It seems that there are many complaints these days about long movies, and one of the fist things you hear about if the movie comes near or especially over 2 hours is the length. I do not think that should even be mentioned unless it effects the rating (in stars). Are people so impatient that they can not sit still for over 90 minutes? SO why should a reviewer talk about that instead of the more important aspects.
I am a big fan of lighting, and how many reviewers even bring that up? Lighting can make or break a move far more and a few minutes. Not to mentions sound, or especially the sound track!
Long movies never bother me as long as they keep you interest. In fact some of the shorter movies annoy me more. I sometimes leave feeling cheated. Not only because of the length, but content. they seem like the story is rushed just to get though it. Pushing the action of over story is the current trend and will be for a lone time to come......
.. er not that I am not a fan of action. I love it especally when there is a reason for it. LOL
I prefer longer films; otherwise it feels as though the story has been rushed, missing out on critical details. However, longer films (more than two hours) can drag if they aren't done well.
I also agree that the story (plot) has suffered in more recent films. Special effects and action have become the focus of a film instead of the story. For me, no matter how good the special effects are or how much action there is (I actually don't like when there's too much action, or when it's too fast-paced so that you can't really see or follow what's happening), the story is the most important aspect of a movie to me. If a movie has a good story, then it doesn't matter as much to me if the special effects are a little dated. But if the story is almost non-existent or I dislike it, then the movie doesn't work for me.
|Guyon wrote: |
|It seems that there are many complaints these days about long movies, and one of the fist things you hear about if the movie comes near or especially over 2 hours is the length. I do not think that should even be mentioned unless it effects the rating (in stars). Are people so impatient that they can not sit still for over 90 minutes? SO why should a reviewer talk about that instead of the more important aspects. |
This is so weird to me, because my mother is always talking to me about how movies are so much SHORTER than they used to be. I find that I like my movies to be around 2 hours, generally. Anything under 90 minutes is waaaay too short, IMO.
most people who complain about movies being too long are not really complaining that they are around two hours but that they have crap thrown in that isn't necessary bringing the movie length up to 2 hours when i could easily be made for 90 minutes and not be rushed. I enjoy two hours movies, but not 90 minute movies that go for two hours.
Im indian and it used to be that indian movies would average 3-3.5 hours. Now a days the movies my mom gets are hour and a half to 2 hours and american movies are getting longer. Its the worlds way of balance.
IMHO, longer movies are almost always better than a movie of equal quality and shorter length. There are some limits (Anything more than around three hours is going to be getting a bit much to be watching in one sitting), but more length = more movie. Seeing a 3 hour movie is just like seeing two 1.5 hour movies, except with more allowance for plot.
Exception: Long movies 'padded' with uninteresting and unnecessary scenes.
The length of the movie does not bother me at all. I'm a fan of lengthy movies but I also consider the story. In fact, if I think that the story is great, I really don't mind sitting in theaters for 3-4 hours.
On the other hand, short movies aren't that bad. But most movies that I found not impressive are short. To be fair, I watched a movie before and it took 4 plus hours to finish and the movie was a disappointment.
So, lengthy movies are my favorite as long as after I watch a long movie, I don't feel I just wasted my time watching.
I dont mind long movies, the fact is that I feel bad every time a good long movie ends. I just wished it could have gone on forever. Length of a movie could be a good thing specially if it gives more insight to the story or character. I know that most movies get cut for commercial release on theaters probably to have more screening times. But since the arrival of DVDs we can now get to see Director's Cut , etc.
I don't mind a long movie so long as there is a reason for it being long. Sometimes, you get the feeling that they've just dragged the film out to make it long, and that the film has suffered because of this. As long as the film has a steady plot, good acting and some action thrown in, it doesn't matter to me how long it is.
On the other end of the scale, i cannot stand short films. At all. Watching a short film, you get the feeling that you've been robbed. That the people making the film gave up half way through, and so just went with what they have. I mean come one, how in anyway is an 80min film long enough.
I don't mind long movies, as long as they're long for a good reason. I can't stand movies that are 2 hours, but they are dragged on forever by bringing up pointless things. If a movie is 2 hours, but it could have been done in 1 hour, then I won't like it. But if a movie is 2 hours, and because of the story it needs to be 2 hours, then I'll watch it.
That is exactly it. You watch some films and its like 40 mins in and nothings happened. Now, IMHO if i was watching a TV programme and after 40mins nothing had happened i'd change the channel. If you watch a 2 hour film you want 2 hours worth of film, and some films just don't do that. And i think it has become worse recently with the increase in the amount of action in films, as people take a good 1.5hour film add in 30 mins of action to get a 2 hour film thats half as good as the original.
I prefer shorter movies. Even 2 hours are quite a big deal for me. Maybe cause i got a real short attention span. I enjoy movies that are sharply edited. Hate movies that drag on and on for no apparent reason with the storyline having died a slow death a long time ago.
I think longer movies often seem better because you cant do constant action for that long without it getting boring, so attention has to be put into plot and story. some movies are meant to be short bursts, like Crank, and sometimes story will just get in the way of something like a comedy (Shoot 'em Up). Generally however, I would rather watch a longer, more epic and thoughtful movie for $10 than pay the same for something shorter.
Now, if you really want to tell a story, I'm of the opinion that once you reach a point where three hours isn't long enough to tell that story, then you need to do a miniseries. With a good cast and enough funding, a miniseries can do a lot more than any crunched down movie could, but only for broad storylines. Look at what HBO does with their series.
I have sat through 2 and a half hour movies that seemed to whizz by in a flash because they were so good. I too am a fan of great lighting especially for atmospheric movies and also great cinematography like that seen on a film like a Amistad, which, by the way, is 2 and a half hours.
I also like slow moving films like Paris, Texas and Americana (1981). It seems that too many films go for action and explosions and forget the emotion that most of us experience at some point in our lives.
If a film is short, for me it had better have a reason, such as Toy Story, which is 75mins long, but would probably have taken another few months of production to make it 90 mins or more. 3D films are so time consuming and this was Pixar's first attempt at a full-length animated feature, with sub-standard technology by today's standards.
Films like Meet The Spartans would be better off not being made at all because they waste so much time and money on shoddy comedy that I think even an audience of low intelligence would not appreciate in great numbers.