Anybody else dislike long films?

I'm probably biased because one of my all time favorite films is Once Upon a Time in America and that nears or passes 4 hours and I could sit and watch that in one day (and have on numerous occasions).

It's all about pacing and quality of the film. A film with both will not feel that long to you, but then again I love film. But i will say i could never sit through Das Boot (though I could sit through Seven Samurai or Ran) and I dislike Braveheart (very overrated, good concept though).
 
thegaresexperience said:
I'm probably biased because one of my all time favorite films is Once Upon a Time in America and that nears or passes 4 hours and I could sit and watch that in one day (and have on numerous occasions).
Click to expand...
I've seen Lawrence of Arabia several times, and it's around 4 hours as well. It has a built-in intermission.
 
Once upon a time in America is one of my favourite movies but at nearly four hours it is rather straining to watch in one sitting. Still great, though.

TheWesDude said:
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.
Click to expand...
Huh? How exactly do you think progressive scan works? Unlike interlaced TVs, it uses full pictures thus totally eliminating screen flicker.

TheWesDude said:
and people with sharp enough eyes to see the disjointed refresh mechanism that P uses.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you are clearly talking about interlaced technology here.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7734250_plasma-tvs-epilepsy.html
 
I know this is completely unrelated, but wouldn't it be fun if we could take the plasma from your screen and load it up on a rifle? :)
 
I've rarely watched a well-made movie and thought to myself when it ended, "Damn, I'm glad that's over."

Usually the opposite. I think most movies are too short these days, especially if they are damn good movies.
 
I agree with DB.

IMHO Captain America could have been at least 20 mins longer

[spoiler:76a1cca217]Bucky dies WAY too fast after being saved[spoiler[/spoiler:76a1cca217]
 
I don't judge a movie for its length, but there's a much better chance I'll watch a movie if it is shorter.

I'm with most of you guys that there are tons of incredible long movies, and that people shouldn't miss out on these. But if I was to go down to my dvd case and pick out a movie to watch, I'm much more likely to pick up something I can be done with in two hours, rather than something that requires me scratching off the better part of the day. That's probably why Memento is one of my most watched films since you can get in and out in two hours.
 
Agreed. Long movies can still be good but they don't really have the best repeat viewing quality due to their length. I've sat through more than one full 26 epsidode (half-hour timeslot) show the first time I watched it when I was younger but I really don't have the time to these days. Hell, watching a 3+ hour long movie is a pretty big commitment and not one that I can or in the mood to squeeze in very often. Also, as has already been said, many of such movies have padding. Director's cuts tend to be particularly bad about this. Take Legend for example, it went from being an 89 minute long film to 113 minutes long, with the majority of the footage being extended shots of scenery (and a different soundtrack but we'll ignore that). LOTR is another example of bloated films in both versions. Don't get me wrong, they're enjoyable, but they both have a crapload of unnecessary scenes. Do we really need 30minutes of dialogue-less traveling in a film?

That said, it truly is the mark of a good film when you don't realize how much time has passed.
 
Those Spanish soap operas are a good example of a bad long film.

'So you told him about the money?'
'Yes... I told him about the money.'
'Oh my god, you told him about the money!'

That was in one of those parodies.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
Agreed. Long movies can still be good but they don't really have the best repeat viewing quality due to their length. I've sat through more than one full 26 epsidode (half-hour timeslot) show the first time I watched it when I was younger but I really don't have the time to these days. Hell, watching a 3+ hour long movie is a pretty big commitment and not one that I can or in the mood to squeeze in very often. Also, as has already been said, many of such movies have padding. Director's cuts tend to be particularly bad about this. Take Legend for example, it went from being an 89 minute long film to 113 minutes long, with the majority of the footage being extended shots of scenery (and a different soundtrack but we'll ignore that). LOTR is another example of bloated films in both versions. Don't get me wrong, they're enjoyable, but they both have a crapload of unnecessary scenes. Do we really need 30minutes of dialogue-less traveling in a film?

That said, it truly is the mark of a good film when you don't realize how much time has passed.
Click to expand...

I somewhat disagree on this, it's boring to see a movie character looking placid to the sea during 10 minutes, but sometimes you really need some lengthy scenes to build up atmosphere and dialog.
The Godfather is one of those movies, there are some lengthy scenes that contribute to the movie, rather than filling some space.

"Phone Boot (81 min)" and "The Sunset Limited (91 min)" are short movies, but extremelly good ones.
Both "Transformers" are horrible and have more than 120 min.
On the other hand "The Pianist" has 150 min and is friggin' good.
So the problem is not the duration, but how the director made the movie.

You can make a good lenghty or shorter movie with average actors and a talented director, but you can't make a good movie with talented actors and only a average director.
 
what about that 4+ hour movie the 10 commandments?


to me for a movie to be "epic" it requires "epic" length. because that means its about the story and complex story telling in a short time span is just idiotic and requires going to the "lcd" or lowest common denominator.

i dont mind long movies if there is a reason it is long. if its a long movie and all its doing is an exercise in self-wanking, well thats a horrible movie.
 
My favorite movie of all time is "Seven Samurai" with a running time of 207 minutes, not including the intermission. It's a long movie, and no, it's not easy to sit through it one sitting. But boy is it worth 3 hours of my time.

In particular, why I like Seven Samurai is that it doesn't waste a lot of time with scenery shots or expository long shots. Kurosawa trimmed a lot of the fat out and was pretty ruthless in editing. It's a 3 hour movie, yet continually moves along the narrative, and doesn't linger on needless special effects or "pretty" shots even though many of the shots are beautifully framed.

At the risk of sounding like a cinephile, what makes an epic movie worth the hours spent watching it is the experience being presented to you. It's often alien to your own personal experience, and tries to isolate you from your own world and go all out to try to capture you in theirs.
 
I love Das Boot but uncut it runs for 5 hours. Never made it through the whole thing in one sitting, even though I tried. It was a mini-series though so maybe it doesn't count. Great film though.
 
TheWesDude said:
what about that 4+ hour movie the 10 commandments?
Click to expand...
I love The Ten Commandments. At that length, having the time to watch it is the problem.

Also the 1959 Ben Hur, which is about 3.5 hours.
 
The lonesome Dove "movies"/series are 6 hours each (three of them).

Some parts are painfully boring. The stories overall are pretty good though and it is always interesting to see all the stars that were in them.
 
Well, I made this topic a while back and my opinions have changed... I found that the reason I felt in pain when watching long movies was due to the sofa I was sitting in and the position I was in. When I corrected this, I stopped having those problems...

Also, I guess I wasn't used to slower paced films back then as I am now. I actually re watched The Godfather and liked it...

Alot of famous films are fast paced so the slower paced films just seem longer but people who are used to the faster paced ones...but I have found now that when I am in a comfortable position I am not so bother by long run times...and now that I am more used to slower-pacing I am not bother by that as well...Hooray! :D
 
at home long movies are fine. you can split the movie watching up however you want if you dont want to watch the whole thing in one sitting.

but when going to a movie theatre and having to sit through 2.5 or longer movies, i get pissed for no intermissions to go to the bathroom.

so figure if there is a 2.5+ hr movie, you are going to miss like 5-10 minutes while you walk out, take a piss, and then get back to your seat.
 
it really depends on the movie! Lord of the Rings? No problem. Its even to short in my eyes. And yeah I watched the extend version :D

Thing is, I was forced to watch a King Movie once with some haunted house no clue. It was going for 4 or 5 ours as well. Boring as fuck. And a story which they could have told as well in less then 2 ours.

That is the issue. If it has a good story and characters which are worth to watch. Then its no problem to sit trough it even if it are 3 or 4 ours. But if you have the feeling the SAME story could be told in less then 2 ours and it would be even better that way ... then why making it 4? Just because the "book" is so big? Well part of the problem with the King movie was they really change so much in quality sometimes. Green Mile? The Shawshank Redemption? Thats a great movie. And then you have some that are not so great.

So it really depends on the movie for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top