Are You Spoiled With Movies Thats 2 Hours + Long?

[MrBlonde]

Most porn DVDs are actually pretty long.

[Jasonic]

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Most porn DVDs are actually pretty long.

Such a waste too. I only really need 10 minutes anyways

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Jasonic

Such a waste too. I only really need 10 minutes anyways

I like taking my time, you know, 30-40 minutes.

[L.J.]

I like a two hour movie, but a ninety minute one is good too. Just depends on the content.

[HorrorBlu]

Aside from the Oscar bait (American Hustle, Wolf Of Wall Street, etc), I don't think I've seen a 2+ hour blockbuster that has held my interest in years.

A lot of the super hero ones (like The Green Lantern for instance) even became a chore to sit through. Unfortunately, a lot of the Hollywood films today just can't sustain that running time.

[chris_sc77]

The best movies are always much longer than 90 mins .

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

I agree with this!
Especially at the prices we now have to pay.

I think he was kidding, given his signature....

[MrBlonde]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

The best movies are always much longer than 90 mins .

[Lemmy Lugosi]

It seems that movies are too long for the most part, to me, anyway. I grew up in the era of the 90-minute film (the 70's ), and some movies these days are just waaayyyyy too long (Django Unchained is the first recent film that popped into my head when this subject came up).

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

[Show spoiler]

And that should end of the conversation.

[Mahatma]

I kind of long for the hour and a half action movies.They seem to get longer and longer these days.

It's like those long american novels which could easily be trimmed down to half the size or more if they skipped the 30 page description of bathroom activities

[qb2333]

I feel the length of a movie is something you shouldn't notice. If I start noticing the movie is dragging on then it's possibly too long or just bad. If I'm into it, I don't care if it's 1 and 1/2 or 3 and 1/2 hours long.

[Ray O. Blu]

No. Length of a movie is inconsequential to me. Quality is what matters most.

I'm more spoiled by foreign movies than anything else. Films coming out of America these days are mostly crap, regardless of their length.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Foggy

You're not the only one that feels that way...I know because this has been discussed to death on pretty much every thread on the site.

By one person in particular almost exclusively.

Originally Posted by ChristmasFnatic

3 hours porn!

I can't last that long.

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

Depends on the topic of the film. If it's a biopic it needs a long running time as we follow the person through the major events of their life and most of them are either a rise or fall to/from greatness.

[DisneyBlu]

Roger Ebert said "no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short."

So, it really depends. I do prefer long movies, but not when they're long for the sake of being long. Django was mentioned in this thread -- that one I felt was overlong. The Avengers is a good length. Schindler's List is 195 minutes long and it's a masterpiece, and I'm engaged the entire time. Something like Titanic needs its long length.

Winnie the Pooh was 63 minutes, which is kind of ridiculous for a film in the theater, but that's not a movie that needs 90+ minutes. Deathly Hallows part II was 130 minutes, good length, and I wouldn't have minded if it were longer (as long as none of the scenes were unnecessary/boring/or "fat").

Stuff like Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Godzilla or The Amazing Spider-Man 2 need their long lengths and two hours+ fits those kind of films. If something like, say, The Dark Knight was 100 minutes, you'd feel kind of ripped off. Some movies just need to be over two hours, and I do tend to prefer longer movies over something like a "light" comedy that's 90 minutes or so (although those do have their place).

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Roger Ebert said "no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short."

So, it really depends. I do prefer long movies, but not when they're long for the sake of being long. Django was mentioned in this thread -- that one I felt was overlong. The Avengers is a good length. Schindler's List is 195 minutes long and it's a masterpiece, and I'm engaged the entire time. Something like Titanic needs its long length.

Winnie the Pooh was 63 minutes, which is kind of ridiculous for a film in the theater, but that's not a movie that needs 90+ minutes. Deathly Hallows part II was 130 minutes, good length, and I wouldn't have minded if it were longer (as long as none of the scenes were unnecessary/boring/or "fat").

Stuff like Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Godzilla or The Amazing Spider-Man 2 need their long lengths and two hours+ fits those kind of films. If something like, say, The Dark Knight was 100 minutes, you'd feel kind of ripped off. Some movies just need to be over two hours, and I do tend to prefer longer movies over something like a "light" comedy that's 90 minutes or so (although those do have their place).

Return of the king was nearly 4 hours long but it was epic so why complain

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

No, I feel the movie needs to be along as i feel it should be. If you can tell the story you're telling in 90 minutes or so that's good. There's no need to add filler to lengthen the time of the movie just to it has a longer run-time. For certain movies you need to have a longer film than others.

[chris_sc77]

[QUOTE=DisneyBlu;9234897]Roger Ebert said "no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short."

/QUOTE]

that is a great quote . and its true.

My quote is "Tell me of a good short movie and i will tell you a similar one that is longer and much better"