts about cinema. you're right, no rules. as roger ebert once said, "a good movie can never be too long and a bad movie can never be short enough." remember that saying?
shareYou never heard of The Shining?
shareI was thinking the same thing. That one was about two and a half hours long iirc. Kubrick liked his long movies.
Also, the theatrical run of Grindhouse was over three hours, although it was technically two movies and a bunch of fake trailers.
The Shining is 2 hours and 22 minutes in the American version...however, it doesn't really fell that long because it is wound up like a spring and proceeds in a relentless, clockwork manner towards its conclusion. This movie felt every minute of its length.
sharethe wailing is 156 minutes long, & i think it's one of the best horror films & one of the best films of recent years period.
that said, i'm generally in favour of brevity. there's an argument for taking time to let a story grow & breathe, but generally speaking i think it's beneficial for filmmakers to impose limits on themselves. in general, it's better to do things quickly rather than slowly, it's better to keep it short & leave people wanting more than to overstay your welcome.
but i absolutely loved midsommar. it's weird & funny, and even though it's absolutely too long, as soon as it ended i wanted to watch it again, & would have if i wasn't starving & in need of dinner. i almost certainly will go tomorrow or friday.
The wailing is gooooooood
shareabsolutely.
it's streaming on shudder right now for anyone who uses that service. i'm probably going to give it a re-watch myself in the near future. it's been at least two years since i watched it, & my memory of it has pretty much evaporated, though i know i loved it.
The Wailing shits all over midsommar in my opinion.
shareNot really a horror movie, but even so, there are lots of horror movies that are longer than 2 hours. Suspiria was 2 hours and 30 minutes, so it has happened recently that a horror movie was just as long as Midsommar. Such a strange post.
sharethat's very true.
this is not a slasher or a conjuring film.
it's not even like hereditary, really. not in the way hereditary moved into some conventional paranormal horror areas.
Your point about Hereditary was my one beef with the film, although I still liked it. The main story of the film seemed to be a drama about a dysfunctional family with some serious issues...then it segued into supernatural forces being responsible. Granted, all that was hinted at beforehand, but for me it seemed discordant with the majority of the film previous to it.
shareyes, i completely agree. in fact, i just looked up my letterboxd review & found that's pretty much exactly what i wrote.
the first hour of this, up to the dinner scene, is a bit of a masterpiece, imo - like the darkest, grimmest, most morbid version of ordinary people or some such thing. it changes after that, and it changed into something i liked less, but i still would rate it as an expertly made, perfectly paced film.share
i do find the ending falls a bit flat, even feels a bit silly, and that keeps this from true classic status, but it's very, very good stuff.
Wise minds think alike :)
shareIt was good but it could have been shorter without hurting the story.
The director is working on an extended cut that adds 30 minutes to the runtime. That doesn't sound like a good idea at all.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/07/237672/midsommar-extended-cut-scarier-more-intense
I'd watch an extended version for sure. I loved being in that world for some reason. It was very strange and horrific.
shareDid you also like Hereditary?
shareYes, loved that movie.
shareI can't wait for the extended cut!! Aster says that it adds much to the story as well. I loved Midsommar for what it was: A dark comedic fairy tale break up film for adults. It's not horror, and even Aster says so much in this interview:
https://youtu.be/1MSwudqdylA?t=596
IT: Chapter Two was almost 3 hours long.
share