Scorsese debuts "Killers of the Flower Moon" in Cannes to thunderous applause..

[DGUtley]

Scorsese debuts "Killers of the Flower Moon" in Cannes to thunderous applause..

th-1427377796.jpeg

Martin Scorsese unveiled “Killers of the Flower Moon” at Cannes on Saturday, debuting a sweeping American epic about greed and exploitation on the bloody plains of an Osage Nation reservation in 1920s Oklahoma. Scorsese’s latest — starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone and Robert De Niro — is one of his most ambitious. Adapting David Grann’s nonfiction bestseller, it stretches nearly three and a half hours and cost Apple $200 million to make.

Nothing has been more anticipated at this year’s Cannes Film Festival than “Killers of the Flower Moon” — a historical epic, a bitter crime film and a Great Plains Western — which appeared to meet those expectations. It drew a lengthy standing ovation and repeated cheers for Scorsese, 80, who premiered his first film at Cannes since 1985′s “After Hours.” “We shot this a couple of years ago in Oklahoma. It’s taken its time to come around but Apple did so great by us,” Scorsese said, addressing the crowd after the screening. “There was lots of grass. I’m a New Yorker.”

The red carpet drew a wide spectrum of stars. Along with the film’s expansive cast, attendees included Apple CEO Tim Cook, as well as actors Cate Blanchett, Salma Hayek, Paul Dano and Isabelle Huppert.


th-1427377796.jpeg

th-1427377796.jpeg


th-1427377796.jpeg


th-1427377796.jpeg

[Mini Me]

3 and half hours??? NO WAY I could watch that!

[DGUtley]

That’s a killer. It sounds very interesting but it’s a killer.

[Standing Wolf]

3 and half hours??? NO WAY I could watch that!

Movies that top 2 1/2 hours are becoming more common. Back in the day if a movie was that long - like Ben Hur or How the West Was Won - there was an intermission. The intermission for Ben Hur was fifteen minutes long. (Actually, with HTWWW, because it was shot and shown in Cinerama, the projectionist needed that time to re-thread the three projectors and synchronize the sound, but audience comfort was a consideration, too.) A 3 1/2 hour movie would really need an intermission.

A couple of times in recent years a local theatre chain has done a thing where they showed all the Marvel Universe movies that had been released up to that point, and topped it off by screening the new one just coming out. This was back when watching them all back-to-back would only take something like 28 hours. I seriously considered doing it once, but then my "worst scenario" sense kicked in, and I imagined myself sitting behind, in front of and beside the worst people I've ever encountered in a movie theatre - and then thought about doing that for 28 hours.