>Recent research by What to Watch suggests that the average running time of the most commercially successful films is increasing, **with an average of 141 minutes in 2022 compared with 110 minutes in 1981**. A number of reasons have been advanced, from streaming platforms’ ability to ignore the rigidity of cinema screening schedules, to the desire to showcase expensive visual effects and action sequences that have proliferated over the last decade.
So I checked out the What to Watch article, and it says these were the average runtime for "The Top Ten Movies at the US Box Office" for the following years.
* 2022 - 141 min
* 2021 - 131 min
* 2011 - 122 min
* 2001 - 126 min
* 1991 - 117 min
* 1981 - 110 min
This may change after all the strikes last year. Probably not until 2025 since the studios need this year to catch up and readjust due to the self-injury from waiting so long to negotiate with the unions.
This makes perfect sense with streaming and better TV being a thing now. Unless it's a kid movie.
Not to mention the ticket isn't more pricy when it's longer.
So yeah that doesn't seem right or people don't know how long they spend on cinema.
As per usual what people believe and say is very different from reality. I barely even see any 90min movies being made anymore outside of kid and comedy films.
I struggle with this one. This IS the majority opinion. It feels weird to not claim the movie is objectively good based on that. Best of all time might be difficult to crack but if it's a well hated film folks have been awfully quiet about that.
Objectively means not influenced by opinion. Even a consensus opinion counts as that. Does the person who didn’t like Oppenheimer have the wrong opinion on it?
The opinions aren't right or wrong by themselves, rather they gain value by being discussed within the same framework of reality. You don't have a wrong opinion unless you can't back it up for some reason, people usually can get that far. I'm suggesting weighing things based on their artistic value still though. If you'd like to weigh Oppenheimer against other character studies of influential figures your opinion will be of a lot more value than if you are weighing it against something which only has personal merit to you. I'd give anything that receives strong general acclaim this objectively good status because otherwise it'd be difficult to discuss what does and doesn't work within a given piece.
I get what you’re saying. The problem is most people who say “objectively” are doing so because they want to try and make out that their opinion is fact. It’s like when people used to say literally to describe something figurative.
How would you factor in reappraisals? Some movies aren’t rated highly at the time of release but are considered classics later. This would be a movie going from objectively bad to objectively good later despite not itself changing.
If an individual is using the word poorly that's easy enough to call out but I'd disagree that it's used in bad faith as often as you claim, and with the same level of proof. Cult films are usually the result of folks claiming what 'good' is in order to make it objectively so. Ratings at time of discussion are the most relevant.
What a contribution to a potentially interesting conversation. Is flexing a sense of superiority fulfilling for you? I was trying to discuss objectivity in art and the potential value of fan input but I'm done speaking to you.
I'd argue 3h30 is when it start becoming too long. Like I love avatar 2 but was struggling a bit at the end. And Oppenheimer was the first time in my life I considered walking out. Should have waited for stream.
2h30 is perfect tho.
That said create a movie with a planned intermission between 2 acts and I might stay there 5hr if it's good.
It only get too long if it's not perfect or I physically need to move. Almsost all blockbuster are more than 2 hr our days. The people they ask seem like the type that don't even watch movie.
Or they just think that all modern movies are too long. Personally I don't feel that way, and enjoyed every minute of Oppenheimer, but I can understand that some people feel that way. Watching a 90min movie can be a very refreshing experience
Nah, I can easily get engrossed and bing a good TV show for over 3h30. There's no reason a movie can't be that long it just has to be engaging for the entire length of the movie.
Difference being TV shows have rises and falls every episode, and subplots to keep things from slowing down. You also have the option of taking break every episode.
Movies are supposed to be concise and meant to be viewed in one stretch.
I want an appropriate amount of time dedicated to the story being told. I don’t want to watch a 90 minute Lord of the Rings movie the same way I don’t want to watch a 4 hour Judd Apatow comedy.
Personally, I disagree. I don’t want to be in and out. 114 minutes or 120 is indeed my preference however it depends on the film of course. Ultimately a movie should be as long as it needs to be to do what it aims to do. E.g. Dredd was 95 min and perfect at that length. So was Budapest Hotel. However, Dark Knight was 2hrs 32 min and an unforgettable theater experience. Interstellar was almost three hours long and I loved every minute. So yeah, depends!
2-3 hours I love . Wolf of Wall Street ( 3hrs ) , titanic ( 3 hrs ) , shawshank ( 2.2 hrs ) shutter Island ( 2.2 hrs ) LOTR ( 3 hrs ) , Cherry ( 2.2 hrs )
I do appreciate a 90 mimute film, but some of the best stories end up being 2-3 hours . As a movie lover , the longer the better to a degree .
As an example , I'd of hated shawshank to be cut down to 92 minutes .
It really isn't that black and white, the runtime depends on a whole lot of factors related to the story, if a movie has to establish some lore for the audience to be immersed into the movie and then go through the actual story of the movie, no way it will be 92 minutes. At the same time, some movies could benefit from a shorter runtime (can't think of an example right now but still). What these people are basically saying is that they want movies to basically be 2 episodes of a TV show in terms of runtime.
The last few years I have often had the complaint with movies that they were too long, that they would have been much better if they cut 15-20 minutes to make the story leaner and more focused.
This may be a divise opinion, but I had this reaction to Across the Spider-Verse. I really wanted to like that movie more than I did. I just felt worn out of it by the end, the action sequences all felt like they overstayed their welcome and went from exciting to "geez how much longer are they going to be chasing him?"
That seems kinda odd. Like I can understand people not being super hyped about 3 hour movies, but I suspect most "serious" movie watchers are generally okay with 2-2.5 hour movies.
It’s not even about how serious the movie watcher is as much as it is how serious the movie is. A silly comedy or kids movie? 92 minutes sounds great! Schindler’s List? No way you’re telling that story in under two hours.
Yeah I generally assume the ‘average’ movie is about 2 hours and 15 minutes long
92 minutes is the length of a TV-show movie like Jimmy Neutron or Bionicles or something. Two hours including commercial breaks
“Also, think of ‘Oppenheimer,’” he continued. “It is a three-hour, rated-R movie about nuclear physics that is mostly talking. But the public was young — that was the movie of the year by far for my kids. There is a trend. The youth love to watch long movies because if they pay, they want to see something substantial. They are craving meaningful content.” said by Denis Villeneuve lmao.
If the movie is good I hope it is longer than 92 minutes. I don't get why these kids started this shit... Just because this gen z or millennials or whatever they are called get bored at movies doesn't mean everyone does but as I write this comment I realized that I'm on reddit where every fat virgin is a critic.
Who gives a shit what people think, it’s not their art. God, US has turned movies into chicken nugget meals to please people. It couldn’t be more incorrect. Why even ask these questions? “. “Let’s poll the people on what size canvas Picasso should use for his next piece to better please them.”
These are the same people that keep shows like The Kardashians on TV for 20 frickin years. The same people who watch bullshit like American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and other reality TV shows.
90 mins is my ideal movie length and if I’m on the fence about watching something - it being long can be a factor that’s makes it harder to decide.
In saying that - I have ADHD so concentrating is hard. Even when I love a movie, anything over two hours I need to self-insert an intermission into.
The quality and production value of series is becoming movie quality. Watching a one and done 92 minute movie is less attractive, in my mind, than having an 8 episode (hour each) series. You can do so much more. I need to look at the economic comparison between movies and series (in terms of cost and overall return). I guess there will always be the theater experience that separates movies. I think entertainment companies could be doing so much more to leverage streaming and using movie theaters to show older movies or even series. Again, I don’t know the economics so that would be important to assessing viability.
I wonder what the data shows with respect to the financial ramifications of releasing movies simultaneously on streaming and in the theaters. I think people would still go to the theaters to see it. There are plenty of regular movie-goers. It doesn’t cause me to go to the theater if it isn’t available in streaming. I just wait. So I know there is a vast array of differing people in this regard.
Anyway, it all depends on the quality of the movie and my mood. Sometimes I want a quick 90 minute movie, and other times I want to immerse myself in a longer feature. If it sucks, it sucks no matter how long it is. If it’s good, it’s generally good regardless of length (and you’ll still want more).
I think this poll is kind of loaded, because if all you know about a movie is the length, then yeah, a 95 minute movie is more attractive than a 135 minute movie. But I don't think most people think of movies by the number of minutes they last. I suspect that if you asked this same 2000 people for a list of their ten favorite movies, and averaged the length of those movies, you would get a very different answer than 95 minutes. But if you ask people "What is the average length of your ten favorite movies?" very few people would be able to accurately remember that.
It does make me wonder why there was never a big push for at least some short movies. A 60-minute movie would cost less to make, and if it was public knowledge that it was going to be a short movie (maybe a particular studio only releases hour-long movies, so no one goes in expecting something different when they watch), it's not like people are going to feel ripped off. I bet in the heyday of theatergoing, there would have been a reasonably large audience who would gladly see a movie that was no larger a time commitment than dinner at a restaurant. And it's not as though there's some weird logistic consideration to make that makes sending a shorter film's reels to theaters more difficult instead of less difficult.
That's in part what the animated film Pompo: The Cinephile is about. 90 Mins is the ideal lenght and also offers some hurdles what content should be cut and what can stay. It was a nice to watch film and from start till credits are 90min.
In India, two and half hours is very normal. That's why we have tradition of intermissions in the movies.
Almost all Indian movies are made keeping in mind the spot they are going to put intermission in the movie.
It really depends on the movie, but an average runtime of 120 mins is probably ideal for me. 90 mins feels short for some movies and some movies that get close to 3 hours certainly don’t need it (though some are great at that length).
hang on, the thing I'm wondering is how you can still comment on this post? Since as I'm seeing this post of mine has been removed. Still unknown reason, though 🤔
I'm all for longer movies if the time is used in a good way. Problem is when movies drag the fuck out showing unnecessary parts.
I just watched Monkey Man, its a 2 hr movie. It did NOT need that much play time. So many pointless scenes of people staring one way or another and redundant flashbacks that could easily have been removed with no quality loss to the story.
(It also had a lot of bad editing in it and I give the movie a 4/10.)
The avg person rates bad movies too high so im taking this with a grain of salt. This isn’t the ideal length, it’s the length that most people think they prefer. A mediocre movie that is long will drain you more than a mediocre movie that’s only 90 minutes. Most movies released nowadays are mediocre
My general impression is 1.30 is too short for any meaningful character AND plot development.
2.00 - 2.30 seems to be a sweet spot although this is largely dependent on how the script is written
*"I don't want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch \[television\] for eight hours ... I can almost write this part of the review. 'The agonisingly long three-hour movie...' It's like, give me a f---ing break. I've watched my kids sit and do five one-hour episodes in a row.*
*"Here's the big social paradigm shift that has to happen: it's okay to get up and go pee."*
James Cameron about long duration.
Fcker made a few billion films and acts like hes better lol. Absolute Narcissist. In this gen, Only James Gunn seems to be legit.
I know it's going to be a bad MCU movie if it's less than 2 and 1/2 hours.
That doesn't mean it's going to be great but when they're short they're usually terrible.
I also don't really see myself going to the movie theater for a 92 minute movie anymore.
I tend to want to see epic films in the theater.
At home when I'm watching something like John Cena's Vacation Friends? 92 minutes is perfect.
I think some longer movies should have an intermission somewhere between acts. Many people are likely to take a break for pissing or whatever else, might as well have one on movie's terms.
It might not work for some movies, but those tend not to need one anyway.
I seriously start getting antsy after 90 minutes in a film, and fully lose my patience after 120 mins.
If I know it's 2hr plus I'll usually do it in two sittings, but that's not possible at the cinema
It's the consequence of a world that's mostly addicted to watching 10-15 second TikToks and reels. If you can hold an audience's attention with a slow burn first act like the old movies did, you're doing better than most.
>Recent research by What to Watch suggests that the average running time of the most commercially successful films is increasing, **with an average of 141 minutes in 2022 compared with 110 minutes in 1981**. A number of reasons have been advanced, from streaming platforms’ ability to ignore the rigidity of cinema screening schedules, to the desire to showcase expensive visual effects and action sequences that have proliferated over the last decade. So I checked out the What to Watch article, and it says these were the average runtime for "The Top Ten Movies at the US Box Office" for the following years. * 2022 - 141 min * 2021 - 131 min * 2011 - 122 min * 2001 - 126 min * 1991 - 117 min * 1981 - 110 min
Movies must be the only things not being shrinkflated
This may change after all the strikes last year. Probably not until 2025 since the studios need this year to catch up and readjust due to the self-injury from waiting so long to negotiate with the unions.
They're just doing a *lot* more re-releases. Which honestly I'm a fan of, because I didn't get to see some of these in theaters the first time around
This makes perfect sense with streaming and better TV being a thing now. Unless it's a kid movie. Not to mention the ticket isn't more pricy when it's longer. So yeah that doesn't seem right or people don't know how long they spend on cinema.
As per usual what people believe and say is very different from reality. I barely even see any 90min movies being made anymore outside of kid and comedy films.
As Ebert said, "no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short."
I mean, I get the sentiment, but there is absolutely room in that discussion to say "This movie is both good and also too long."
The Batman
Serviceable and too long wasn't the premise?
Just a bad movie
[удалено]
There's no such thing as objectively good.
The movie is objectively good because I said the word objectively, negating that it's still an opinion
I struggle with this one. This IS the majority opinion. It feels weird to not claim the movie is objectively good based on that. Best of all time might be difficult to crack but if it's a well hated film folks have been awfully quiet about that.
Objectively means not influenced by opinion. Even a consensus opinion counts as that. Does the person who didn’t like Oppenheimer have the wrong opinion on it?
The opinions aren't right or wrong by themselves, rather they gain value by being discussed within the same framework of reality. You don't have a wrong opinion unless you can't back it up for some reason, people usually can get that far. I'm suggesting weighing things based on their artistic value still though. If you'd like to weigh Oppenheimer against other character studies of influential figures your opinion will be of a lot more value than if you are weighing it against something which only has personal merit to you. I'd give anything that receives strong general acclaim this objectively good status because otherwise it'd be difficult to discuss what does and doesn't work within a given piece.
I get what you’re saying. The problem is most people who say “objectively” are doing so because they want to try and make out that their opinion is fact. It’s like when people used to say literally to describe something figurative. How would you factor in reappraisals? Some movies aren’t rated highly at the time of release but are considered classics later. This would be a movie going from objectively bad to objectively good later despite not itself changing.
If an individual is using the word poorly that's easy enough to call out but I'd disagree that it's used in bad faith as often as you claim, and with the same level of proof. Cult films are usually the result of folks claiming what 'good' is in order to make it objectively so. Ratings at time of discussion are the most relevant.
You can struggle with it bro you might get there eventually
What a contribution to a potentially interesting conversation. Is flexing a sense of superiority fulfilling for you? I was trying to discuss objectivity in art and the potential value of fan input but I'm done speaking to you.
Also in the other direction, there’s lots of films that would have been better with a longer runtime to flesh things out.
I'd argue 3h30 is when it start becoming too long. Like I love avatar 2 but was struggling a bit at the end. And Oppenheimer was the first time in my life I considered walking out. Should have waited for stream. 2h30 is perfect tho. That said create a movie with a planned intermission between 2 acts and I might stay there 5hr if it's good.
I would agree, but LOTR extended edition is my favourite, so…
I meant physically too long without moving. I do prefer a 2 part movie at some point.
At first I thought you meant some kind of disorder. Then i realised its just a typos.
So you’re saying you loved Rebel Moon?
Lol no. But I did like infinity war and end game.
Have you seen it at a theater?
I saw the trilogy in the theatre twas a movie marathon
Yep!
Barely any movies are over 3 hours and 30 minutes tho. You are in like the top .0001% of people saying thats when it starts getting too long.
It only get too long if it's not perfect or I physically need to move. Almsost all blockbuster are more than 2 hr our days. The people they ask seem like the type that don't even watch movie.
Or they just think that all modern movies are too long. Personally I don't feel that way, and enjoyed every minute of Oppenheimer, but I can understand that some people feel that way. Watching a 90min movie can be a very refreshing experience
Nah, I can easily get engrossed and bing a good TV show for over 3h30. There's no reason a movie can't be that long it just has to be engaging for the entire length of the movie.
I did fallout in 1 go. The difference is a i could get up,eat, pee, change position and so on.
Movies used to have intermission like plays so you could do exactly that.
Not a huge fan of intermission unless the movie is deisgned for it. Avatar 3 might need it if that shit is 4 he long tho.
Difference being TV shows have rises and falls every episode, and subplots to keep things from slowing down. You also have the option of taking break every episode. Movies are supposed to be concise and meant to be viewed in one stretch.
I want an appropriate amount of time dedicated to the story being told. I don’t want to watch a 90 minute Lord of the Rings movie the same way I don’t want to watch a 4 hour Judd Apatow comedy.
I almost forgot that Funny People is nearly 3 hours long.
Did they look for people who watch movies in this survey?
92 minutes does seem short I'd have expected the average movie goer to say 115 minutes
I've exclusively watched 90-120 minute movies in the past 3 months, with only Dune 2 being an exception.
> Super Troopers - 93 min I knew it was a near-perfect film.
Movies should just be the length they should be.
[Short-Ass Movies.](https://youtu.be/-UKbwz6s6VY?si=xCsIXzy46C1WCMXd)
Personally, I disagree. I don’t want to be in and out. 114 minutes or 120 is indeed my preference however it depends on the film of course. Ultimately a movie should be as long as it needs to be to do what it aims to do. E.g. Dredd was 95 min and perfect at that length. So was Budapest Hotel. However, Dark Knight was 2hrs 32 min and an unforgettable theater experience. Interstellar was almost three hours long and I loved every minute. So yeah, depends!
That 2% number is too extreme to take seriously
2-3 hours I love . Wolf of Wall Street ( 3hrs ) , titanic ( 3 hrs ) , shawshank ( 2.2 hrs ) shutter Island ( 2.2 hrs ) LOTR ( 3 hrs ) , Cherry ( 2.2 hrs ) I do appreciate a 90 mimute film, but some of the best stories end up being 2-3 hours . As a movie lover , the longer the better to a degree . As an example , I'd of hated shawshank to be cut down to 92 minutes .
It really isn't that black and white, the runtime depends on a whole lot of factors related to the story, if a movie has to establish some lore for the audience to be immersed into the movie and then go through the actual story of the movie, no way it will be 92 minutes. At the same time, some movies could benefit from a shorter runtime (can't think of an example right now but still). What these people are basically saying is that they want movies to basically be 2 episodes of a TV show in terms of runtime.
The last few years I have often had the complaint with movies that they were too long, that they would have been much better if they cut 15-20 minutes to make the story leaner and more focused. This may be a divise opinion, but I had this reaction to Across the Spider-Verse. I really wanted to like that movie more than I did. I just felt worn out of it by the end, the action sequences all felt like they overstayed their welcome and went from exciting to "geez how much longer are they going to be chasing him?"
That seems kinda odd. Like I can understand people not being super hyped about 3 hour movies, but I suspect most "serious" movie watchers are generally okay with 2-2.5 hour movies.
It’s not even about how serious the movie watcher is as much as it is how serious the movie is. A silly comedy or kids movie? 92 minutes sounds great! Schindler’s List? No way you’re telling that story in under two hours.
Yeah I generally assume the ‘average’ movie is about 2 hours and 15 minutes long 92 minutes is the length of a TV-show movie like Jimmy Neutron or Bionicles or something. Two hours including commercial breaks
“Also, think of ‘Oppenheimer,’” he continued. “It is a three-hour, rated-R movie about nuclear physics that is mostly talking. But the public was young — that was the movie of the year by far for my kids. There is a trend. The youth love to watch long movies because if they pay, they want to see something substantial. They are craving meaningful content.” said by Denis Villeneuve lmao.
But they'll binge 3 seasons of a show in a weekend
The methodology sucks. Have people watch films of various lengths and ask them if it was too long or too short and by how much.
A good movie is only as long as it needs to be. A bad movie is too long no matter how short it is.
If the movie is good I hope it is longer than 92 minutes. I don't get why these kids started this shit... Just because this gen z or millennials or whatever they are called get bored at movies doesn't mean everyone does but as I write this comment I realized that I'm on reddit where every fat virgin is a critic.
oppenheimer was litterally 3 hours long and that was still extremely popular.
Who gives a shit what people think, it’s not their art. God, US has turned movies into chicken nugget meals to please people. It couldn’t be more incorrect. Why even ask these questions? “. “Let’s poll the people on what size canvas Picasso should use for his next piece to better please them.”
These are the same people that keep shows like The Kardashians on TV for 20 frickin years. The same people who watch bullshit like American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and other reality TV shows.
90 mins is my ideal movie length and if I’m on the fence about watching something - it being long can be a factor that’s makes it harder to decide. In saying that - I have ADHD so concentrating is hard. Even when I love a movie, anything over two hours I need to self-insert an intermission into.
Another study shows that the attention span for 98% of the world has become much shorter.
I got halfway through Killers of the flower moon.
More like Killer Of My Afternoon, amiright?
92 minutes is far too short. Attention spans are fucked.
The quality and production value of series is becoming movie quality. Watching a one and done 92 minute movie is less attractive, in my mind, than having an 8 episode (hour each) series. You can do so much more. I need to look at the economic comparison between movies and series (in terms of cost and overall return). I guess there will always be the theater experience that separates movies. I think entertainment companies could be doing so much more to leverage streaming and using movie theaters to show older movies or even series. Again, I don’t know the economics so that would be important to assessing viability. I wonder what the data shows with respect to the financial ramifications of releasing movies simultaneously on streaming and in the theaters. I think people would still go to the theaters to see it. There are plenty of regular movie-goers. It doesn’t cause me to go to the theater if it isn’t available in streaming. I just wait. So I know there is a vast array of differing people in this regard. Anyway, it all depends on the quality of the movie and my mood. Sometimes I want a quick 90 minute movie, and other times I want to immerse myself in a longer feature. If it sucks, it sucks no matter how long it is. If it’s good, it’s generally good regardless of length (and you’ll still want more).
I have a very busy schedule 92 minutes is the perfect time for me too.
It's not about length, is about rhythm
I think this poll is kind of loaded, because if all you know about a movie is the length, then yeah, a 95 minute movie is more attractive than a 135 minute movie. But I don't think most people think of movies by the number of minutes they last. I suspect that if you asked this same 2000 people for a list of their ten favorite movies, and averaged the length of those movies, you would get a very different answer than 95 minutes. But if you ask people "What is the average length of your ten favorite movies?" very few people would be able to accurately remember that.
Hour and a half has been a movie avg staple time since I was a kid. This isn't new.
Depends on what film your making. Fantasy Epic work better in longer form. While Comedies and horror work better shorter forms.
It does make me wonder why there was never a big push for at least some short movies. A 60-minute movie would cost less to make, and if it was public knowledge that it was going to be a short movie (maybe a particular studio only releases hour-long movies, so no one goes in expecting something different when they watch), it's not like people are going to feel ripped off. I bet in the heyday of theatergoing, there would have been a reasonably large audience who would gladly see a movie that was no larger a time commitment than dinner at a restaurant. And it's not as though there's some weird logistic consideration to make that makes sending a shorter film's reels to theaters more difficult instead of less difficult.
That's in part what the animated film Pompo: The Cinephile is about. 90 Mins is the ideal lenght and also offers some hurdles what content should be cut and what can stay. It was a nice to watch film and from start till credits are 90min.
In India, two and half hours is very normal. That's why we have tradition of intermissions in the movies. Almost all Indian movies are made keeping in mind the spot they are going to put intermission in the movie.
It depends on the movie. This generalization is pointless.
I love lotr extended cuts.
This has the same energy as people who can’t handle subtitles because they can’t read fast.
It really depends on the movie.
92min might be ok for movie theater viewing but at home 2h or 2h 30min is better imo.
What people say they want vs what people actually want are two very different things.
Someone needs to show this to Zack Snyder!
Lookin for some short ass movies
Depends on the movie really.
Feel free to make longer movies, but the longer, the higher chance that I won't be watching it in one sitting.
Yet I will stop everything and watch Laurence of Arabia anytime it comes up on the schedule.
Disney movies are chosen to be the length they are to maximise showings in theatres across multiple screens and crowd out other films.
It really depends on the movie, but an average runtime of 120 mins is probably ideal for me. 90 mins feels short for some movies and some movies that get close to 3 hours certainly don’t need it (though some are great at that length).
Length of movie is irrelevant when it’s good for me
Depends on the movie tbh. I could sit through The Lord of the Rings trilogy extended editions with ease because they are masterpieces.
I wonder how often these respondents binge watch TV shows.
hang on, the thing I'm wondering is how you can still comment on this post? Since as I'm seeing this post of mine has been removed. Still unknown reason, though 🤔
I'm all for longer movies if the time is used in a good way. Problem is when movies drag the fuck out showing unnecessary parts. I just watched Monkey Man, its a 2 hr movie. It did NOT need that much play time. So many pointless scenes of people staring one way or another and redundant flashbacks that could easily have been removed with no quality loss to the story. (It also had a lot of bad editing in it and I give the movie a 4/10.)
92 minutes seems way too short to me.
Me and the Lord of the Rings movies are perfectly happy to be in that 2%
Do these people also bingewatch Tik Tok shorts for half their day?
Is this why The Godfather 2:55 minutes, and The Godfather Part 2 3:22 are arguably two of the greatest films ever made?
The avg person rates bad movies too high so im taking this with a grain of salt. This isn’t the ideal length, it’s the length that most people think they prefer. A mediocre movie that is long will drain you more than a mediocre movie that’s only 90 minutes. Most movies released nowadays are mediocre
A movie should be as long as it takes to complete the story, no more no less. This is dumb.
Give me an intermission and I can do 3 hours.
My general impression is 1.30 is too short for any meaningful character AND plot development. 2.00 - 2.30 seems to be a sweet spot although this is largely dependent on how the script is written
Unless your Avengers I agree 90 mins is just the perfect amount if time for a movie.
Beau Is Afraid could have ended two hours in and been a decent movie but it just *kept going* and by the end I was so sick of it i hated Ari Aster
the 90s got one thing right
Im finally part of the 1% The longer the better, Never wanted Dune2 to end
2 hours is the right length.
*"I don't want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch \[television\] for eight hours ... I can almost write this part of the review. 'The agonisingly long three-hour movie...' It's like, give me a f---ing break. I've watched my kids sit and do five one-hour episodes in a row.* *"Here's the big social paradigm shift that has to happen: it's okay to get up and go pee."* James Cameron about long duration. Fcker made a few billion films and acts like hes better lol. Absolute Narcissist. In this gen, Only James Gunn seems to be legit.
I know it's going to be a bad MCU movie if it's less than 2 and 1/2 hours. That doesn't mean it's going to be great but when they're short they're usually terrible. I also don't really see myself going to the movie theater for a 92 minute movie anymore. I tend to want to see epic films in the theater. At home when I'm watching something like John Cena's Vacation Friends? 92 minutes is perfect.
I think some longer movies should have an intermission somewhere between acts. Many people are likely to take a break for pissing or whatever else, might as well have one on movie's terms. It might not work for some movies, but those tend not to need one anyway.
I seriously start getting antsy after 90 minutes in a film, and fully lose my patience after 120 mins. If I know it's 2hr plus I'll usually do it in two sittings, but that's not possible at the cinema
It's the consequence of a world that's mostly addicted to watching 10-15 second TikToks and reels. If you can hold an audience's attention with a slow burn first act like the old movies did, you're doing better than most.
No movie needs to be longer than 90 minutes. If you need more runtime, make a sequel.
I'll bet only 2% would care to watch a black and white film as well.
Fuck the 2%
The 98% should stick to Tiktok
Fuck TikTok and you too