Are longer movies inherently better?
 

I was thinking of something Requiem mentioned to me the other day about Tombstone. It is a movie that is outside the norm on length. It also is a movie I very much enjoy.

Then I thought of other movies that were longer then most. LoTR, Scarface and The Assassination of Jesse James. All excellent well received movies.

90-120 mins isn't a long time to develop characters or plots. With a longer film it doesn't need to be as rushed and more focus can be put on individual characters and gives you a better experience.

Are there any movies you can think of over 2.5 hours that weren't at least average?

What are some others you have enjoyed where the credits were the starting pistol for the bathroom?

Can't really think of any examples off the top of my head, and don't really want to put the effort into it but...

No. No they are not.

I have seen tons of "long" movies that end up being "meh" or "eh" or even "bad".

Much harder to keep someone's interest going for a longer period of time. Need to really tight and have an excellent flow.

Maybe Im simply forgetting the bad ones.

Just out of curiosity I decided to check IMDBs top 10 movies. Was a little surprised at what I saw.

Shawshank Redemption - 2 hours 22 mins
Godfather - 2 hours 55 mins
Godfather II - 3 hours 20 mins
Pulp Fiction - 2 hours 48 mins
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - 2 hours 41 mins
12 Angry Men - 1 hour 36 mins (Shortest)
Schindlers List - 3 Hours 15 mins
The Dark Knight - 2 hours 32 mins
LotR: The Return of The King - 3 hours 21 mins (Longest)
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest - 2 hours 13 mins

These are easily average of 2.5 hours each and are generally held as some of the best motion pictures ever made.

I think there's a sweet spot and it depends on the movie. Also not any director/writer can be given a 2 1/2 to 3 hours and make magic with it.

Really depends on the movie. Most action type movies that don't rely on character development don't need to be that long. But I like good long movies better than good short movies, because I feel I invest more emotionally into them. Good movies typically deliver more on development and actually tying up storylines.

That's not to say all long movies are good. I'm sure there are plenty that are quite dull and don't deliver. But that added length just gives the director a little more room to give the movie plenty of time to get everything out rather than having to cut out potentially good parts.

Probably 95% of my friends don't have the attention span to sit through long movies. Pretty disappointing. Need to find a girlfriend who loves all kinds of movies.

However long it takes to properly tell the story

With more time, you can have more development.

Agree on it depends on the movie more than the actual length. Comedies tend to do pretty well the most as short films.

1st Lord of the Rings film was pretty long but also pretty slow compared to later films in the series while the Matrix trilogy were all over 2 hours each but the last 2 films were pretty weak overall.

Inception was amazing due to its great pacing and didn't feel like it dragged along even though it was over 2 and a half hours long.

A properly paced film is great. I agree. Though when you look st the list I provided even the supporting characters were given a bit of time.

It really depends on the film itself and its plot.

Agree with CSL in that aspect. I find alot of 90-120 movies feel rushed sometimes. Where you wish more was revealed about certain characters.

Main thing I hate about some shorter movies, even if they're good, is that I often feel like they end before I want them to. Like I still want more even if the movie was good. You could say something is good if it leaves you wanting more, but I'd rather be totally satisfied with everything they gave me than to be left feeling like there wasn't ENOUGH awesome.

All the Transformers movie are about 2 hours 30 mins each, and they even get longer with each sequel. Not very good movies in my opinion.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

I know that was close to 3 hours easy, but even I didn't think it was that great of a film.

Pirates of the Caribbean are all pretty long, only the first one is particularly good. Taratino is an example of someone who could do with shortening some of his films. I thought Kill Bill was tripe, but part of that was the fact it was an over-long indulgent wankfest, the equivalent of a grown man wanking himself off in the format of film. Similarly Inglorious Bastards is better but is still far too long and could have done with being trimmed down.

I'm a big American Civil War buff, and the films "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals" are both long, and I think they are two of the best American Civil War films ever.

Being long isnt what made those listed movies great Fangel, having great stories and characters that evolve over a long time is what made them great.

Of course the movies with the most story and devlopment will be longer, but that isnt a rule.

If you want that level of development, pick up a book.

Bollocks at 30 extra minutes allowing you to be more invested in a movie. I've seen two hour shitfests like Obsessed which could have been an hour longer and it would still be a rubbish with unrelatable characters. Meanwhile all it took was 10 minutes of watching Up to be invested in that.

Alright. Now what do I do with it?

No, TNA Impact is about 2 hours long and it sucks.

Didn't care for Heat all that much considering the cast it had plus it was just longer than it really need to be.

As long as the film script is good & the acting is great then I don't mind long films

was Obsessed that movie with Beyonce killing Ali Larter? or am I thinking of something else?

That's not a bad idea. I always like reading.

Yeah

yeah that movie sucked cock

Malcolm X was long as shit

I'm sure he was girthy as well