'The Wolf Of Wall Street' Now Reportedly Runs 3 Hours, Will Be Martin Scorsese's Longest Feature To Date

News
by Kevin Jagernauth
November 25, 2013 12:02 PM
15 Comments
  • |

There has been a lot of talk surrounding Martin Scorsese's "The Wolf Of Wall Street"—whether or not it would be finished in time, rumors of NC-17 material and of course, the overall length of the movie, etc. Last we heard, it was going clock in at 2 hours 45 minutes, but word from abroad suggests that the runtime has been padded further.

The folks over at Allocine are reporting that according to France distributor Metropolitan Filmexport, "The Wolf Of Wall Street" now clocks in at 2 hour and 59 minutes (which we can only surmise was done to get under a 3 hour-limit). This would make the movie Scorsese's longest feature to date, besting the 2 hour and 50 minute "The Aviator" and 2 hour and 58 minute "Casino." It also means you will probably want to make sure you go to the bathroom before you settle in on Christmas Day. 

Meanwhile, until we wait Scorsese's opus of hubris and good looking people doing awful things, Owen Weber has put together a mashup pairing "The Wolf Of Wall Street" with "It's A Wonderful Life." The result? "The Wolf Of Bedford Falls." Clever stuff, watch below.

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

15 Comments

  • James | November 26, 2013 10:03 AMReply

    What's wrong with you people?? Scorsese is the only filmmaker of his generation still putting out flawless films. His age has not effected his story telling one bit - I cannot wait for this movie!

  • T.J. | November 25, 2013 10:18 PMReply

    Check your facts. This isn't Scorsese's longest at all. No Direction Home is 3 hours and 26 minutes and both A Personal Journey Through American Movies and My Voyage to Italy are over four hours long.

    Personally, I'll take all the Scorsese I can get. Gangs of New York seemed to suffer primarily from trying to meet an arbitrary length. Marty has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to pacing and storytelling.

  • T.J. | November 27, 2013 4:30 AM

    It's pretty clear that a "feature" is a movie of a certain length. Over 40 minutes according to most sources, over 60 or 80 according to others. Whether the film is narrative or released primarily in theaters has no bearing on that. Feature is a distinction from "short," not signifying, implying, or otherwise narrative vs. documentary (or experimental for that matter).

    Your attempt to further ghettoize documentary with the asinine and arbitrary distinction that a feature must be a "non-documentary, theater film" bears no relation to the working, long-accepted, correct definition of a "feature."

    They didn't check their facts and you don't need film school to know better. Hell, it's on Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film

  • rosco jones | November 26, 2013 12:31 AM

    It's pretty clear with the "feature"moniker they were implying a non-documentary, theater film. But way to justify your film school.

  • bob | November 25, 2013 9:26 PMReply

    I predict it has the same level of success as Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - posts a low opening figure and slowly earns its budget back, but won't be the hit that Warner Bros wanted. 3 hours is too much for today's adult audience, and it will likely limit the number of times it gets shown in a day, especially for venues that will likely only play it on 1-2 screens (at most).

  • dethbee | November 26, 2013 10:59 AM

    Uh... there are soooo many 3hr (or nearly 3hr) films out there making loads of money. Some of them have even made billions, so... yeah

  • Hipster | November 25, 2013 5:38 PMReply

    Do Xmas audiences really wanna spend three hours with a Wall Street asshole? This could be a huge bomb.

  • dethboner | November 26, 2013 11:00 AM

    Or it could be a huge hit. Could go either way. WHOCARES!!!!

  • FAIL | November 25, 2013 2:57 PMReply

    I don't think the public is going to be interested in the inside stories of those who are actively fleecing and ruining our country, regardless if they "get their's" in the end (Especially if it's going to take 3 hours until they do).

  • Charlene | November 26, 2013 9:14 PM

    It's Leonardo, I mean seriously. I'm in!

  • JOHN | November 25, 2013 2:55 PMReply

    Who cares about the runtime of films? Clearly not the LCDs as they will sit through 2.5 hr Transformers movies. So who cares? If it's good, it's good. Short or long.

  • Yup | November 25, 2013 1:21 PMReply

    Hope this finally gets James Stewart his first Oscar.

  • Nope | November 25, 2013 12:50 PMReply

    Pass.

  • Nah | November 25, 2013 12:41 PMReply

    Looks loud and boring.

  • d | November 25, 2013 12:33 PMReply

    Awesome. Hope it's true.

Email Updates