Anybody else dislike long films?

V

Verd1234

Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I'm the kind of person who prefers watching movies in one sitting. Sometimes, if I have already seen the movie, I am ok with taking breaks but I generally like watching in one sitting...

I disliked Solaris (165 minutes), The Godfather ( 175 minutes) and Apocalypse Now ( 205 minutes) for this reason. I tried watching these movies in one sitting and I had a headache afterward and couldn't enjoy any of them. And it wasn't just because of the headache...I got bored and wasn't able to pay attention as much...I was kinda waiting for it to get over...

I know that they are highly regarded but I wasn't able to enjoy them... I prefer movies that don't go beyond 130 minutes....140 is kindia pushing it but that's as far as I can handle lol...

Anybody else this way? I am not saying that long movies are bad....just that I can't personally enjoy them....

Edit: I no longer feel this way. Like I say in page 2 of this thread, it turns out that seating posture and the type of chair you sit in do play significant roles...
 
Doesn't matter how long the movie is if it's good (within reason), or how short it is if it's bad.

If you're having trouble sitting through the whole thing, well... that's why they came up with the concept of the "intermission". Pause the movie partway through; get up, stretch, use the bathroom, have a cup of tea, doze off for a few minutes, whatever, then sit back down and finish the rest.

'Course, if you just have a really short attention span then there's not much that can be done for you. Just don't come to my house to watch movies. People who can't sit through a movie get on my nerves.
 
It really depends on what movie you like. I like a medium to quick movie so I prefer a comedy or something not particularly moody. My favorite movie of the year for instance (Dum maaro dum) is barely under two hours. On the other hand, My Husband likes LOOOONGGG historical dramas like Lawrence of Arabia or 55 days in Peking. I can't stand it however, because I don't like to spend most of my waking day watching a movie.
 
Depends on the movie, if it is bad I really can't take more than 1 hour and half, Fuck those Transformers movies, but if it's good I don't care much, I even do Marathons of series and games so I can take hours of gamma rays, but I have a limit, I suffer from headaches so I have to take a looooong rest afterwards.
 
yo-dawg-i-heard-you-tried-to-troll-y-u-fail-tho.jpg


Not all movies can be 90 minutes long. Some stories must be told a certain way. I think it a bit strange for someone to complain of movie length. Would LOTR be good at 90 minutes? Hell no.

I enjoy longer movies more than short ones. Short movies tend to be fairly predictable, and boring to be honest. Godfather cannot be fucked with. Heresy I say! :wink:
 
PainlessDocM said:
Verd1234 said:
I disliked Solaris (165 minutes), The Godfather ( 175 minutes) and Apocalypse Now ( 205 minutes) for this reason.
Click to expand...

You must be trolling.
Click to expand...

It's not an uncommon sentiment. I know people who were mature adult theatergoers when those movies first came out that didn't care for them because of how they seemed to run on, and they're not all idiots. You seem to me to be the kind of person who keeps generally intelligent company, Doc, but I'll bet that even you can't tell me you don't have friends who wouldn't roundly shout you down if you decided at random to pop 2001 into the DVD player. Same general principle.

I'm with the NMA majority here, though. If anyone has trouble sitting through any of the movies mentioned, it's probably because they're not used to meeting their media halfway and actively engaging with it rather than letting it wash over them. It seems that it's a skill that's not only being cultivated less and less these days, but actually atrophying in many of those who once possessed it. That's what a culture of instant gratification will do to itself, I suppose.
 
Walpknut said:
Well LOTR wouldn't be good at any lenght!
Click to expand...

It could have been a great film, but no...


My opinion about film length in general is - I don't care.
If the flick is good enough to mesmerize me into watching it, I will, regardless of length. Some of the best films are well over three hours long, whereas some are less than 15 minutes...if you can call those films, and not just video clips, that is.
 
I think this is more of a case of you simply not liking these movies. if you did, the length wouldn't really matter. sure, some long films can be a bit too long, but in the end if it's a good film it shouldn't matter.

maybe you're just not that into movies? I myself am not much of a movie nut. I never go to the cinema and I only watch one movie per month or so. I'm more into series.
 
have you ever been tested for epilepsy ?

the vast majority of tvs are 720/1080 P and with the way the P technology works it makes people more susceptible to epileptic symptoms. which includes headaches.


most people with epilepsy, even if they dont have seizures, have problems when watching P televisions.


and people with sharp enough eyes to see the disjointed refresh mechanism that P uses.

find out if any of your friends have an I tv, if they do try and watch those movies there and see if you still get headaches. if you dont, then you are epileptic.
 
and if you scream at them to "shut the fucking movie off !!" you may have tourette's
 
Jeez guys, calm down. Not liking long movies (200 minutes is more than 3 hours, it CAN get very long, no matter how good the movie is, for all it's quality I find that Apocalypse Now has some padding for example) doesn't mean he has chronic attention deficit or epilepsy.

I personally don't have this problem overmuch, what I dislike is padding really. Scenes where absolutely nothing happens, random musings that seem to only exist because the screenwriters wanted to shoe-horn a clumsy moral, bogging the film down in irrelevant subplots, ect. Fortunately it's somewhat rare thse days (worst offender in memory is the third LOTR movie, older movies are sometimes even worse about it), but I can't stand it.
 
I agree here. Baseless scenes is what makes a movie boring. Personally, I really like all these thrilling movies - action, thrillers, hell, even drama. Such as Terminator 2. That movie makes me totally forget what's going to happen next because, well, I'm all in it.

And there are Transformers which I can't stand to watch for a few minutes, because how boring it is. I mean... that movie's crap without explosions, and watching explosions for an hour is boring. I didn't even finish the 2nd ones and simply left the cinema, didn't dare going for the sequels (how much are there?)
 
The worst part about Paranormal Activity 3 was realizing how long I'd been in the theater and knowing that it would end soon.
 
I just watched it. Scariest part was when that wife jumped out. And that didn't scare me.

I do feel like a little girl because I actually covered my eyes just a bit at the very end, but a simple 'AAAH SCAREJUMP' was so hilarious I ended up laughing with my friend. Man, I shouldn't have covered my eyes. That would make me look like a man, at least.
 
I am not really someone who enjoys movies, regardless of their length, either. I become twitchy at the halfway through, it's just too "passive". I enjoy playing games, or reading books (hell sometimes I read books in one sitting all the night, so it's not an issue of short attention span), but there are very few movies I don't find boring and pause in the middle of it. :/
 
The worst part about Paranormal Activity 3 was how they made two sequels to such a shitty movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top