John Waters said that no movie should be over 90mins; this is too strong a statement but directors like waters and godard have done a lot with short running times. Some movies earn their length (Reds, As good as it gets) where as the majority of films are at least 10mins too long (all of kevin smith movies, the hangover, etc.). what do you think?
If a movie is absorbing & well-made I usually don’t mind the length (REDS is a good example). But it seems as though the majority of 2+ hour movies these days aren’t films that have a lot of story to tell, they just have a lot of CGI sequences they’re too fond of (or are too expensive) to cut.
I can testify that as I’ve gotten older, a theater has to have REALLY comfy seats for my butt to tolerate anything over 2 hours. I thought I’d die till KING KONG and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 3 were over.
agreed the main problem I find is that movies that are about 100 mins need to be 80 to 85
I like 90-105 mins. When something breeches 120 mins, I worry.
as long as its warren beatty or stanley kubrick i don’t mind too much
Sure, there will always be exceptions.
god i would love a 2hr pink flamingos
The length of Kurosawa’s longer films has never been a problem. The framing, staging and editing- pure dynamism.
I just think your standard movie (ie not made by a master) runs about 10 to 15 mins too long
I think that, yes, if a film takes that long to tell, then it should be that long. For instance, The Dark Knight deserved every minute of its running time, as did La Belle Noiseuse, as did Magnolia. Tranformers 2, on the other hand, did not.
transformer 2 was insane way way too long of course it would have been long at 25mins. 2012 was pretty good but also 30mins too long
i absolutely love long movies as long as they are not popular shite like transformers and king kong. Movies like enter the void, there will be blood, (jfk even) are worth their running times because theyre not just made for entertainment value they had intelligent storylines and awesome acting and direction. thats why they make the time they take up worth it
agreed it is just mainstream movies that are too long
Den, not entirely, because there are some mainstream movies that deserve the time; sure, it’s not all of them, but then not all indie movies deserve their running times, either.
sorry i meant just movies in general. If 5 movies are released in a week then I would wager 3 or 4 are10 to 15mins too long this is especially true of comedies
“agreed it is just mainstream movies that are too long”
i strongly doubt Bela Tarr and Jacques Rivette films are mainstream,but then again,if they were mainstream,we’d be having fan-boy reactions all over like with the transformers example.
But, Dimitris, those films aren’t too long; they’re long enough, because they deserve their time limits. Also, they tell the story in an oppropriate amount of time.
“those films aren’t too long”
aha,quite so Zach which is the major elaboration when counting the pros and cons of several hour-lengthy films.
what’s mostly irritating though is the incessant nagging of the “long timeline” from inexperienced viewers with long films,and not necessarily mini-series/TV films like Decalogue or Heimat.
Dimitris, what do you mean? Do you mean that inexperienced viewers don’t like long movies, or…?
my main objection is mainly to comedies in general there is no reason humpday should have been 100mins or any of judd apatow’s should be as long as they are
Does anyone think Ran is too long? I dont think so at all but a friend of mine says he thought its length made the film suffer…
Den, I have to disagree, especially concerning Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Funny People. Sure, Funny People was very long, but I think it’s story took that long to tell, so…
I didn’t think apatow made sarah marshall but that was 20mins too long for me plus funny people that was as dull as spanglish
Den, well Apatow didn’t direct Sarah Marhshall, but he did produce it. No, though, I still don’t think it’s too long. That film is freaking brilliant. I lvoe it; it’s one of the best comedies of this decade.
that’s exactly what i mean…not inexperienced with cinema per se but with the patience and retribution of films beyond the scope of 2,5 or even 3 hours,and i don’t mean criticizing the beneficial aspects of those films after they’ve finished…..that would be productive alright and a debatable conversation.
it’s just sometimes,i’ve noticed in cine-clubs and peers that the popularity of certain “long” films (a There Will Be Blood is nothing compared to the patience of an Angelopoulos film) negate the artistry and as such,their labeling solely depends from that popularity,as said with P.T. Anderson’s film,or Reds too,regardless of their artistic expression…
I can sit through bella tarr’s 2hr opuses I also like Abraham’s Valley by manoel de oliveria there are amazing long films.
“I also like Abraham’s Valley by manoel de oliveria”
i forgot Oliveira,but see Den,that isn’t a pleasure for many individuals..why do you think for instance that Out 1 played in specific U.S. areas and not in smaller countries?
hell,i want to see Out 1 on the big-screen,why should i get that chance unless i buy a plane ticket to the States?
Dimitris, I still cannot wait to watch Out 1.
I know what you mean, though, because some people just lack the patience to sit through a movie, even if it is long and engaging (for some reason). Like, some people scoffed at the idea of watching La Belle Noiseuse with me because it was four hours long. I mean, seriously? Why is that such a bad thing?