Movies too long these days? We still won't be getting intermissions! USA Today article

Just saw Nope. Well over two hours, but I was so engrossed I didn't mind.

OTOH, I've come to love B Noir films from the forties that pack everything into and hour and ten minutes.

 

There needs to be a limit on pre-movie trailers (two is plenty) or show them before the official showtime.

 

I really enjoyed The Batman but thought it could have been trimmed/tightened by about 20 min and not much would have been lost.

 

Did anyone here see the Soderbergh movie Che during its first (and probably only) theatrical run? I saw it at an arthouse theater in Dallas, and it had an intermission. An excellent movie and with an intermission, an enjoyable experience.

 

Problem there is films have certain things attached the multiplexes are advised or recommended to play on top of whatever the projectionist feels like adding...within the limits of British decency, of course.

 

The last film I saw with an intermission I think was 2001 in IMAX.

Stanley would probably roll over in his grave if he knew Regal didn't bring the lights up during the intermission.

 

Theaters here have solved that problem. They show one or two short previews, have no other commercials whatsoever, cut off most of the long animated production company vanity logos, and the second the movie is over, turn on the house lights and politely invite everyone to get out. You can stay and watch the end credits, with the lights on, but most people leave long before learning who the best boy was.

 

I always watch them so I can see who supplied the Porta Johns, cause you never know when you might need to rent one, and if it's good enough for Tom, who am I to doubt.

 

Absolutely. Now you sit though so many commercials and previews, I wonder why I should even have to pay for the movie.

 

Yes! 90 minutes is long enough for most movies as far as I'm concerned. Even 2 hours is alright for some films, but anything longer forget it.

 

Way back when I was crushing on this girl and we went to see 'Valley Girl'.
I heard a song in it I liked but didn't know the artist name so I wanted to get it in the credits.
The second the actual movie ended she wanted to leave. I told her about the song thing but she didn't care and wanted to leave and started getting pissy about it.
This led to an argument , the bloom went off the rose and that was the end of that romance.

 

It's not the length of the film, it's the quality (or lack of same.)

We just watched Visconti's "Ludwig" on Criterion; it runs 3 hrs, 48mins and is huge and beautiful film-making.
Apart from a quick bathroom break, time flew with that one.

C.

 

Movies too long? Depends!

 

For this, you might have a few bathroom breaks:
Logistics (film) - Wikipedia

 

I'm glad my home player for disks remembers where I stopped watching, and resumes at that point when I come back the next night to finish the movie.

A good night's sleep for intermission

 

I always make sure I go to the bathroom before the movie starts, so I don't have to go again till the movie's over. I also don't eat or drink anything in the theater either, so that helps also.

 

Sa some crap about this in The Guardian too. So... so should books last only a 100 pages? Should a play be 30 minutes? Crap movies are too long and always have been. Not everyone wants instant gratification and some of us can be engrossed if the film is good.

 

I agree that it’s the quality of a long film that determines if it should be long or not… but now we are in a different place regarding story telling. Films are generally competing with TV, as more TV series now have actual film quality in terms of budget, production, sound design (and top actors), and have the space for proper character development and plot development, which can take 10 hours.. The best TV series, imo, are more like books, and films can’t really be like that, even at 3 hours. Imagine if Peter Jackson didn’t make LOTR for the cinema, but made it for TV now?
So maybe there is an argument that films should remain shorter to distinguish them as a completely different experience to TV.. the only problem is I think they will continue to loose popularity, more so at the cinema. I haven’t been to the cinema for a long time, partly because I have a half decent (but old ish!) tv hooked up to my stereo. Sure it’s definitely not the cinema experience, but I have seen a worse picture and heard worse sound on occasion at the cinema…. If I had a massive tv and decent full surround sound I doubt I’d ever go again. But then again I’m easily irritated by talking and rustling food bags!

 

„Barry Lyndon“ is three hours long and it still is a masterpiece! It’s the quality of a movie that matters, not the quantity

 

The Intermissions in 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia actually heightened the drama, imo. But of course those are exceptional movies.

 

A movie is only too long if it sucks. Even a 30 minute movie is too long if you are not enjoying it.

 

That's true, on the other hand I've watched movies that I was enjoying , but that started to wane as the thing went on for too long .

 

I'll say it again....if I wanna see a[90 minute]movie I'll watch[Netflix] with the money I dish out for a flick...I want it LOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!

 

That's what she said.

 

Hey, the song/artist credits are the most important part of the movie for some of us. It's a good thing you found about this girl before it was too late.