Your ideal length of a film

in a theater i don't mind any length, really but if i'm watching at home, I get antsy for anything over 90 minutes, so I voted 90-110

70-90

90

Ideal is around 90 - I voted 90-110 as I'd favour slightly long over slightly short.

Anyone have any stats to hand about how film length has grown over the years? Seems to me that just about every Big Movie these days has to be over two hours.

There are long films that I enjoy but I feel that some are unnecessarily long (couldn't believe the extended version of LOTR ROTK had a longer ending - like a 30 minute happy wash-up wasn't enough?).

in a theater i don't mind any length, really but if i'm watching at home, I get antsy for anything over 90 minutes, so I voted 90-110

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, March 9, 2010 9:02 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

I'm the opposite. I am fine at home but get antsy in the theater.

70-90 is perfect for me and around 2hrs is my limit in the theater. Anything over that and I get ridiculously fidgety even if it's something I'm really enjoying.

films should all be trailer length. seriously there's some nights where I'm at the theatre and so mentally exhausted that it'd be nice just tos ee a litter of mindless trailers for like 30 mins and go home.

but ok, talking seriously...uhm. I dunno, like most comedies I would say are pushing it at the 100 minute mark. but then again, the first movie in a superhero series often has to have 2.5 hours to get exposition and sufficient action in (although some do it very well in 2).

I do think 'blockbusters' have grown overlong. Indiana Jones didn't need three mu'fuckin hours.

is it just me or do movies 'feel' longer in the theatre? I swear 2 hours in a movie theatre feels like 2.5 at home.

I didn't mind the length of the LOTR movies because it was like having someone squirt honey into your eyes for four hours

it's the three hour long dramas full of pregnant pauses and longueurs that I have no patience for

I was contemplating averaging the lengths of my favourite films, but to be honest, I think that would skew the answer. My gut feeling is 90-110, so I'm going with that.

80-85 is my real ideal.

obviously some films need to be longer. im surprised that 'a serious man' was 106min -- it flew by. but recently 'funny people', 'a prophet', 'avatar' (shite at half the length, admittedly) were way over the top, length-wise.

is it just me or do movies 'feel' longer in the theatre? I swear 2 hours in a movie theatre feels like 2.5 at home.

I'm the complete opposite, most movies "feel" shorter for me in the theater, unless its a really bad movie, then it feels interminable.

I'd say the 90-110 range is about perfect for me as well.

ENBB

I dunno, in theaters it feels like me vs. the movie. And I'm super alert because
•I'm sitting up
•The air conditioner is breezing on me
•I'm guzzling a giant cup of caffeine-filled Coke Zero

And, most importantly, there's no distractions. I can't tell you how many two-hour movies took an ENTIRE AFTERNOON to watch at home because I pause it relentlessly to check email/ILX or take a nap or make a phone call

films are literally shorter at home -- in the UK anyway. iirc not on american dvds. but they are 1/25 faster here. or 1/24.

Really depends on the movie- if it's crash bang wallop 20m movie star in tights exploring what it is to be special in a cruel world that doesn't care but still needs protecting then 2 hrs max thanks mr nolan. if it's al pacino explaining how important an extra inch is to a room full of rappers then all day isn't long enough.

xp however britishers don't blink as much as americans so it evens out

cos it rains more in blighty

I gotta be honest though, my motivation for even going to the theater is rapidly disappearing. I hate to be curmudgeonly, but I don't think I've been to any movie in the last two years where there haven't been morons answering their cell phones or yapping incessantly with their own running commentary. Since getting a nice, big screen and Blu-Ray player at home, I'm more likely to say "screw it, I'll wait til I can see this on Netflix".

Top box office in the 2000s (according to filmsite.org)

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) --- 104 mins (good start timewise, shame it was shit)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) --- 152 mins (for the shortest of the HP books!)
Spider-Man (2002) --- 121 mins (not bad considering it had first-in-new-franchise exposition)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) --- 201 mins (okay it's v pretty but please just end the fucking thing the bad guy lost an hour ago!)
Shrek 2 (2004) --- 93 mins (a winner is Shrek 2)
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) --- 140 mins (could easily chop 140 mins off that and it would be just as good)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) --- 151 mins (I can't even remember what one that is - the one with the Kraken?)
Spider-Man 3 (2007) --- 139 mins (no exposition excuses - well over two hours for a straight ahead Spidey film)
The Dark Knight (2008) --- 152 mins (why so long?)
Avatar (2009) --- 162 mins (flew past tbh I'm a sucker for whizz bang 3D)

Haha onimo almost 100% OTM there.

The biggest criticism of ROTK (apart from the wooden acting and shitty script) is that it's too short.

Grinch is all-time, btw.

I suppose they were just as bad when I was a kid the - the Godfather films, Deer Hunter & Apocalypse Now must all have been close to three hours each.

they had scripts and performances to keep you interested most of the time though

it used to be all wc fields around here

Those were theatrical releases - most of them have longer DVD releases/director's cuts etc, I think the ROTK version I have is over 4 hours.

yeah but it's 4 hours of peter jackson fanfic, therein lies the problem.

I love those movies and, yes, I own all three super extended special bonus versions.

big films like LOTR and avatar have always been ridic long. from gone with the wind to the robe to lawrence of arabia to towering inferno.

it's in the less spectacular movies where length is becoming more of a problem.

yeah ironically 'the hours' is only 114 mins but i meaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnn stfu already

whiney pretty much otm here

watchin movies at home doesn't really work well for me since all i've got is a laptop. the sound is fine (airfoil to stereo), but the screen is tiny, and it's waaaay too easy to get distracted by all the other shit on my computer, and in my apartment. going to the theater is always a treat because i know that i'm gonna be forced to pay attn. it's v relaxing, tbh. but it also means i'm pickier about what i see in the theater now, because i've gotten so accustomed to being able to command-w if the shit is boring.

i can't at all rationalize getting a nice TV and/or Blu-Ray, but it sure would be nice

does a movie have to be over 2 hours to feel really epic?

I really like the "stay on top" feature of apple dvd player - I can surf ilx while tunin out anchorman

but I can keep an eye on it in case steve carrel pops up

i can't at all rationalize getting a nice TV and/or Blu-Ray, but it sure would be nice

I got mine way back just before the Bears were in the Super Bowl and a lot of the stores had ridiculous sales that January. I was needing a new TV anyway, just had gotten a raise at work, and the deals were fantastic so I treated myself. Great decision. The only reason we got the Blu-Ray is because we got a PS3 for our wedding.

whichever Pirates of the Carribean film it was that had the Kraken drove me nuts. Big advantage of watching at home - you know exactly how long's left in a film. Big disadvantage of watching at home: you know exactly how long's left in a film. I'M ONLY HALFWAY THROUGH??

I'm too stubborn when it comes to starting what I've finished (the other day I watched Jack from beginning to end ffs, and then, even worse, towards the end realised that this was something I'd done before). I have to take some tips from the folks in the 'films you left unfinished' topic.

o yeah the topic at hand. About 90 minutes is nice, so 90-110.

Okay, using the very scientific method of selecting the films I had bothered to put up on my facebook info and checking imdb runtime listings, it seems my ideal film length would be 112.65 minutes long. I did have to discount two short films, though, but I think that separation is necessary.

For posterity, the longest film was The Saragossa Manuscript at 182 minutes, and the shortest was Daisies at 74.

I walked out halfway through Pirates of the Caribbean 2. That meant an hour waiting in the lobby for my friends who were driving and who refused to join me, but I'm pretty sure I had a better time flirting with pink haired popcorn girl than they did watching the film.

A shit film is a shit film regardless of length but any movie is going to struggle to convince me that it needs to be longer than 100 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRLKq-GQ5E

Was Daisies that short?? It seemed soooo looooong the first time we watched it in class. Longest film I've seen is Satantango but we broke it up over 3 nights I think

daisies feels long coz no plot iirc

ideal length = 12hrs 40mins

http://www.reverseshot.com/files/images/pre-issue22/out_1_leaud.preview.jpg

As long as it takes.

(ie, not voting)

otm

of course Daisies has a plot wtf

While that's the correct answer, I still voted 70-90 minutes 'cause I miss terse little films.

Daisies reminded me of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, but I couldn't really tell you what the plot to that one is either (the having to give a history report or they won't become rock messiahs is more of a bogus formality than actual plot device)

is daisies the one about the two czech chicks? tbh i haven't seen it in nine years. not exactly overflowing with plot iirc but who can say.

Sherlock Jr is perfect at around 40 minutes, Berlin Alexanderplatz is great at 13+ hours.

BA is a tv series

yeah, we know

Yeah, one is blonde (Bill) and the other is brunette (Ted). They have a food fight, which I remembered reading was controversial because they wasted perfectly good food? Was it Czech or Polish, though?

It's Czech. I am both bemused and amused at the Bill & Ted comparison.

if a film is good, it doesn't really matter to me how long it is.

+1 for whoever sd 80 min is the perfect length for a movie

Yeah, I might have actually sat through an 80-minute Gone With the Wind.

70-80 is a sweet spot

My concentration at home is totally shot, thanks to the internet. At least I'm FORCED to watch the damn thing in the theatre (which makes me resent the bloated running times).

in a theater i don't mind any length, really but if i'm watching at home, I get antsy for anything over 90 minutes, so I voted 90-110

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:02 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

i cosign this 100%

when i get a movie from netflix and it's like 130 mins i'm always like *grooooaaan*

years of smoking have made it p much impossible for me to watch a 120+ movie in the theater

at least long films in the olde days had entr'actes in the middle so you could break for the day or whatever

90-110, always kinda pissed if I see it's over 2h on the DVD case/movie listing, even if it's something i can't wait to see.

long movies at home > long movies in the theater

can take it at your own pace / don't miss key scenes in the inevitable bathroom breaks / watch the rest tomorrow / etc.

That would be easier if I didn't get the itch to go on ILM, check email, Facebook, etc every ten minutes.

i can usually stash the computer for the length of the film -- i pretty much can never not fall asleep tho

ILM, check email, Facebook

I have no problem doing this + watching the movie at the same time

but I am part of generation ADD

I don't mind long movies so much at home because I can always pause them and take a break to go do something else if I want to, but hate getting stuck at the theater with a long movie.

pausing/resuming movies after more than a few minutes kind of gets me out of movie mode.. loss of momentum etc..

I do like skipping past credits and trailers. It offends me when I have to sit through'em in the theatre.

trailers are the work of satan; i like a good ol' opening credits scene, though. gotta go for The Full Effect

As long as it takes.

(ie, not voting)

― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 March 2010 18:13 (3 hours ago) Bookmark

hey, there's the >150 option.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

ADD

http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/3251/josemourinho6.jpg

(my vote for 130-150 btw)

that screenshot from satantango is great, i thought i could never get tired of narcoleptic long takes of desolate hungarian plains but jancso managed it in 'the round up' (95 mins)

the relation between runtime and boredom isn't always obvious

what the actual blazing fuck, 25 of you savages

NAME ME 10 ALL-TIME MOVIES OTHER THAN LIKE VIDEODROME THAT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY

110 mins pls

1. Killer of Sheep

2. Bicycle Thief (93 minutes total, but who watches credits?)

er Thieves

splits shd have been

>80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140<

imo

but then 80-100 wdve got like 60 votes so maybe not

haha milo please continue

3. Paths of Glory

dammit, Strangelove clocks in at 94

4. Lots of Chaplin/Marx Bros

5. Love & Death

and several other Allens

6. Wild Strawberries

7. Persona

8. Rashomon

Detour's pretty good I guess, not sure about 'all-time'

oh wait I forgot Bergman, also iirc 'Alphaville' is quite short and an all-timer of mine

9. Breathless

lol @ godard convergence

His Girl Friday is 92

10. Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2

ok you are not savages

but you're still wrong :D

I probably would have voted 90-110, but definitely would have voted 80-100.

would have voted 100-120 but can perfectly understand a vote for 80-100 - the number of A++ movies that fall between 90 and 100 minutes is frankly huge

One of Fantastic Mr Fos's many virtues was its 80 minute length. More, please!

*Fox

Pickpocket, L'argent, Mouchette, Lancelot du lac, Los olvidados, Viridiana, L'atalante, Umberto D., Sullivan's Travels, Palm Beach Story, 39 Steps, Cabinet of Dr. Calgari, Lift to the Scaffold, Pickup on South Street, Show Me Love, Lady From Shanghai, Battleship Potemkin all purty good

ok there is no doubting there are classics in the 70-90 range, but what I am saying is that there are enormously more in higher ranges

however, i guess the question is 'how long would you most often like a film to be' so all 25 of you just like films to be shorter maybe

There's some perfect 3-hour films but they're just gonna sit in my stack at home getting resented for weeks before i get to them. i checked out Petrified Forest last week - that little "82 minutes" on the back cover makes my face look like i'm about to tap some ass.

Novels should be within 50 pages/however many words that is of The Great Gatsby, btw.