I don’t care if a movie is 90 minutes or 3 hours as long as it’s good.
That said, I’m more likely to watch a movie that’s under two hours than one over that amount, but there are some that need the longer time to do it right.
…The Marvels, to make that film under two hours. …it’s the shortest Marvel movie of all, at 1hr 45m. (Though given The Marvels is regarded as one of the weakest Marvel movies, such brevity doesn’t always equal quality.)
Superman director James Gunn had to deny rumours Warner Bros had ordered him to make the film shorter
…watching The Fantastic Four that it strives to stay under the two-hour mark. In doing so it perhaps over-corrects a little: a blossoming romance between Ebon Moss-Bachrach’s The Thing and Natasha Lyonne’s schoolteacher suddenly vanishes midway through the movie – or more likely was sent to the cutting room floor by clockwatchers. Still, that did probably contribute to a film that, while not without flaws, felt appealingly brisk.
Maybe I’m alone but my chief complaint of all three of these films were how quick they were and how they didn’t give certain characters or stories the room to breathe, or in some cases room to be told.
Two hours is the minimum I expect, and an extra half hour is appreciated. Obviously I don’t want to slog through a film, but if you’re going to tell a rich epic story, it probably takes time, and I want to see it.
Now if I’m going to see a wacky comedy like The Naked Gun, that’s fine if it’s 90 minutes. A “kids” movie like Pixar, 90 minutes is fine.
I am not sure if the post’s thumbnail is a funny coincidence or a deliberate attempt by The Guardian. But I found it funny, and in spirit of the movie within the thumbnail.
please give me long movies, I don’t have the attention span of a pistachio
Please give me 90 min movies. I don’t have the time neither the commitment to watch 3h movie of a mild story poorly developed characters with a so-so final
Quality aside, I just don’t want movies that do need the extra time to be cut short. Unnecessary padding might be arguably worse, but that comes from different reasons.
Do I want some movies to be 3h long with the deep development of a novel of George r r Martin? Sure, it could be fun.
Do I want a 4h movie about the avengers where the main plot are the philosophic questions about the determisn of the universe of ant man? Fur the fuck shake! No!!
And the problem is that todays perception of filmmakers is that you need 4h to proper tell a history to be properly understood, because with less nobody would appreciate their geniuses.
Please, give me my 90 minutes back!
I can see your point. I guess long movies and short ones both have their place - there are many memorable shorter films as well.
I love anthologies that allows stories that only need 10-20 minutes to be told in the right amount of time instead of being stretched out to fill time. Long movies are great too!
Tbh I don’t want to watch a 15 minute short of a mild story poorly developed characters with a so-so final either
Nobody wants that, but at least you only lost 15 mi nof your life and not 3:30h that could be well invested in drinking beers with friends :)
Most of these “top 10 Hollywood blockbuster” films are dogshit regardless of how long or short they are, so it’s quite an irrelevant point to me. But I guess that’s probably a minority opinion.
