sex and the city 2 - 154 minutestransformers 2 - ~150 minuteskarate kid - 139 minutesfunny people - ~150 minutes
WHY IS EVERYTHING 2.5 HOURS LONG THESE DAYS?
who does it benefit? not the studios or the distributors or the exhibitors, as it cuts down on showtimes.
not the audiences.
the filmmakers?
personally i think comedies need a REALLY compelling reason to break 90 minutes. and any movie needs to seriously justify breaking the two-hour mark. every minute you go over that, you should owe the audience money or something.
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:36 (thirteen years ago) link
blame titanic
― mayor jingleberries, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:37 (thirteen years ago) link
if attendance is dropping inexorably (right?) maybe the "cuts down on showtimes" isn't much of a problem anyway? seems like a "give ppl their money's worth" kind of thing, esp on DVD
― goole, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Movies are too fucking long these days imho
srsly
― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:39 (thirteen years ago) link
avatar -- hell of longrobin wood -- like two and a half hours?
but it's even more of a problem with non-blockbustery movies
― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:40 (thirteen years ago) link
lazy fucking editing
― call all destroyer, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:40 (thirteen years ago) link
and thinking (whether it's true or not) that ppl need everything spelled out for them
― call all destroyer, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:41 (thirteen years ago) link
ban flashbacks and voiceovers forever
yeah I wish they made transformers 2 and sex in the city 2 better
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:43 (thirteen years ago) link
Been saying this for years man. Love and can live with a lot of long "art" movies - there is an argument about editing to be had there too, but it's different - but a comedy over 90 or an actioner over 100-ish minutes is invariably some bullshit imo.
Worst is when it's kids movies and I don't even really wanna be there - that first Pirates of the Caribbean felt like sitting thru Shoah or sump'n
― That was Verbeek, that was (Noodle Vague), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:45 (thirteen years ago) link
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, June 14, 2010 1:43 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
...
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:47 (thirteen years ago) link
karate kid is 139 minutes? that's insane
― peter in montreal, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:50 (thirteen years ago) link
how long is 'a team'
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:51 (thirteen years ago) link
more time for people to talk and send text messages
― baout it baout it (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:51 (thirteen years ago) link
and livetweet
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 17:52 (thirteen years ago) link
is there more stuff happening in these movies vs their 10-20 years ago counterparts or do they just draw the stuff out more (ie longer chase/fighting scenes)?
― peter in montreal, Monday, 14 June 2010 17:57 (thirteen years ago) link
Funny People was definitely too long, the whole "getting back together with the ex" segment should've been cut altogether, as the main drama was between the two comedian guys, and the ex subplot just felt extraneous to that.
― Tuomas, Monday, 14 June 2010 19:39 (thirteen years ago) link
I have no problem with epic/historical movies being long though. If anything, I thought the new Robin Hood movie was too short, it felt like the conflicts during the second half of the movie were solved too quickly and easily. I would've wanted some more medieval political drama plus swordfights.
― Tuomas, Monday, 14 June 2010 19:44 (thirteen years ago) link
I've been wondering about this for years. It seems insane that SATC2 is a minute longer than Apocalypse Now. Romcoms and action movies have no excuse for topping 120 mins. These days I welcome a 90 minute movie like I welcome a 40 minute album - show some discipline ffs.
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 14 June 2010 19:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Karate Kid - and this isn't like a recommendation that you should drop $10 on it - Karate Kid was actually decent to watch for 139 min. I took my kid this weekend and neither of us got bored.
― kkvgz, Monday, 14 June 2010 19:48 (thirteen years ago) link
Trailer for it looked alright, true. Doesn't need to be that long tho.
― That was Verbeek, that was (Noodle Vague), Monday, 14 June 2010 19:52 (thirteen years ago) link
Spiderman 3 was so long it was a serious test of my will, and I lost. I think the big problem is these movies are so long yet the pacing is maintained - always big flashy action scenes, introducing new characters, packing in way too much info. The more a word is repeated the more it loses its meaning, and the more time these kind of movies go on the less I care about what happens.
If you wanna make a 2 1/2 hour movie then have at least a few spots that are beautifully ambient or hypnotic, in order to give the eyes a break, let us reflect on what we are seeing, and sum up the grandeur of the film experience.
― Adam Bruneau, Monday, 14 June 2010 20:38 (thirteen years ago) link
actually I think it's a prestige thing for the studios, a subtle marketing message to distributors/exhibitors: "here's the release you should care about this season"
of course that prestige used to be reserved for THE NEW FILM BY FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA and now it's spent on ANY OLD GARBAGE WE RECYCLED FROM TV/VIDEO GAMES/YOUR YOUTH
don't get me started on albums longer than 45 minutes
― (e_3) (Edward III), Monday, 14 June 2010 20:55 (thirteen years ago) link
Karate Kid really should have just been 85 minutes of 12-year-olds beating the living shit out of each other, hard-'R' style. Major improvement.
― Simon H., Monday, 14 June 2010 20:57 (thirteen years ago) link
funny people - ~150 minutes
^ I understand this, apatow's an auteur now
― (e_3) (Edward III), Monday, 14 June 2010 21:00 (thirteen years ago) link
i dunno if this is a particularly new thing but yeah i can't stand movies > 1.5 hours long
― hoes on my dick cos my groceries bagged (tpp), Monday, 14 June 2010 21:10 (thirteen years ago) link
I am with you on this one, slocki. I watched "Extract" the other day & it was not the best movie but I think I had a better opinion of it because at least it knew how long to be.
― breaking that little dog's heart chakra (Abbott), Monday, 14 June 2010 21:58 (thirteen years ago) link
I always appreciate that Woody Allen keeps his movies trim. Match Point is the only one he's ever made that has been over two hours. Fifteen of his 39 movies have even been under 90 minutes (although the last one was Shadows and Fog in 1991.)
― jaymc, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:02 (thirteen years ago) link
I am just going to post this here, in case I ever need to refer to it:
Whatever Works (2009): 92Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008): 96Cassandra's Dream (2007): 108Scoop (2006): 96Match Point (2005): 124Melinda and Melinda (2004): 99Anything Else (2003): 108Hollywood Ending (2002): 112Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001): 103Small Time Crooks (2000): 94Sweet and Lowdown (1999): 95Celebrity (1998): 113Deconstructing Harry (1997): 96Everybody Says I Love You (1996): 101Mighty Aphrodite (1995): 95Bullets Over Broadway (1994): 98Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993): 104Husbands and Wives (1992): 108Shadows and Fog (1991): 85Alice (1990): 102Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989(: 104Another Woman (1988): 81September (1987): 82Radio Days (1987): 88Hannah and Her Sisters (1986): 103Purple Rose of Cairo (1985): 82Broadway Danny Rose (1984): 84Zelig (1983): 79Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982): 88Stardust Memories (1980): 89Manhattan (1979): 96Interiors (1978): 93Annie Hall (1977): 93Love and Death (1975): 85Sleeper (1973): 89Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (1972): 88Bananas (1971): 82Take the Money and Run (1969): 85What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966): 80
― jaymc, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:07 (thirteen years ago) link
This might be the most I've ever agreed with a thread!
(Heh, my gf, a huge fan of endless action and sci-fi movies, complained that Annie Hall was "too long"!)
― Sundar, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:17 (thirteen years ago) link
I might be alone on this but I actually thought Splice could have really used another 15-20 minutes to help smooth out some rather, er, ungraceful plot movement.
― Simon H., Monday, 14 June 2010 22:17 (thirteen years ago) link
― breaking that little dog's heart chakra (Abbott), Monday, June 14, 2010 5:58 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark
ya i think i felt the same way!
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Monday, 14 June 2010 22:20 (thirteen years ago) link
And, yes, I wouldn't mind this phenomenon so much if there were some sort of formal innovation going on to justify the length but when relatively standard comedies or action movies are just dragged out for that much longer, it does feel pretty ridiculous. (Funny People especially, particularly since I generally really enjoyed Apatow.)
xposts
― Sundar, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:21 (thirteen years ago) link
I don't necessarily know if I agree that movies are "too long" but I agree that 99% of them waste a lot of time on dumb shit; ie it's not so much I believe movies should meet an arbitrary length of like 95 minutes but I do think they need to make better use of whatever time they take up
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 14 June 2010 22:54 (thirteen years ago) link
I can see if every minute you cut from a movie means you have to admit you wasted $10million on that scene, I'd feel stingy with the cuts. How long are movies nowadays with budgets under $5 million?
― Philip Nunez, Monday, 14 June 2010 23:35 (thirteen years ago) link
i think Edward III is most on the money here in saying that its an auteur thing. i think it has to do with prestige not just for the studio/distributor but for the director or editors. i also dont think its a coincidence that we're now seeing tons of new 'directors cut,' 'extended edition,' etc DVDs that supposedly emphasize the true version of a film, implying that longer runtimes=more authenticity or whatever.
or even just how many times have you heard the story of how the studio tried to chop xxx scenes out of whatever classic movie or ruined magnificent ambersons? so if judd apatow is going to get 150 minutes for funny people hes not going to sabotage his own movie
― killahpriest (/\/K/\/\), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:23 (thirteen years ago) link
not that that explains why the studio would be down with that
― killahpriest (/\/K/\/\), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:24 (thirteen years ago) link
and tbh i enjoyed funny people for the most part
― killahpriest (/\/K/\/\), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:25 (thirteen years ago) link
In apatow's defense, there isn't much he could cut that doesn't disrupt the main story, and the parts that he could cut are funnier/better than the main story.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:33 (thirteen years ago) link
In apatow's defense, he is fucking clueless
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 03:48 (thirteen years ago) link
― Philip Nunez, Monday, June 14, 2010 8:33 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
not much of a defense imho
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 03:52 (thirteen years ago) link
people need a break from the minute long youtubes they watch all the time
― an indie-rock microgenre (dyao), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:00 (thirteen years ago) link
ITT people making me happy that I don't watch new movies
― Cunga, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:02 (thirteen years ago) link
― Simon H., Monday, June 14, 2010 8:57 PM (Yesterday)
Under appreciated post.
― Cunga, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:03 (thirteen years ago) link
personally i think comedies need a REALLY compelling reason to break 90 minutes. and any movie needs to seriously justify breaking the two-hour mark. every minute you go over that, you should owe the audience money or something
I agree 100%. I have a pretty firm 2 hr limit and anything over that I start to get so antsy it's ridiculous. 90 mins is the perfect length for most movies imo.
Spiderman 3 was so long it was a serious test of my will, and I lost.
I saw a midnight showing of that piece of crap on a weeknight and got about 3 hours of sleep as a result. I was so pissed.
― o sh!t a ˁ˚ᴥ˚ˀ (ENBB), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:07 (thirteen years ago) link
Maybe swollen mediocre films are the natural counterpart to hugely fat mediocre novels:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/review/files/small.HAMILTON_Judas%20Unchained.jpg
― Aimless, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:11 (thirteen years ago) link
i can sit through a three hour movie in a theater no problem, but give me a DVD longer than 90 min and I literally fall asleep!
― baout it baout it (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:39 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah me too. it's harder to pay attention at home for some reason.
― Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:48 (thirteen years ago) link
Never mind watching something on your laptop.
Pretty sure Ingmar Bergman's oeuvre wasn't meant to be minimized so you can check your Facebook and e-mail (or was it??)
― Cunga, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:51 (thirteen years ago) link
everything is too long these days if you ask me.
― Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:52 (thirteen years ago) link
I upped it to 150 minutes before making that statement--I see few action films, unless it's something like Inception or The Dark Knight, both of which obviously have artistic aspirations, whether you think they get there or not. But you might be right, I honestly don't know.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:45 (thirteen years ago) link
More action films without artistic aspirations plz
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:46 (thirteen years ago) link
On the basis of those two, I'd agree. I'd still prefer the aspirations, though, in hopes of lucking onto something like the second Spiderman or Batman films, both of which I liked a lot.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:53 (thirteen years ago) link
Hurting rlly consistently a foole this week
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 19:00 (thirteen years ago) link
don't wanna get dragged into that people-showing-up-at-random-during-the-middle-of-films-at-the-cinema-in-the-olden-days argument again but check this out
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ksk66thANP1qzsbs8.jpg
― piscesx, Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:23 (eleven years ago) link
it was a well known gimmick of Hitch's, don't think i've seen that poster before tho
― aboulia banks (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:27 (eleven years ago) link
IIRC that gimmick was used with Psycho only, because it was advertised as a Janet Leigh movie, and Hitchcock was afraid that people turning in late might miss her part of the movie.
― Tuomas, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:57 (eleven years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/dec/12/is-the-hobbit-too-long
― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:47 (eleven years ago) link
it's amazing how they made the bold creative decision to make it into three movies. really makes me excited for the results.
― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:53 (eleven years ago) link
169 minutes! holy Christ.
― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:54 (eleven years ago) link
All too many other potentially great movies, from Titanic to Out of Africa
stopped reading here
― Ward Fowler, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:59 (eleven years ago) link
haha
― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 13:01 (eleven years ago) link
This IS 40; 133 minutes for a comedy.
― piscesx, Saturday, 16 February 2013 16:37 (eleven years ago) link
John Cleese going with the 'people rocked up in the middle of the film then left where they came in' line, which some ilx folk are/were skeptical about
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ch4L2nrWMAE3FJ8.jpg
― piscesx, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:33 (seven years ago) link
What's he on about - his "parents' generation"? We used to do this all the time when I was a kid. This is how I watched The Meaning of Life and Life of Brian.
― everything, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 18:53 (seven years ago) link
A 1:45 cut of Civil War would be better.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 11 May 2016 00:14 (seven years ago) link
minute 45, right?
― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 May 2016 03:46 (seven years ago) link
bingo
― a poptimist consumed with celebrity culture and vacuous pop music (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 11 May 2016 05:53 (seven years ago) link
Too many unneccesary trilogies.
― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 06:25 (seven years ago) link
So the new Avengers will be 3+ hours...
― a large tuna called “Justice” (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 16:47 (five years ago) link
yeah
https://media.giphy.com/media/fDO2Nk0ImzvvW/giphy.gif
― affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 16:47 (five years ago) link
why would you see any of these movies
the new Avengers will be 3+ hours...
― shoulda zagged (esby), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 16:52 (five years ago) link
No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.
Still no date on the Arbelos 4K restoration of Satantango. Criterion's 2K restoration of War and Peace drops June 25. Mysteries of Lisbon awaits on the stack, but I've discovered an affinity for horror in my greying years, that's been pushing the artsier stuff aside.
― with Chew Guard™ technology (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 18:37 (five years ago) link
tbf war and peace is too long.
― affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 18:48 (five years ago) link
or at least not so great.
― affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 18:49 (five years ago) link
feel like theres a decent thread in here about overly long movies that were good but contained a long and ultimately unnecessary sideplot that could've been excised completely
Interstellar & the Matt Damon thing is a pretty good example
― frogbs, Tuesday, 26 March 2019 18:54 (five years ago) link
I bet that 90% of the films that check in at 150 minutes+ aspire to one or more of those things; how many actually achieve it, obviously many fewer.― clemenza, Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:18 PM (eight years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― clemenza, Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:18 PM (eight years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
That's just an application of Sturgeon's Law (85-90% of everything is crap). Presumably 100% of the filmmakers who attempt to make epic films are attempting to do so well, but maybe only 10% of the resulting films are good enough to be worth their running time.
I expect to see the forthcoming Avengers movie, but I wish filmmakers besides Tarantino would bring back intermissions. You'd think theater operators would welcome the second chance to sell overpriced concessions to moviegoers.
― Anne Hedonia (j.lu), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 19:45 (five years ago) link
I am surprised the Patton Oswalt bit about filmmaking didn't appear here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcjlKcjVxTc
― Yerac, Tuesday, 26 March 2019 20:00 (five years ago) link
I just had to look up how long Roma is because I just feel it's way too long despite not having seen it yet. 135 minutes
― Yerac, Tuesday, 26 March 2019 20:02 (five years ago) link
I started watching Roma last November, still haven't finished it
― recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 March 2019 20:04 (five years ago) link
Maybe we can make it a group project and everyone takes 15 minutes of it.
― Yerac, Tuesday, 26 March 2019 20:05 (five years ago) link
https://www.thecut.com/2019/12/movies-should-be-97-minutes-long.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw
Do you know how long Noah Baumbach’s torturous divorce drama Marriage Story is? Two hours and 17 minutes. It could have easily lost half an hour. Do you know how long the wacky whodunnit Knives Out is? Two hours and ten minutes. I really liked it, mostly, but it could be 20 minutes shorter, and it would be better for it. I liked It okay, but It Chapter Two is two hours and 50 minutes long. That is outrageous. I could watch four episodes of the Real Housewives in that time.
― piscesx, Thursday, 19 December 2019 20:35 (four years ago) link
Marriage Story is a pretty complex narrative, didn't seem overlong.
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 December 2019 20:48 (four years ago) link
I went to bed with half an hour left to go, figure I'll put it on and let them finish the complex narrative of shouting at each other while I'm cooking sometime
― insecurity bear (sic), Thursday, 19 December 2019 22:22 (four years ago) link
The Batman is going to be 2hrs 47min or some shit.
― Precious, Grace, Hill & Beard LTD. (C. Grisso/McCain), Thursday, 20 January 2022 22:52 (two years ago) link
Looking on Netflix for a movie to watch (we don't tend to do this) we settled on "The Irishman" the Scorcese movie.
Man! I mean, a great movie, but three and a half hours!
Justified, but.
― Mark G, Friday, 21 January 2022 00:29 (two years ago) link
Isn’t it much longer than that?
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 21 January 2022 00:36 (two years ago) link
Or did it just feel like it
Well, I looked it up, and I think officially it's a minute shorter, and the longest movie released to cinemas for thirty years or some such.
― Mark G, Friday, 21 January 2022 00:44 (two years ago) link
Woodlands Dark and Days Bewitched: A History of Folk Horror is apparently free on Kanopy now, but I have to set some time aside as it's 3hr 14 min
― Andy the Grasshopper, Friday, 21 January 2022 01:20 (two years ago) link
Everybody thinks the Andrei Tarkovsky remaking Ben Hur
― Johnny Mathis der Maler (Boring, Maryland), Friday, 21 January 2022 01:50 (two years ago) link
Their
Hearing that John Wick 4 will weigh in at just under 3 hours.
― an icon of a worried-looking, long-haired, bespectacled man (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, 14 February 2023 03:16 (one year ago) link
Relevant: Last (x) Movies you are going to Avoid
― an icon of a worried-looking, long-haired, bespectacled man (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, 14 February 2023 03:29 (one year ago) link
movies I've seen 3+ hours or more in the last few years:
The BatmanAvatar 2Avengers: Endgame
none of these are fuckin Cleopatra, I want a refund.
― waiting for a czar to fall (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 14 February 2023 04:50 (one year ago) link
The Menu in part succeeds because it's succinct, it's less than two hours long.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 February 2023 04:57 (one year ago) link
My mother insists that her mother brought her into a show of Witness for the Prosecution about thirty minutes from the end, and then they did exactly as Cleese describes. As soon as my grandmother had everything pieced together, she decreed that they had seen the film now and could leave.
― trishyb, Tuesday, 14 February 2023 15:12 (one year ago) link
did you hate Tár
― more crankable (sic), Tuesday, 14 February 2023 16:49 (one year ago) link
bad movies are too fucking long ihibidtae
― satori enabler (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 14 February 2023 17:13 (one year ago) link
Solution: take out all icky sex scenes
#onethread
― waiting for a czar to fall (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 14 February 2023 18:15 (one year ago) link