I haven't stepped in a theater in about 2 years but I will for this one.

Right! You had COVID to worry about and I guess we still do. I have my advance ticket ready and waiting, though.

I can’t remember MS past film. Was it The Irishman? It was long and boring. This one is 3h30m! If you don’t get hooked in the beginning, it might be painful to watch.

I hope you enjoy it. You can’t trust reviews these days. IMDb will not count bad votes for crap movies. But usually movies above 7.5/10 tend to be good or at least entertaining. TMdb has few users giving useful reviews; usually they vote 1/10 or 10/10. Usually above 78% tend to be entertaining if you have enough votes.

@therapist said:

I can’t remember MS past film. Was it The Irishman? It was long and boring. This one is 3h30m! If you don’t get hooked in the beginning, it might be painful to watch.

I hope you enjoy it. You can’t trust reviews these days. IMDb will not count bad votes for crap movies. But usually movies above 7.5/10 tend to be good or at least entertaining. TMdb has few users giving useful reviews; usually they vote 1/10 or 10/10. Usually above 78% tend to be entertaining if you have enough votes.

Who's the guy in your avatar? He looks like not a very popular fellow.

I thoroughly enjoyed it but do understand the criticism of it being too long. Like the Irishman it takes its time to slowly walk you through the intricate story, which either grips you or it doesn't. It helps if you actively care for stories in movies. The action isn't enough to draw you in or hold you, and neither is the cinematography (although it has very strong perspectives and camera pans, but that is to be expected from Scorsese). It's all in the story and the acting.

To me, DiCaprio's acting and his character make it seem like he's playing a sequel to his character in What's eating Gilbert Grape, and beautifully done so. De Niro is himself, which is more believable than his (still excellent) youthened performance in the Irishman. DiCaprio's wife steals the show, there's little moments of very strong acting and script writing for returning but side characters which make it an enjoyable watch.

Maybe consider seeing this in a mostly empty theatre, because people will leave and talk to one another: the audio (for me at least) was not loud.

@rubenkemp said:

I thoroughly enjoyed it but do understand the criticism of it being too long. Like the Irishman it takes its time to slowly walk you through the intricate story, which either grips you or it doesn't. It helps if you actively care for stories in movies. The action isn't enough to draw you in or hold you, and neither is the cinematography (although it has very strong perspectives and camera pans, but that is to be expected from Scorsese). It's all in the story and the acting.

To me, DiCaprio's acting and his character make it seem like he's playing a sequel to his character in What's eating Gilbert Grape, and beautifully done so. De Niro is himself, which is more believable than his (still excellent) youthened performance in the Irishman. DiCaprio's wife steals the show, there's little moments of very strong acting and script writing for returning but side characters which make it an enjoyable watch.

Maybe consider seeing this in a mostly empty theatre, because people will leave and talk to one another: the audio (for me at least) was not loud.

I believe I'm gonna chalk this up as one of Scorsese's lesser efforts, although I'm not 100% sure. The story does take its time to breathe and develop, so I respect your thinking about that. Also, I always like to watch the director's usually sumptuous production values at play, with usual suspects like Thelma Schoonmaker and Rodrigo Prieto. As the movie progressed through its running time, I felt a little of a lull but I honestly think this has to do with the director's adherence to his subject matter and the cultural milieu involved.

This is far more accessible a period piece than other recent films like Gangs of New York, IMO.

I was actually the loudest spectator in the audience while munching my popcorn.

In my opinion, labeling this film as overly long might not be entirely accurate. There are lengthy films that manage to maintain the viewer's interest without feeling burdensome. However, in this case, the sense of protracted duration may stem from certain scenes that, while perfect from various perspectives, seem not to serve a significant purpose in advancing the narrative, inevitably stretching the overall length of the film.

@LuigiDeCarolis said:

In my opinion, labeling this film as overly long might not be entirely accurate. There are lengthy films that manage to maintain the viewer's interest without feeling burdensome. However, in this case, the sense of protracted duration may stem from certain scenes that, while perfect from various perspectives, seem not to serve a significant purpose in advancing the narrative, inevitably stretching the overall length of the film.

It seems to get brought up here a lot, but Spike Lee's Malcolm X hits the mark for me as far as what your second sentence says. I can watch it over and over again w/o tiring of it.