Do you like long films?

[yello]

I've just read that Martin Scorsese's new film is near 3 and a half hours long. Not sure I could manage that without a pee break. Oh for the days of intermissions eh?!

I know I have enjoyed long films but must admit to being uncertain of anything that passes the 2 hour mark, 100 minutes or therearounds seems to be my ideal. Like the 3 minute pop song I suppose. Of course, if you're at home with a pause button then that changes the game again but, for me, a film has to be pretty darned good to sustain 3 hours plus in a cinema.

 

[MontyVeda]

I'm with you.... 90ish minutes is perfect for a feature film. These days they seem to think more is better and try to cram numerous side-stories and subplots into every blockbuster. I find it tiresome. Just save the side-stories and subplots for a sequel.

 

[fossyant]

At least if you are streaming a film, you can go for a pee break. Only issue is the film then becomes over 4 hours. I have heard there are intervals being re-introduced.

 

[numbnuts]

The longest film ever made, according to Guinness World Records, is "The Cure for Insomnia" (1987), directed by John Henry Timmis IV. It lasts 85 hours and is considered an extraordinary achievement in the film industry.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It’s a rare skill to create a long, enjoyable film that holds your attention for every minute.

The best one I’ve seen (at the cinema about a year ago) is Once Upon a Time in the West. Three hours of cinematic and musical genius that feels like no more than 90 minutes.

It’s also one of those films that can only be truly appreciated on a giant screen.

 

[Profpointy]

I do agree that a fair few modern films are a good half hour too long. Even Openheimer, which I thought terrific could have done with a trim, as did Barbie (could have ditched the preachy speech, which detracted from the overall show not tell cynical and clever message). These were both terrific films, and Oppie did need to be longish

But on the other hand, I could easily have watched another couple of hours of Seven Samurai, one of the greatest masterpieces of filmmaking ever

And we were lucky enough to see Napoleon at the cinema; the 1927 masterpiece. It was five and a half hours. Pity he didn't manage to continue with the rest of the story which would have been another 10 or more hours' worth I guess

But a lot of modern mainstream lightweight entertainment films (nothing wrong with that as sometimes it's what you want) would be tighter and better at 90 minutes rather than two hours.

Similar to this, I read a critic making the same comment about a lot of music albums in the CD era, being stretched to an hour, when, artistically, the musical experience might be better served with fewer songs as a coherent whole, a "song cycle" as it would be termed for classical music, without the alternatives takes and perhaps lesser songs as filler. They could of course solve this by clearly separating the "album" proper from other material, like they do for classical music where you get the Symphony with its 3,4 or 5 movements (the "album" as it were , then other stand alone pieces making up a CD's worth

 

[wiggydiggy]

Depends on the film, Once Upon A Time In America Cannes Cut is 259mins, and it doesn't feel like it. Brilliant film.

On the other hand The Lightouse is only 109 mins, but feels like 3 x that as its such nonsense.

My ultimate long films are The Lord Of The Rings Extended Edition, I've watched those back to back several times so 1200mins or so!

 

[yello]

My ultimate long films are The Lord Of The Rings Extended Edition

You had me agreeing until you said that! I couldn't manage the non-extended version, knowing there's more would severely test me.

But I guess there, in a nutshell, you have it. Different strokes etc.

 

[wiggydiggy]

You had me agreeing until you said that! I couldn't manage the non-extended version, knowing there's more would severely test me.

But I guess there, in a nutshell, you have it. Different strokes etc.

I'd say they are strictly for Tolkien fans, there's a lot in them that isn't needed for a theatrical telling of the story. Famously the extended edition runs for over an hour after the rings are destroyed, with multiple times that the film seems like its ending but doesn't.

That said the book has a whole another books worth of material after the destruction so it is in keeping with them!

 

[MontyVeda]

It’s a rare skill to create a long, enjoyable film that holds your attention for every minute.

The best one I’ve seen (at the cinema about a year ago) is Once Upon a Time in the West. Three hours of cinematic and musical genius that feels like no more than 90 minutes.

It’s also one of those films that can only be truly appreciated on a giant screen.

View attachment 713921

That's one exception that proves the (my) 90 minute rule... I'll disagree with the 'can only truly be appreciated' line though... I first watched it on a 15" portable TV... the VHS tape was knackered with plenty of scrolling... but it still captivated me.

Another is The Good the Bad and the Ugly... a big film with a huge story.

 

[Dave 123]

This is why porn is a winner.
You only need the first minute or so.

 

[yello]

This is why porn is a winner.
You only need the first minute or so.

Depends. Done correctly, yes, but I still fast forward some

 

[mustang1]

2 hours is my limit, possibly 2.5.

If watching a .ovie at.home, I break the film down into half hour chunks and watch it over several days.

 

[Regular.Cyclist]

All depends on the film.

Some of the old classics, e.g Ben-Hur (3hrs 42 mins) or slightly more modern movies, e.g The Green Mile (3hrs 9 mins) you can get into and don’t realise the length of the movie.

Others, even The Deer Hunter (3hrs 3 minute), could be improved by knocking an hour or more off.

 

[yello]

don’t realise the length of the movie.

That's the key innit? If they get their hooks into you then you don't care about time, IF.