3,475 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 3, 2018 23:02:13 GMT
How could Mike Leigh have made so turgid a film of so important an historical event and to which he presumably wishes to draw attention? Call me a Philistine but after c 1 hour 40 minutes of this - and with another hour or so to go - I walked out. I had been surprised to read reviews giving this only 3 stars (though Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian seemed besotted and gave it 5) but now I know why: endless talking heads going blah blah blah - and some embarrassingly clumsy exposition about the Corn Laws in an early scene. I thought First Man was tedious but maybe that was the start of a trend.
|
|
18,817 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 3, 2018 23:07:29 GMT
Suspected as much. Historically this happened literally footsteps from my front door but I guessed that Mike Leigh would make a mess of it to the extent that I wouldn’t want to see it. You have confirmed my suspicions showgirl. Thank you. |
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on Nov 4, 2018 9:14:07 GMT
The running time alone has put me off seeing this, and I usually see almost everything.
|
|
3,475 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 4, 2018 10:28:58 GMT
I didn't mind the running time as Bollywood films are always longer (though most cinemas provide an interval, but you never know if there'll be one or for how long); it was the boredom I couldn't stand. And of course in a theatre anything of that length would also have an interval.
|
|
211 posts
|
Post by peelee on Nov 19, 2018 21:01:52 GMT
I noticed a couple of newspaper reviews awarded two or three stars, yet when I went to the cinema mildly intrigued but ready for disappointment I discovered I rather liked Peterloo. A lot of work and craft has gone into it. It'll also have some filmgoers wanting to know more about the massacre and its significance.
|
|
