Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Never. Length is irrelevant. A good story told well about interesting characters, that holds my attention all the way through is the only criteria I have. It is hard to do that in 30 minutes, but if you can pull it off, OK by me. 3 1/2 hours? OK too.
Just make it a great movie, and I'm there. Great movies always seem to go by quickly.
The only key is that I am completely immersed and nothing else in life matters from the moment the movie starts, until the ending credits roll. That's it.
"A Christmas Story" is 94 minutes start to finish. Hooked me immediately and raced all the way through.
I consider "Casablanca" to be the best movie ever made. 102 minutes.
"Smokey and the Bandit" is an all time favorite. 96 minutes.
"The Truman Show" is 103 minutes.
"Groundhog Day" is 101.
I could go on all day like this. Especially a lot of great old movies.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 12-08-2020 at 12:24 AM..
Whenever I am shopping for a theater movie, I find myself turned off when it is only 1 1/2 hours long. It makes me feel like it’s very low budget, poor acting or that I’m not getting my money’s worth. Does anyone else feel the same way?
I rarely go to the movies anymore (even before the pandemic), and I probably wouldn't bother if a movie was under 2 hrs, unless I really wanted to see it. New James Bond movies for instance.
I often buy blu-rays or DVDs and the length tends to affect my buying decision, unless it is a movie I truly know I will like.
No. A 1.5 hr movie can still be good & I'd definitely still see it if it's something I'm interested in, however, I personally like longer movies since 1.5 hrs goes by kind of fast to me.
Movie length cycles (or at least it did). Typically the serious themes used to run long. GWTW, LOA, Schindler's List, and so on would take whatever time it took to tell the story. Kid's films ran short.
I don't remember exactly when, but sometime in the 70s or 80s, there was a drive by studios to have theatres get five or six showings in during a day, supposedly to maximize profits. That meant that 100 minutes was about the max a film could run, less if previews and ads were included. After a while, that stopped when some powerful director broke the rule and made a lot of money. (This stuff happened all the time)
Horror is generally short, as it is difficult to maintain the emotion for long periods. Some long films are horrors BECAUSE they are so long. (Interstellar, I'm singling you out)
Thinking back to scheduling, the few films that ran less than 90 minutes were generally B features for drive-ins or comedy. Film came in canisters, and almost all contained at least six reels. Each reel held up to 20 minutes, so somewhere between 100 and 120 minutes was normal.
I was a 35mm projectionist in the early to mid-90's and quite a few comedies in that era were on 5-reels at between 90 and 100 minutes. PCU (which I still think is one of the better stupid movies every made) was a 4-reeler. Anything more than 7 reels was pretty rare. Forrest Gump and JFK were 8 and 9 reels respectively as I recall. I was out of the business by the time the Lord of the Rings movies came along, but I remember hearing that Return of the King barely fit on the film platter.
I love older, epic movies, and have a pretty nice collection of them on Blu Ray and one of the nicest things about having a home theater is being able to hit pause. Any film approaching 3 hours or longer should have an intermission.
That being said, I think theatrical exhibition is finished. All the movement in release dates this week, despite the vaccines going into people's arms and the case and positivity rates trending down significantly since 1/4 will be the final straw.
Gettysburg and Gods and Generals are two fully enjoyable movies to me.
254 minutes and 280 minutes. But they're engrossing and entertaining throughout. At least for a Civil War buff.
That being said.. They are tough to watch in a single sitting simply due to time constraints.. I saw both in theaters and.. closing in on 4 and a half hours.. All I can say is thank goodness they had an intermission.
Sometimes I feel that the tighter a genre film sticks to its formula the shorter it needs to be. After all, most of them are predictable. Only takes a few minutes to figure out what's going to happen and to which characters. If the film lingers longer than that its TOO LONG, just filler to run the clock out, a vehicle for endless action, rehashed special effects and unnecessary melodrama. After staggering out of the theater or numbly flipping off the TV you can end up feeling as if you've been beaten on the head with a stick, wondering why you stuck it out that long. Hoping against hope for a miracle...
Last edited by Parnassia; 01-22-2021 at 02:52 PM..
Some movies have just gotten too long and could have benefitted from tighter editing.
In general, comedies tend to be compact and have simpler story lines...same for horror flicks! Dramas with complexity (not just a typical action picture) will take more time to develop mutliple storylines and characters.
I really can't stand some stupic action flick with just endless scene after scene of the same fight or same special effects - every 5 minutes to be sure to "keep your attention".
Whenever I am shopping for a theater movie, I find myself turned off when it is only 1 1/2 hours long. It makes me feel like it’s very low budget, poor acting or that I’m not getting my money’s worth. Does anyone else feel the same way?
Depends. If it's a Gerard Butler film, I pray I that it's classic 3-Act and OVER in 90 min. That's plenty of time for the dumbass story, 99/100 times.
'Greenland' was pretty good, though. That's a first, the man can finally act. I was sorry when it was over. Dunno the length and don't care. They had plenty of story to tell.
One of my favorite movies that is the very definition of 'suspenseful', "Identity (2003)" was about 91 min, per IMDB. Could not have been a more perfect length, tightest editing and screenwriting ever.
As discussed, ANY movie with Leslie Mann is TOO LONG, and will be judged accordingly. Her voice and demeanor cleave through my skull and leave me a bleeding puddle on the floor. I'd rather have my eyes gouged out and be hung by my entrails than see This is 40 again.
Having said that, I watched The Irishman on Netflix and it went on forEVER. Some movies are just too long.
Yes. If it's only a half and hour, this tells me this show has many episodes. But if it last for over 2 hours, then this tells me that it is only one movie made. And it is on the big screen TV. BTW: anybody saw the new movie out on NETFLIX? Finding Ohana. It was shot in Honolulu. I never got a chance to purchase the movie. I only saw clips of it. Kelly Hu was the main actress. She was the whole supporting crew to the movie. Former Miss Hawaii pageant winner. And she had other acting roles in her time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
