Ever since buzz started building for this little indie well over a year ago, I've really been looking forward to The Vast of Night, as it seems right up my alley. After its Slamdance premiere, Amazon eventually bought it, set it for a May 29 theatrical release, and, well, that plan obviously had to be abandoned.

The studio, however, is now getting creative and doing something even cooler, potentially, and much more fitting, given the circumstances/subject matter... releasing the movie next weekend to select drive-in theaters all across the country, for a two-night event - May 15th and 16th - before its Amazon Prime Video debut on May 29.

So, technically, this makes The Vast of Night the first new "theatrical" release of the pandemic era, and I cannot wait.

Here's the announcement, logline, and trailer...

The Vast of Night
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6803046/
5.29.20
Amazon Prime Video Exclusive

Quote:

---

In the twilight of the 1950s, on one fateful night in New Mexico, a young switchboard operator Fay and charismatic radio DJ Everett discover a strange audio frequency that could change their small town and the future forever.

---

Ha, same. Or if I did, it was as a kid, and I don't remember. But there's one an hour from me outside of LA. If this is playing there, I'll definitely try and check it out.

I actually saw TDK for the first time at a drive-in theater. I know it's nearly sacrilegious to admit seeing a Nolan film outside of an IMAX theater but it was a really cool experience.

I actually saw TDK for the first time at a drive-in theater. I know it's nearly sacrilegious to admit seeing a Nolan film outside of an IMAX theater but it was a really cool experience.

Looking forward to this one. Thanks for making me aware of it, TCTTS!

Looking forward to this one. Thanks for making me aware of it, TCTTS!

Reminder that this hits Amazon Prime Video tomorrow (Friday). I ended up not making it out for the drive-in showings, but will be watching from my couch this weekend for sure. Really looking forward to it, as it's currently at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes after 73 reviews...

Im looking forward to this one.

I saw this today. I'm still trying to decide if I liked it.

The weird thing is, even though I'm not sure I liked it, I have an urge to watch it again, just so I can make up my mind.

Finally watching tonight, and waiting to read this after, but sounds intriguing...

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/05/vast-of-night-true-story-amazon

I saw the original Star Wars (A New Hope) when it first came out at a drive-in in Denver when I was a young kid. Really makes you think.

Enjoyed it

Fast paced and great dialogue, good back and forth between the two leads

Only 85 min run time with some good suspense and a good tense soundtrack

Oof...I have sat through some pretty rough movies waiting for them to grab me. I turned this off last night 40 minutes in.

Tried to finish it today and ended up fast forwarding to get to the end. I was looking forward to this and it just didn't do it for me.

We watched it for family movie night. My 17 yr old daughter, who is a pretty tough critic, said at the end (deadpan of course), "I'm not gonna lie. That was pretty good." I enjoyed it too.

Movie could have been condensed to 60 minutes and not lost a thing

I agree with you there, and I will say after the opening 15 minutes scene at the high school I almost turned it off

So. Much. Exposition.

I finally had a chance to catch this, a week later than planned. And while I absolutely loved the vibe, and the level of period detail for such a low budget indie was genuinely impressive, yeah, I'm with Law-5L... sooooo much talking and sooooo much story telling. Along with way too many black screens with dialogue over them and way too many long, single takes for no real reason. The real-time nature of the narrative was cool, but the long takes had the opposite effect intended, IMO, making the movie feel so much slower than it needed to at times. I'm glad I saw it, and really liked elements of it, but I think because of such a lack of good movies right now (or movies, period), this one was probably hyped up a bit too much by the critics who had already seen it.

I fell asleep... twice

It looked good.

I couldn't take much more of the fast-talking leads' conversations.

I really wanted to like it a lot. And I didn't hate it. It just felt like it fell short of what it was trying to accomplish.

But it did contain one of the most common new movie cliches that I really, really hate. Where people run up to each other and all start talking to and over each other really fast, non-stop while the camera spins around the group. It's a crutch for when your dialogue isn't really that good. They relied on it a lot in the latest Star Wars trilogy, too. Just so eye-rollingly unrealistic and annoying.

Hahaha, yes. I hadn't thought about that, but you're so right. It's such a *thing* now, especially in the sequel trilogy. I was confused, in this instance, because I had no idea who the other two people were, but they "introduced" them as if we'd seen them before. Maybe we did and I just missed them?

Really wanted to like this.... kept waiting for things to pick up. Slow and boring all the way through the end.

This movie was like a film student was trying to win an Oscar for Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design at the expense of an actual good movie.

Way too much exposition. Way too much fancy camerawork that added nothing. And were they trying to make the girl the next Tom Cruise with so.many.elongated.run.scenes.

This was a paper-thin film that if condensed would have been considered an average 20-minute Twilight Zone episode in the 50's.

IMO the only real intriguing thing about it outside of the cinematography is whether or not one could listen to it without picture and have it work as a radio play.

Pretty spot-on assessment. Agreed.

Question... how did it have tons of exposition but also didn't have enough material for a movie?


I haven't seen it.

Ulrich said:

---

Question... how did it have tons of exposition but also didn't have enough material for a movie?


I haven't seen it.

---

Much of the exposition was taking a simple bit of the story and dragging it out into 10 minute dialogues.

And to be fair -- the dialogue was fun at first because it really did nail the speech "of the era".

I'd be interested in someone listening to it as a radio play and seeing if the story still works... Aside from the ending I think you it could.

I spent over half the movie wishing this was a radio play released in podcast form. I think it would have worked great in that form. As an hour and a half movie it was nearly unbearably boring.

Quote:

---

This was a paper-thin film that if condensed would have been considered an average 20-minute Twilight Zone episode in the 50's.

---

I took that as kinda the point of the movie, as it was presented as a Twilight Zone-like story on a TV that the viewer then stepped into.

I agree with the earlier statement made about almost turning it off at the beginning during all the high school stuff. But I was glad that I stuck with it.

Not sure how this received so much acclaim.

Just watched tonight and really enjoyed it.

The pacing is a bit off in places and there are bits that are a little gimmicky, but once it got into the meat of the story I was totally hooked and thought it came together really well.

A few pieces did seem a bit randomly inserted into the story, but for an indie film it was really well done.

watched it tonight...wish I would have read this thread first. Very odd, very boring, very disjointed