Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zztop372 t1_iu8qv2o wrote

Netflix have a genre dedicated to 90 min movies if you love them that much

37

HappHazzard31 t1_iu8tv59 wrote

Movies are unnecessarily long. There's no reason for a superhero movie to be 3 hours long, 2 hours is more than long enough.

3

Chen_Geller t1_iu8v690 wrote

I'm the opposite.

I think drama should be treated as a commitment and an endeavour, and when a movie is 160 minutes long or longer, its nothing it not a commitment.

3

blutwl t1_iu8wx93 wrote

Couldnt have said it better.

−3

laterdude t1_iu8youd wrote

I second that emotion. I'm seeing Black Adam tonight simply because Tar and Triangle of Sadness are 2hr40min and 2hr20 min respectively. That's literally like three bathroom trips for me. Not worth missing that much of the film!

0

UncoloredProsody t1_iu8z3l5 wrote

I feel the same. A good story with clever writing/directing can be told in 90 minutes, i don't want to dedicate half of my day to a movie. That being said, there is many very good movies that are 2+ hours, and i feel that they need to be that long for full impact... but i don't like to sit for that long, i'm with you in this.

0

Twigling t1_iu90v76 wrote

A movie should be as long as it needs to be (within reason) in order to properly tell the story, whether that's 90 minutes (or less) or 180 (or more). So nothing important cut out to shorten the running time and no padding added to lengthen it.

41

Filmfan-2022 t1_iu91lus wrote

I agree I prefer a tight knit plot.

same with TV shows rather watch a 10 episode series well done plot then 24 episodes where 5 is main arc rest is filler

1

gunsnammo37 t1_iu91pey wrote

Movies are too long these days!

Binge watches an entire season of a tv show in one sitting.

18

vfactor95 t1_iu922ih wrote

Give "Pompo: The Cinephile" a shot

5

dsbwayne t1_iu94898 wrote

Make the movie as long as it needs to tell a concise story. If it’s 90min, then go for it!

1

Company_Z t1_iu952db wrote

I agree within reason. There are some movies where it's so bloated because the movie thinks it's audience is too dumb to pick up on nuance. Movies where tens of minutes of exposition can be cut are terrible and don't deserve to be rewatched.

1

kimjong-ill t1_iu96hnn wrote

Replying to juanbonilla987 (#313,550)

I love sitting down for a 3 hour movie, but when you have kids, you can’t watch One of those at night very easily.

No one said that they couldn’t pay attention for 2+ hours. You just straw-manned the whole post to serve a narrative.

Have you considered a career in conservative politics?

3

Spetznazx t1_iu97e7z wrote

Kung Fury, a beloved cult classic with a super hyped sequel releasing soon is 30 min long. The short movie is still alive and well

1

Tasty-Ad-4602 t1_iu97txa wrote

Bring back intermissions for longer movies. I remember holding in the need to pee when I saw Return of the King in the cinema for a record amount of time.

On the subject of 90 min movies, a movie is as long as it needs to be but I appreciate a lean movie with all the fat trimmed, not a minute wasted. This seems to work with action movies in particular, Dredd for example.

2

PrintGlobal6862 t1_iu98o0q wrote

My dad can't stand long films. After 90 min it goes down a star in his rating for ever second longer

1

No-Dance-797 t1_iu99bsc wrote

Fuck 2h30 min movies!!!! My people! My people!!

0

scottishhistorian t1_iu99j99 wrote

I always feel a bit cheated with a 90-minute film, you're basically paying film prices for an extended episode. If it were up to me, I wouldn't let film companies charge full price for a movie that's less than 2 hours.

For example, if your cinema tickets cost $10 then they wouldn't be allowed to charge more than $7.50 for a 90 minute film because you aren't getting the full experience. Similarly, if a DVD cost $15 then they wouldn't be able to charge more than $12 for a 90-minute film.

−1

nickyeyez t1_iu9a3sr wrote

The 30s and 40s are knocking on your door

1

kevlarcardhouse t1_iu9a5ze wrote

Replying to Twigling (#313,826)

I agree, but I would argue that a lot of the 2.5 hour movies coming out have a lot of padding. I think the fact that both projectors and cameras are all digital means directors and producers have less incentive to edit. Just like the advent of compact discs provided a lot of epic albums but also had a lot of albums that would have been a classic get bogged down by a bunch of b-side tracks added to the end.

3

kevlarcardhouse t1_iu9b1bw wrote

Replying to Company_Z (#314,617)

Yeah, I feel like social media and snarky YouTubers are one of the culprits of bloated movies these days: If you don't spell out the back story of something trivial, you'll get a lot of whining about "plot holes."

1

mangongo t1_iu9bqro wrote

The longest movie I've ever watched is John Woo's Red Cliff Extended Edition, coming in at 288 minutes. Basically a 5 hour movie.

1

thecommexokid t1_iu9ccgs wrote

Replying to Tasty-Ad-4602 (#315,117)

That one was especially tough because it has like 14 false endings. So you think it’s the last scene and you’re poised to run but nope, another scene! over and over. Bladder can’t handle all these fakeouts!

2

themobyone t1_iu9hgae wrote

I love 3 hour epics as much as anyone. Sometimes when I watch what has become a regular runtime of 120-150 minutes, I sometimes think this should have been a 90 minutes movie. But ofc I agree with others here in the comments that a movie needs to be as long as it needs to be to tell the story, not shorter and not longer than needed.

Still, movies there is definitely more movies these days I would rate as average that have long run times.

1