Or…
Movies, plays, and TV shows are, for the most part, too long.
The irony is that today’s generation seems to want their entertainment almost at warp speed. College students don’t respond to the CHEERS pilot because it’s “too slow.” At the time it aired it was applauded for its zippy pace.
But this takes me to the new BREAKING BAD movie, EL CAMINO, now playing on Netflix.
Don’t worry. I’m not going to discuss the plot or any fun surprises that might pop up for hardcore fans of the series.
I’m just going to say it felt too long.
And understand, I think BREAKING BAD was the single best dramatic series in the history of television. Sorry SOPRANOS, sorry MAD MEN, sorry DAVID CASSIDY: MAN UNDERCOVER.
EL CAMINO was impeccably written and directed by Vince Gilligan and the pace and tone was not that different from the original series. But something was missing, and it’s hard to put my finger on it.
Several theories: Jesse was a great side character but not compelling enough to carry a whole movie. They needed other story lines to cut away to. Now I realize that’s hard since most of the great characters in BREAKING BAD are dead by this time. But still, I wish there were something else going on. And finally, there were too many damn beauty shots of the desert.
The Levine Rule: If you can take something out and not miss it, then take it out.
There are some very cool sequences in EL CAMINO, the performances and casting were pitch perfect (as always with a Vince Gilligan project), but I was left feeling oddly unsatisfied.
What did everyone else think? And please don’t discuss specific plot points for those who still intend to watch it.
And one last thing (I hope this post isn’t too long): One of my top five all-time favorite movies that I could watch over and over again is BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. It runs 2 hours and 41 minutes, and for my money is too short.
The Levine Rule sounds a lot the Marie Kondo Rule.
ReplyDeleteI actually liked the movie a lot until the ending. The ending was just kinda there.
ReplyDeleteYou sir are my hero.
ReplyDeleteYou're abosutely right about El Camino. I think the real problem was that it was written for Netflix and not AMC.
I recall Vince Gilligan saying that he learned his craft writing for the X-Files, a traditional hour-long network TV show. So he built suspense based on the notion that they'd go to commercial and he wanted to make sure they stayed when the commercials were over.
He did the same for "Breaking Bad" and we have all seen how that turned out. Gilligan is comfortable working in silence. The closest movie I can liken his style to is "Day of The Jackal." The film is well over two hours, yet it's filled with long patches of silence. We only see the Jackal testing a rifle. Three minutes without a word being spoken. We see him in a market buying a mellon. The only dialogue is stuff like how much for the mellon? So basically silence. But we are fascinated. I just rented the movie and saw it again, and despite having seen it before was on the edge of my seat.
I totally agree that "El Camino" could have been 10 minutes shorter. No slight against Vince. Losing those 10 minutes would have made for a tight, nerve-wracking movie.
That's my only complaint. The writing, acting and look of the movie was excellent.
I will say that I watched the film on my tablet the evening it premiered. When I was finished, I decided to actually read what critics and others had to say about the film, and when I went to Google news, I saw that Robert Forester died. That totally threw me for a loop. I just saw him on El Camino and marveled at his performance, but did think he was looking a little old, but realized he was a man in his late 70s.
Hearing of his death right after seeing his masterful performance was disconcerting and will forever affect how I feel about El Camino. But, yes, it could have used a little editing. When there are commercial breaks, you get to build suspense in a way you can't with a straight no-break movie.
I agree about Bridge on the River Kwai. (Also Lawrence of Arabia). I also couln't believe how fast the last two Avenger movies flew by when I watched them.
Roger Ebert once said that no good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short. A lot of truth to that, but some good movies can use some trimming to make them great movies.
When I was at film school - a school which routinely figures in the world top 10 - the school had just let one of the directing students make an 80 minute long graduation film. The school was very proud of it. The head of script split the writing students into groups and gave each group a VHS of the film and a cutting room for a week. The three groups came back with the film re-cut down to 34, 30 and, my group, 26 minutes. In our case we also restructured the film, as the conflict driving the story was actually resolved at the end of the second act and the third act was really just a very long coda. Most of the cuts came from cutting down that third act and ditching a lot of the long, slow shots of landscape. The story still stood up and was coherent.
ReplyDeleteThe head of script was thrilled by our cut, and insisted on showing it to the direction dept. The head of direction wasn't so thrilled.
Okay, I'm going to both praise and blast Ken for the same line. He sarcastically wrote, "sorry David Cassidy: Man Undercover." To come up with this example seemingly out of left field is pretty fucking good. Did this just pop into his heard or does he have a list of old TV shows available for inserting into his posts as one-liners, don't know. Like how does a show from back in the late '70s that ran for less than one year just pop into someone's head? That's why his line is impressive. However, this was not a bad show and, I realize Ken was not saying this, Cassidy was not a bad actor. I think there are one or two episodes on Youtube you can see for yourself. There was a shitload of bad shows during that time and since, this was not one of them. I think people weren't ready for bubble gum pop star Cassidy to go gritty, too bad.
ReplyDeleteFriday question. Why if in the middle of a series that you know is getting praise and awards do you kill off your main character (Walter White) knowing there might be a chance of a movie or reunion series somewhere down the line?
There is an ideal length for any movie: Not a minute longer than it needs to be.
ReplyDeleteThe Blair Witch Project was a 1 hour, 20 minutes and I couldn't wait for it to end. The Godfather Part 2 was 3 hours and 20 minutes and I loved every second.
I think a lot of people feel differently about relating to the Jesse character. While Walter was the main character Jesse was burgeoning especially at the end.
ReplyDeleteHis character’s life after the finale seems a lot more interesting than that of anyone left and imho it was needed. The other shoe had to drop about Jesse. Or at least I am glad it did.
Could not agree more, Ken. I also could watch 3 hours of Bridge
ReplyDeleteRick MN
I recall seeing THE GODFATHER at an early screening in Westwood. The running time was 2 hours and 58 minutes. To say the time flew by is an understatement. Totally enthralling. Totally mesmerizing. When the film ended you had to peel me from the seat, such was its impact.
ReplyDeleteOne more film for you: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA ... 3 hours 48 minutes. Went by in a flash.
And I'm with you on BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI Ken. Brilliant iconic films.
Message to a lot of today's filmmakers: longer running times aren't the answer. Great storytelling is.
The Levine Rule is of course not to be confused with Levine's Law, which is that when you walk the leadoff batter he will come around to score 100% of the time...unless he doesn't.
ReplyDeleteI take it, Ken, that you don't like Sergio Leone movies?
ReplyDeleteI loved the movie, the music, and the fact we got a little more Mike, Walter,Todd,and Skinny Pete. I didn't feel it was too long. I wanted something good to happen to Jesse after all that he had been through. I also like the music.
ReplyDeleteAndrew B
Speaking of long, how about the game last night? Three hours and forty minutes long. I only tuned in intermittently, did Nickel Back and The Kings of Leon do a Half Time Show that I missed?
ReplyDeleteRemember Moonlighting? Sometimes they would do a show that features the 2 second bananas: Viola and Ms DiPesto. Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard would only appear in a scene or two. Well, El Camino was like that.
ReplyDeleteMy current gripe with movies, and particularly streaming series, is not the length, but the pacing. I think the intention, maybe, is to set a "mood", and I think sometimes the film makers succeed in that, but more often than not it just seems like padding. Jessica Jones and Daredevil were guilty of that, and my favorite movie example recently is Blade Runner 2049. Was looking so forward to seeing it, and it wasn't a bad movie, just...so...slow.
ReplyDeleteI feel like thinking people who appreciate good television are somewhat divided over BREAKING BAD, MAD MEN, and THE WIRE as the best dramas. I'm solidly in the latter camp. THE WIRE is the best dramatic series of all time.
ReplyDeleteThe premise of MAD MEN just bugs me. I can understand a good retrospective, but it rings hollow like a soap opera, almost wish-fulfillment fantasy for a bygone sexist social order. I can't get over the feeling that it's meant to titillate rather than explore the dynamics of the time.
Sorry to go off topic. I'll watch EL CAMINO, perhaps. It seems like an unlikely sell.
To BLINKY: He's done some good stuff in his career, but I hated Curtis Armstrong in Moonlighting...I almost stopped watching it because of him.
ReplyDeleteP.S.-- And THE BRIDGE OVER RIVER KWAI is indeed great. I need to watch it again sometime soon. I don't think MASH would have happened without the influence of that movie.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot "The Wire". Have you seen "The Wire"? You've got to watch "The Wire"!
ReplyDeleteConfession: I never quite got "The Wire", but I did like it.
The shock scenes in Breaking Bad really bothered me, but somehow I found the Sopranos not so cringeworthy. I think the humor offset the really bad stuff just enough. I don't remember any humor in Breaking Bad. It seems the dichotomy of the nice guy doing bad things didn't work for me and Walter was bad almost from the first episode.
I thought it was very well done and enjoyed it, but I can see the POV of people who thought it was unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteIt was too long because they spent way too much time in newly filmed flashbacks where the characters were 6 years older and 10 pounds heavier and where we gained only a little new information. Like, we know where the flashbacks lead to ultimately. Because we know how it ends. So there was no real suspense. Jessie will end up back in that hole. Could have shaved off a lot of time cutting those scenes back. The movie finally started moving along at about the half way mark for me.
ReplyDeleteUltimately I enjoyed it, but it wasn't necessary.
In a way El Camino was a bit like the 'Epilog' tacked onto an Outer Limits episode. It worked to that extent, but the story was very linear. And when you start to think, 'How much weight has Todd put on, and Jesse's been in a hole for three months but filled out?' you know you're disengaging.
ReplyDeleteI think it was down to a lack of suspense; Jesse never seemed to be in as much peril as in Breaking Bad, just Mexican standoffs (except there weren't any Mexicans), which is a sure sign of character malnutrition. After all, Breaking Bad was Jesse's only backstory.
Expectations were always very high of course, and I don't think it was a letdown; just not the hoped-for home run.
It was some BREAKING BAD candy
ReplyDeleteNo. I did not feel like El Camino was too long. I, too, feel that way sometimes, but not this time. I fear that someone who hasn't seen it will decide ahead of time that it is padded and not that good. NOT TRUE!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Ken,
ReplyDeleteHuge Breaking Bad fan here. It's in my Holy Trinity of TV (The Wire, The Shield, & BB) followed by The Sopranos & Mad Men. Nothing touches those top 5 shows for me. Anyway, I totally agree with you. The movie was OK, not great, not bad. Wasn't knocked over by it (like the rest of the series)
Maybe I'm a tough critic? --LL
I haven't seen "The Bridge Over the RIver Kwai", but Spike Milligan, late of the Goon Show, decided to make a parody of it in 1962. The studio or the producers of the film didn't like the idea of a parody, so an engineer snipped out all of the "K's" and the parody was released as "The Bridge Over the River Wye", starring Milligan, Peter Cook, Peter Sellers and Jonathan Miller.
ReplyDelete"General Frank Itchicutchi" may be the reason it has not been reissued, but Milligan's writing is hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow2KwGmXLlU
- Brian Phillips
Would today's college students find an episode of "Dobie Gillis" too slow? Just curious (the far less coy equivalent of "asking for a friend").
ReplyDeleteIt had limited theater release.
ReplyDeleteWill it get any Oscar considerations?
I think so. Oscars is basically desperate for some attention from the current generation.
They may nominate Vince who is very popular, just to grab a few more eyeballs.
What do you think Ken?
Oddly enough, I thought the most interesting characters in the movie were peripheral ones on the series: Skinny Pete and Ed, the disappearer. (I don't consider this a spoiler since Robert Forster's appearance was mentioned in his obituaries and Skinny Pete appeared in the trailer.) Another shade was added to those characters that I didn't expect.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest semi-spoilery complaint is that there was way too much time devoted to Todd. I've never particularly enjoyed that character. You can only go so far with the archetype of "psychopath who thinks he's a nice guy," so to turn a good chunk of the movie into a two-hander with Todd and Jesse was not that interesting to me. And the -- to put it kindly -- visual incongruity involved in their appearances didn't help matters.
I thought the length was about right, but it did seem to end abruptly. When it ended, I thought "that's it? Its over already"?
ReplyDelete"The Levine Rule: If you can take something out and not miss it, then take it out."
ReplyDeleteA variation of the Spock Rule of Importance: A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
Kael was onto this years ago when she wrote that too many directors filled the cracks in the plot with style.
ReplyDeleteKen, Friday question that kind of ties into your post today. Stephen King has tweeted what he says are the 3 or 4 best movie lines in cinema history ("You're gonna need a bigger boat" being one) without saying what movie the lines he quoted were from, although most were obvious.
ReplyDeleteThree of mine that may not be the best lines in movie history and not as obvious to recognize but always make me laugh out loud when I view these 3 movies are, "Brazil?", "For mixing cotton with silk?" and "With or without parachute?".
Ken, what would your best lines in movie history be?
I think of EL CAMINO as kind of comfort food for BREAKING BAD viewers who always fretted that Jesse didn't make it to Alaska and some kind of safety. I liked it. I agree it wasn't BREAKING BAD, but it didn't need to be; it was a coda, not really a standalone piece. A lot of the flashbacks and cameos wouldn't have made that much sense if you didn't know the original show (unlike BETTER CALL SAUL). Plus, I'm a sucker for the southwestern desert.
ReplyDeletewg
Agreed a lot of flicks could be shorter Ken. I've noticed Marvel in particular seems to have brought back the 3-hour epic with some of their releases. And they said that millennials don't have long attention spans! :-)
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, wouldn't it be fun if someone had a film festival consisting entirely of movies named for cars?
- "El Camino"
- "Gran Torino"
- "Grand Prix"
etc.
...
This seems more about pacing than run time. There's a difference between a three-hour "Godfather" movie featuring intense family dynamics and graphic violence, and a three-hour Fellini or Bergman movie with lengthy dialogue about existential philosophy. Even genre matters; Tarantino and Apatow are incapable of sub-two hour run times, but I think the former's action-orientated films get fewer time gripes than the latter's comedies.
ReplyDeleteYou can even see a similar conversation re: sports. Fans who find two-hour soccer games boring have no problem at all sitting through three- or four-hour football and baseball games; meanwhile, soccer fans think those sports are deathly boring because of all the dead time between plays, and love how soccer constantly flows (running clock, no TV or coaches' timeouts, you restart play immediately after a foul or out-of-bounds instead of waiting for the ref to restart). And then you've got cricket matches, which depending on the format takes either four hours, one day, or five days.
You think "...BREAKING BAD was the single best dramatic series in the history of television." REALLY?!? Wow!
ReplyDeleteM.B.
What I would have liked to have seen added is something along the lines of the ad for Ozymandias.
ReplyDeleteFor greatest show of all time, Babylon 5 belongs in the list. In addition to great characters, it's long story arc set the stage for all the shows that followed. The special effects are glaring now, but the show is eminently rewatchable.
I put Mad Men and Sopranos lower, because in both cases I just stopped caring about what happens. I'll take Wire, 24, Shield, and even Lost over them.
Honestly, I loved it. And I wrote an entire blog called "rewatch breaking bad" so I consider myself a pretty big fan.
ReplyDeleteI've listened to every insider podcast - did you know they did a podcast to go along with the show from about mid season two onwards, and Vince Gilligan was there for every single one of them alongside editor Kelley Dixon. I felt that I could listen to Vince talk for hours and in fact I did.
Some of the podcasts particularly towards the end were longer than the episode and they often went into great detail about things that would potentially be boring in the hands of lesser folks. I learned so much about so many different things.
I savoured every single moment, and I will rewatch it many times.
Actors change, they put on weight, they lose weight (see Jimmy Smits at the start of season 5 of NYPD Blue) they change their hair.. it is ok with me. I can see past that to the gold underneath. Not only that but Todd was bringing Jesse icecream at one point in the show so maybe there was a time during that imprisonment of Jesse where he did put on some weight.
Sure, they could have cut out the Todd and Jesse scenes but they were kind of important to explain the taking apart of Todd's house, which led to so many things important in the movie.
The bottom line - wherever Vince Gilligan goes, I am on board for the ride. :)
The Irishman is 210 minutes and it earns every second of its runtime.
ReplyDeleteI think this was an awesome movie. It gave Jesse his chance to be in the spotlight. Plus, it surprised you with certain plot lines which wrapped up this series very nicely. Thanks for including this in your blog!
ReplyDeleteMore depressing proof that The Simpsons is creatively bankrupt and reliant on gimmicky guest celebrity voices.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.darkhorizons.com/thanos-kevin-feige-coming-to-simpsons/
It's long overdue that The Simpsons is put out of its misery. It should have ended around 1999 and it would have gone out while it was still the best show on TV. Instead it started going downhill from 2000 onwards and within a few years had become completely unwatchable. An entire generation have grown up on the dumbed down, painfully unfunny Simpsons of the last 19 years that's replaced wit and imagination with lazy pop culture references and gratuitous use of celebrities appearing as themselves. And Homer doesn't sound like he used to.
Those of us who were there from the beginning will always cherish the ten glorious years between 1989 and 1999, in particular the golden age of 91-94.
Ken, have you seen The Wire? It’s often touted as the best series in tv history (an assessment I agree with). Just wondering about your thoughts.
ReplyDeletePeter, what years were you in college?
ReplyDeleteMikeN, I was 13 when The Simpsons was shown in the UK for the first time in 1990.
DeleteRE The Simpsons: In 1990 - yes, 29 years ago, I was at a Rupert Murdoch's News International £666m bank bailout conference (in London), where all his CEOs from NI companies gave a presentation to about 200 bankers with the aim of keeping NI afloat as a single entity under his control (it succeeded). PowerPoint hell.
ReplyDeleteI still remember the main bullet point of them all, which was that 'The Simpsons' was News International's main cash cow by a wide margin. Presumably it still is.
The thing that annoys the hell out of me about Breaking Bad and better Call Saul is how at least once, but sometimes several times an episode the script said, "Take camera out to desolate desert landscape, open lens and leave. Return 14-48 hours later."
ReplyDeleteThen in editing that gets 'cut down' to a five minute montage.
I get it, New Mexico has many, many beautiful desert landscapes and vistas.
Why couldn't you take those five minute time lapses and write an actual scene involving actual characters instead?
I can't think of any other movie I've seen that was as unnecessary as this movie while still enjoying it. Ultimately it didn't advance the story that ended nicely at the end of the show, but also didn't really harm it either. We now have an answer to "What happened to Jesse next?" but it didn't really matter that we now know. And yet liked what I watched. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteI can't think of any other movie I've seen that was as unnecessary as this movie while still enjoying it. Ultimately it didn't advance the story that ended nicely at the end of the show, but also didn't really harm it either. We now have an answer to "What happened to Jesse next?" but it didn't really matter that we now know. And yet liked what I watched. Go figure.
ReplyDelete