I bailed at 2 hours and 13 minutes. I don't care how it ends. Why is it that filmmakers think dragging viewers through unneeded minutia is art? There are wide shots in this film that I could have shot and directed. Perhaps the director forgot to shoot a close-up. Do we need to see a father, barely a speck on the screen, walk all the way to the group returning his son to him and then watch him and his son keep on walking and walking and walking into another scene. For what? To say you did all this in one shot? A first year film student could do that. It certainly doesn't come close to rivaling the opening shot in Touch of Evil. And in Citizen Kane, Welles covered far more sweeping material in 119 minutes (instead of 158!). Attenborough covered Ghandi in 188 minutes, and this was one of the most epoch stories of the 20th Century. Even Upton Sinclair would not have put mired his readers with such tediousness. Reminds me of Kevin Costner's attempt at Wyatt Earp, where the movie really starts when the badge is pinned on Wyatt's shirt, about an hour in. Don't confuse screen time with quality. This flick needs a tough edit, at least 45 minutes.