I binge UA-cam. One Channeler pointed out that some cut scenes can add meaning to the part of the movie that we do see. Often what we see doesn't make sense because we go from scene A to scene E.
I watched The Good, The Bad, The Ugly recently. It was about 2 hours and 58 minutes long, but I must say… every millisecond was worth it. Every scene grabbed your attention and never overstayed its welcome. Truly one of the greatest films ever made.
I dont mind long movies as long as I'm invested in the characters and where the story is going, like Seven Samurai. I just watched the Ninth Configuration few days ago. Loved it so much that I wanted the film to be even longer just to spend more time with these insane interesting characters.
@@orafaeldipietro I’ve seen War And Peace (1967), Fanny And Alexander (1983), Scenes From A Marriage (1974), The Godfather Part II, Lawrence Of Arabia, Magnolia (1999), Gone With The Wind and Seven Samurai.
When you rewatch Seven Samurai again is like visiting your old friends in a world of fantasy, just as in the Neverending story. I've only watched it fully twice (the other three or so times I had to walk the dog/ cook dinner) but when I watch it I'm hooked
Ive said this before and I'll say it again, it's insane to me that people will casually binge a season of a show in a day but hesitate to watch a 3+ hour movie. Like I get it to an extent, movies are generally supposed to be a straight shot expierience where as you can take breaks with shows. But, and here's a little trade secret their gonna kick me out of the industry for giving away this one, you know you can like... Take a break? If a movie is long and your watching it at home you can just take break. Heck, most classic long-as-hell movies have intermissions, I mean granted that was partly for technical reasons with film reels but still. I am not ashamed to admit that I did not watch Lawrence of Arabia or Godfather II in one shot, just take your time if you need to.
Absolutely. I really enjoyed The Irishman despite all the criticism it got for being too long, and I must have watched it like 10 or 12 times at least, but other than the time I screened it for the film club I used to run I've never watched it in one sitting. Having said that I once did the entire Godfather trilogy in one go, but that was pretty heavy going I admit. I just wanted to get the full perspective of the story and see if I spotted anything new re character arc or visual references.
Also I wish more theatres still provided an intermission. I was bursting for a pee for about the last hour of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the first time I watched it, but really didn't want to miss anything.
Well, you sarcasm doesn't make your points any better it only makes people hate you more. And, TV shows and movies are very different which already puts a lot of hokes in your argument. And, a movie only has to draw in an audience once while a tv show has to do it for every episode so that is why TV shows are more addictive and attractive to watch than movies. A movie doesn't need to be 3 hours and you shouldn't have to take breaks to watch it, always less than 2 hours and 40 minutes and if you want to expand more, make a sequel or a TV show if you need a lot of time to world build.
Films have different run times for a reason. Some can do the job in 86 minutes While others might need two plus hours or even three to four hours to fully tell its story. Like Ebert always said, No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.
Agreed. High Noon is only 80 minutes long but it feels like a full movie. Schindlers List is over 3 hours long, but it never feels slow, if anything it feels a little fast
If the Irishman had been 90 minutes, it would have been garbage. At the end of the film I felt like DeNiro’s character was an old friend, like I grew up with him, which everything about it all the more tragic. Imagine a 90 minute 2001 a space odyssey…..
I agree with most of this but admittedly my perspective has shifted as movie viewing has become more of an at home experience rather than a theatrical one. In the film projection era the only way to see a movie with its intended audiovisual quality was to see it in a theater and being stuck in a seat for 3 plus hours can be difficult even if you’re loving the movie. Now, at home you can pause, go to the bathroom, eat lunch, move your laundry from the washer to the dryer and resume a pristine 4k transfer of a 3 hour plus movie. This makes movie viewing feel more like the process of reading a hefty novel - you can set it down and start it up again. You’re not required to consume it all at once.
Only in the 50s, 60s and occasionally but rarely the 70s. As someone who saw many long movies in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s before HD home viewing was a thing I can assure you there were no intermissions. Some obvious exceptions before and after those periods.
Mostly agree, but I think it's still better to at least consume all the "chunks" in one afternoon/night, so it's still a cohesive experience of the film. I had a friend that watched all movies spread out over days in 20 minute sittings, which is just wacky unless the movie's just mindless entertainment.
I fully agree with this - feature films are meant to feel like a single tonally and emotionally evolving experience and it’s good to experience great films this way at least once in your life even if you’re breaking it up on subsequent viewings. Having said that I fully understand why someone might need to pause especially long movies once or twice.
"Once Upon A Time In America" was cut from it's original 3 Hr 43Min runtime to just a little over 2 Hours for it's US release and the film was panned by critics and bombed at the box office. Luckily, I still got to see the full film at my local theater In 1984 so when critics blasted it I was confused as to why they would hate such a masterpiece not knowing it was cut to 2 Hours by the editor of "Police Academy 2". When the 80s were coming to a close a lot of critics who saw the actual full length film put it in the their top 10 films of the decade (Raging Bull was voted #1 by all the critics.
The Best of Youth (6 hours), The Decalogue (10 hours), Once Upon a Time in America (4 hours) Children of Paradise (3 hours) Malcom X (3 hours 20min) Schindler’s List (3 hours 20min) are some of my all time favorite films
I cannot tell you how many times in the past few years I've said "this movie should've been longer, it should've slowed itself down so we could really get to know the characters and become invested."
@@Arider56107 It's the fact that it hammers you with exposition, but then gives you no time to process any of it. I think a 3-hour runtime with few additional scenes, but mainly the existing scenes made longer and delivered at slower pace--especially the explaination of the backstory to Sator, who had the potential to be a very complex individual, but just came off as the abusive husband he is on the surface. Also, I would have dedicated time to building the character of "the scientist" (completes the algorithm in the future, splits it up and hides it). She should have been the woman we are introduced to at the start who explains inversion to the protagonist).
@@zak-of-all-trades9638 I wouldn't have minded a longer movie, but I also think I'm able to forgive it's nature as it's modeled after the spy genre. At least with the Protagonist, we're not supposed to get to know who he is, because it's in his nature to not let us. That's just me.
This is what I found so frustrating almost 20 years ago about the discourse around Return of the King's "multiple" endings. It always came across as very disingenuous to me considering how many things there were to wrap up in the story by that point. Especially since the extended editions came out, and now so many fans prefer those versions. I would have thought that now with long form stories in TV shows on streaming platforms, people have more patience for longer movies, but really it's the opposite.
I argue a lot with a friend about the extended versions. I think the things that were cut are unnecessary while he absolutely prefers the extended versions. I think his perspective is that he just wants to spend as much time as possible in the world and I think those extra scenes are meandering. Though it probably comes down to nostalgia, we both prefer the versions we are most used to.
The issue with return of the King. You have 2 previous movies so the many endings makes sense because if everything that came before it. However if you only seen the movies in theatres before hand. You've been on a three year journey. And when that last step takes over 1/3 of your time it can seem overwhelming.
I tend to like long movies. But LotR extended versions felt excruussiating to me. Really boring stuff that didn't add anything to the story and only made the already slow but great pace a terribly slow one.
I love the first two Lord of the Rings films, but as a non-book reader, I detest RotK because it's full of plot holes and didn't make sense. There was no excuse for cutting an hour of context out of the film for the theatrical release that reduced it to a nonsensical mess for anyone that didn't have the book knowledge. As a result, I've never seen a Peter Jackson film in the cinema since. I refuse to pay money for films that aren't completed and will only ever be seen in full on home entertainment. Same reason I won't watch Ridley Scott films on theatrical release anymore. Kingdom of Heaven was a fucking atrocious mess on theatrical release, but the extended version is hands down one of the best films ever.
I'm genuinely surprised there was no mention of any Tarkovsky movies. Stalker is close to three hours, and the length (coupled with long takes) simply adds to the trance like state it puts me in.
I am biased as a Hungarian, but also Bela Tarr, although he is arguably even more unapproachable then Tarkovsky, and not just due to his even longer run times. To paraphrase the master himself, "Tarkovsky is way more optimistic then I am. In his movies, the rain cleanses people, in mine, it just makes mud." Genuinely tho, if you are only going to watch one Hungarian movie in your life, make it Werckmeister Harmonies. It is such a beautiful rendition of an already amazing book.
The Seven Samurai is my favorite action movie of all time. Yes, it's long, but it flies by so fast. Even when "nothing is happening", there is a reason Kurosawa allegedly spent hours painting some of the shots from the movie. Nobody quite shoots the Japanese landscape as beautifully as he does.
There's a difference between long and TOO long. Too long is when the scenes just don't serve the story, or perhaps more precisely, don't serve the story well. Of course, that can be a sticky wicket, since it's all subjective. But honestly, if I'm totally engaged with a great film, time stops for me. And sometimes, the characters and world are so fascinating and emotionally resonant that I don't want it to end - even if the finale is otherwise "perfect." Great stuff!
A film can be too long when the script is poorly written. For example, instead of describing a character by his actions he is described by dialogues. Or the characters repeat to us for a 15th time what we already know. Or when the director wants to do too much, he wants to please his audience too much by lengthening or adding scenes that bring nothing (at all) to the story again and again.
That's how I felt after finishing Gone with the Wind. I could watch Seven Samurai, The Godfather Part II, and The Irishman dozens of times, but Gone with the Wind was a one-and-done experience for me.
the thing is that most people who hate long movies literally only care because its long, not because of the content of the scenes. They think the LOTR or Dark Knight movies are too long despite the fact that they are masterpieces that are captivating throughout. You're talking about people who spend half the movie on their phone because they have a 10 minute attention span.
LOTR... Dark Night... seriously? We talk about cinema here. Talk about Fincher, Scorsese, Eastwood, Stone even Tarantino. But not Nolan or Jackson. If you think Dark Night and LOTR are masterpieces it's either that you know nothing about real cinema or that you don't like cinema at all.
I can see why a movie can benefit from shorter runtime if it feels like certain scenes are lingering or just that the story is a bit too messy and cutting some scenes will make it clearer and more engaging. The thing is - it isn't about how objectively long the movie is, a movie can be four hours and great (or even benefit from another 20 minutes or so) and a movie can contain too unnecessary stuff that harms it when it's 90 minutes, the question is rather pr not all the parts work together and what will be best to enhance this particular movie.
Don't think you can underestimate how important music is in longer films, especially when talking about Sergio Leone films. The haunting and epic scores of Morricone create an incredibly immersive film experience, turns a decent film into one of the greats
This is a really good point. I watched Doctor Zhivago this past summer and the 3 hours (with a couple breaks) flew by in part because that gorgeous score.
I have an interesting experience with many Leone films, as my mother really loves the music of Morricone, so I listened to most of his music on road trips years before I ever saw the movies themselves. And yes, I 100% agree. The way the music pulls you in during the big slow montages, so you just get lost in the imagery is amazing. The only western to pull this off for me that is not scored by Morricone was the Last of the Mohicans, but that has a very different "kind" of score.
“Who gives a f#cking sh#t how long a scene is!” ~ David Lynch Being self indulgent and drawing out scenes to get as much emotion and impact out of them as possible, along with knowing how little plot matters and having moments to breath or derail that have more subtle and meaningful purposes than just pushing the plot forward, make a movie all the more great to me I think my favorite movies should be longer and more self indulgent, where’s that 20 hour cut of OUATIH!
Agreed. I've never wanted a director's cut/miniseries more than with OUATIH. The characters were so compelling, and despite the long run time there was not a single dull moment. Of course, Tarantino has expanded the story in the novelisation (which I still haven't received yet- dammit, Amazon!) and plans to do so even further in the stage adaptation he is writing, but I can't tell you how happy a release of the four and a half hour cut would make me. Would love to see the extended Manson sequences, not to mention all of Tim Roth's cut scenes. And if the mythical 20 hour version actually exists then 100% sign me up as well!
Deliberate movies are good. If every shot matters narratively or thematically, then length shouldn't matter, meaning long films have the potential to be good. But a long film that is bad can be worse than bad short film because it drags out pacing, doesn't engage the viewer. That may have an effect if the point of the film is to endow a perspective of tedium or tiredness. Every filmmaker shouldnt make a long film cause they have the potential to make a story better, but a long film that is packed only with individual bricks of quality has reason to be long. [MK Spoilers\/] Also the Mortal Kombat setup for scorpion and Subzero is subpar since the opening scene spends longer sequences on short ideas: scorpion has family, house assaulted, family killed, scorpion dies, vows revenge. And then it gets diffused by the modern day protagonist that's very passive for the most part in the narrative and summons scorpion at the end. No full film about scorpion, and no real setup or pay off for the descendent protagonist, worse for both worlds.
For what it's worth I don't really have a stake in the Mortal Kombat debate, I just thought the infamous tweet was a useful way to introduce this topic.
It's the first time I've seen a movie-blog with the subject of 'long movies'. Excellent. Director Robert Wise (West Side Story, The Sand Peebles) said, "Pace is not 'speed'. Pace is interest. I try to get the audience's interest from the start and never lose it."
I recently saw a Twitter hot take saying that Come and See is way to long. Like sure you can cut the story to maybe a half hour, but that misses the point. It’s suppose to show how war is long stretches of calm and boring with moments of intense destruction/trauma.
Film Twitter is god fucking awful. Most takes on there is just them not understanding the movie itself. One time someone said "Why is The Matrix so green? This is basically the Mexico filter but green."
Come and see is not the type of film that I would need to watch a second time so soon. But I honestly would not change a frame of that masterpiece. I felt every moment of that film and that is a huge compliment
I'd give a years pay to see Leone's original version of Once Upon a Time...in America. Not the extended version, the full 6 hour version he originally intended. Also, long runtimes are usually a good thing; the more invested you get, the more you appreciate every single frame. Especially when witnessing the work of geniuses like Kurosawa, Leone, Lean and Tarantino.
Honestly, I’m guilty for doing “This movie doesn’t need to be this long” (especially with Jackson’s King Kong). But honestly, I don’t think a long movie is a bad thing. I think it helps flesh out characters and the world much better as well as focus on pivotal emotional moments that shorter cuts would’ve ignored completely. Amadeus is one of my all time favorites and I honestly can’t imagine it being anything shorter than a three hour historical-fiction drama epic. Back in July, I watched Stalker for the first time. And yeah, I felt the runtime in parts, but what kept me engaged was the visual presentation and the themes Tarkovsky was exploring, I really don’t think it would be as effective if it was only 90 minutes. Long doesn’t always equal bad. If only parts of Film Twitter understood that 😔. Great video Dan
I love long movies but I do in fact feel Peter Jackson's King Kong is the quintessential "there's no reason for this movie to be this long" movie. I admire it more than I actually like it.
Why'll I completely agree with practically everything in this video... I agree the most with feeling a bit guilty when consuming one very long film, especially one sitting over 3 hours (but I feel the worst when the long runtime wasn't justified). I find myself having to be in the "mood" to enjoy a long and gripping movie. However, we would be robbed of so many great cinematic experiences if there was a time limit. For example, the running time of a movie almost always gives a film an "identity" so to speak. To use Andrei Tarkovsky as an example, his short film "The Steamroller and the Violin" was a masterclass in developing a strong bond between the streamroller and the kid while being under 45 minutes in total length and even less time that the steamroller and violin were actually on screen together, which made for an easy-to-consume, heartfelt tale. To find an example of Tarkovsky going almost overboard with runtime is "Andrei Rublev". This film was a masterpiece in immersing the audience in a medieval time period, and making the audience feel as if they were a true spectator to the events involving the russian world falling apart around a torn but immensely talented icon painter. Can the movie be considered long at about 3 hours? Of course, but it is also up to the viewer in how they wish to tackle this concept, in embracing it, or resenting it. I believe it should be up to the viewer to interpret if the extra runtime served the experience well (rather than shallowly examining specific scenes and if they added to the plot or not) after they have experienced the film as a whole. Cinema is not just about telling a story, it enthralls people yearning for a fictional world, and if a movie runs an hour more to indulge us in a story, creating seemingly meaningless events, scenes, and characters, and bring us into a world far more interesting than our own than so be it (after all nobody is forced to like a film and we all have our own opinions and walk away from any film slightly different than everyone else). Was the end montage of paintings in Andrei Rublev needed? You can argue no, as the biographical story was fine and stood alone as a masterpiece (at least in my eyes), but did the painting montage at the end add to what Andrei Rublev did as a painter and his prestige that others mentioned throughout the film as well as finally showing the masterpieces he constructed in between the mellow but insightful religious encounters and dialogues throughout the film, absolutely. Tarkovsky seemed to intentionally avoid focusing on any color or analysis of painting as he worked to create his own piece of "art" or "painting" in the form of a black and white film and I feel he definitely succeeded. This approach can teach us that film is not about how good of a story was it and how good do we feel afterwards (because long runtimes leave us all a bit guilty). It is about how impacted we were by the viewing. Did we gain or lose a part of ourselves within the runtime that forces us to question and walk away from a faulty attitude or belief we once so closely held? Or was our enjoyment of the film so intense that we would sit through it once more? Andrei Rublev as a film is unconventional to say the least, as a painter working on grand projects historically and the director depriving the audience of any direct artwork made by Rublev until the end of the film creates an odd experience. However, with every ounce of dialogue in the film, layers and layers are built and it left me wanting to hear more of the wisdom and insight the monks provided to others willing to listen or not listen (in the case of Foma). Tarkovsky seemed to create a 3 hour piece of art questioning human meaning (addressing the argument for existentialism or if a life without God was really that glamorous), how those without God truly reap the rewards of this world (as seen with the Tatar invaders), and if we are indeed redeemable in this life as well as the next (seen with Andrei and the bellmaker together). I highlight Andrei Rublev because it seemed Tarkovsky tried to go as far as he could in the runtime and different episodes of Andrei Rublev's life to illustrate the lack of patience and lack of attention to detail audiences have when consuming the medium of film. The film was long and drawn out (longer than it had to be) but used this mellow depth to dive into the religious value and other slow burning conflicts in the film which in turn, used the long runtime to its advantage and build the "identity" I mentioned earlier. As people in a society dominated by dopamine overload inducing devices like smart phones and computers, we want an enjoyable and easy experience that leaves us joyful and energetic, but rarely do you come across an individual who admires the artform of cinema as an ability to speak to the audience and create a new experience no matter what film you are watching. Usually individuals who still go out of their way for films of the highest caliber (or just unique films) or go out of their way to read cinema articles and watch video essays (like this channel) are among individuals who Tarkovsky (and other great directors like Bergman and Kurosawa who you mentioned) aim to communicate to through film with no acknowledgement of the issue of runtime (or to scoff at the impatience of us modern viewers, intentionally or unintentionally). Before going into the film I knew Andrei Rublev was an artist, but a 3 hour runtime made me reflect on what cinema is and the gravity and weight a long film can carry which left me wanting to hear another monologue or engaging conversation between Kirill and Andrei, or other characters who did not even matter in the grand scope of the story. If Andrei Rublev were cut even 10 minutes I believe it would have left a different impression on me. I'll stop myself here, but many other films are long and I feel similarly about how they create a grand world for the viewer to live through temporarily and give us something valuable to walk away with. It is why we watch films in the first place, to find something in ourselves that we did not know was there, or to just escape our meaningless lives because without cinema we would be deprived of the greatest form of art which would be an immense travesty to mankind. So... Although a long runtime can be challenging, we should not deny ourselves the enjoyment of a long and magnificent form of artwork (wow I should have just said that instead).
Also, what about books and TV? If a book takes five hours for the average person to read, it's considered short. A five hour TV show would hardly be considered a show at all but rather a miniseries. Does Gilmore Girls "demand" more time than the Godfather in these people's eyes?
A good example of how runtime complaints have less to do with literal minutes and more how we perceive media and what should and shouldn't be a certain length.
Because TV shows aren't meant to continually pull in viewers weekly, movies are not. And books and movies and tv are all waaaaay too different from each other.
It's a different kind of watching. Gilmore Girls and The Godfather fit different purposes in people's lives. Time spent watching is not the primary consideration. I can breeze through 4 hour crime documentaries and struggle with 4 hour movies. I don't know why exactly, but that's how it is. The comparison is useful, but only to a point.
to me i always find myself more invested, more connected to characters in long films, the extra runtime just gives more time to spend with the characters and by the end it truly feels like you’ve been taken on a journey and you know the characters the best you can the same way a television show does
Yeah for me, if I connect with a movie on any emotional level, then I don't care about the running time. A Brighter Summer Day, Once Upon a time in America, and Magnolia are easily top films of all times for me as well as You Were Never really here and like Hi, Mom which are like 90 mins exactly. If something clicks, I'll go along for the ride. Now finding the time in my day to day schedule is a different story.
I find there is also an interesting argument with with stuff like movies that were cut down considerably. The stories I like most are about how First Blood and Planes, Trains and Automobiles both had cuts that were over 3 hours long. One I feels was the right choice while the other always has me curious as to what that would have been like.
Well, you're talking about rough cuts, which are usually that long. On the audio commentary of Austin Powers 2 it is mentioned that the rough cut of that movie was also over three hours long, which contained every joke from the script plus all the stuff they made up on the set. They managed to bring the movie down to ninety minutes by simply cutting all the jokes they did not find funny the second time around.
In spite of this video's title, I would actually argue that the shorter 162 minute cut of 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' is the better experience overall. In summary, the Extended English Version (or the most widely available cut on Blu-ray) is this weird hodgepodge hybrid cut, that is neither the original Italian cut or the International Cut, assembled over a decade after Sergio Leone died. It also adds modern sound effects (like gunshots heard in this video) that feel absolutely wrong in a '60s Italian production. Finally, Italian-only scenes that were removed from the International cut were dubbed in English in 2002 and it's painfully obvious Clint and Eli are 40 years older and a soundalike is performing Lee Van Cleef's dialogue. The 4K actually marks the first time the International Cut has been seen on disc since the '90s and I heartily recommend it.
The actual length of a film isn't ever really the true problem, it's the pacing. I've seen short films that lasted an eternity and long films that shocked me when they ended seemingly short. The runtime should accommodate the film not the other way round.
Thanks for making this video. Once Upon a Time in America, The Godfather Part II, Scarface, Lawrence of Arabia and so many other 2.5-3+ hour movies are some of my all time favorites. They really take the time to GO for it.
I could do without the rape scene in Once Upon a Time in America I think it added nothing to the movie. It's not like they made it a plot point as to why she turned away from Robert De Niro's character.
Are these past two videos just an elaborate scheme to get more people to finally watch Barry Lyndon? Because if so then yes it is working. For real, I love this video. It’s making me think that one of the questions that is really being raised by discussion of long movie lengths is truly “what do you do when you don’t seem to engage with a film’s story?” Especially for long, highly regarded films, it can be difficult to decide if it’s “the film” or if it’s “you.” Completing the story is still probably the best option, but it can be difficult to consider
True. The SnyderCut was legitimately good. The designated Chapter segments were really well done. You got to marinate in various scenes that contributed to the overall dynamic between the team and the characters in the movie generally.
10/10. This is what I’m fucking talking about. I was thinking the other day about Seven Samurai and I just love how long it is. By the end of the film the battle is such a repetitive and painful struggle, and it’s so perfectly rooted in the character experience. Anxiously waiting till the battle can be ended. I feel as though I’m with them and I want to make every hit last and get everyone closer to safety, especially after all the death that has occurred prior. Those scenes being as plentiful and as long as they are to really invest us in the motivations of all the characters. Excellent video. Love me some great essay videos, and these are some tightly edited and informative masterclasses of them. Great examples that form a full and reasoned perspective. Subscribed.
The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is a strong argument for a longer movie. It's basically a different film from the theatrical cut which I believe was cut due to studio interference, partly regarding runtime.
Legit just yelled, "yeah!" while you were making one of your points.The one about loving movies so much it shapes who you are, but you want to spend less time doing so? F'ing BRILLIANT.
I will stand here and defend Mortal Kombat! Yes it's plot is incredibly shallow and simplistic, it's supposed to be, but what gives the series it's weight and longevity is the characters, and they having development and fun interactions deserve a longer run time to explore. I loved the new one, but I would have liked another twenty minutes to get to now our newest addition to the roster.
Just got out of killers of the flower moon and, for my sins, did the UA-cam dive of initial reactions; many of which proclaim the too long, but x-minutes out, blah blah blah. I remembered this video and revisited it. Great, evergreen stuff 😎
the boat is very similar to the good the bad and the ugly in what you described. It doesnt have much of a plot, but it intensifies the drama to epic proportions with music and unreasonably stretched scenes.
Most of my favorite movies are usually 3+ hours long. My absolute favorite is The Good The Bad and the Ugly and it's current cut on most blu-ray and dvd releases is almost 3 and a half hours. (So glad you used it as an example and that trailer is really weird 😂)
I remember telling my friend the green mile was three hours long and he didn't believe me and it got to the point I had to pull out the DVD to prove it to him and something similar happened to me when I learned scent of a woman was three hours long, I couldn't believe it and had to check, thing is when you are enjoying it so much you don't even know it's a long movie, took both of us years to notice each movie was that long, we may never have.
The same happened to me recently when I had a friend over and we had time to watch a two hour movie, so I pulled out Pulp Fiction from my shelf, only to stop and be amazed when I saw it’s three hours long.
(Well, to be fair, Scent of a Woman was 2 1/2 hours - still longer than you would expect, and that's not why I am commenting.) However, I think The Green Mile feels shorter because the original material - the novel - was written as a serial novel; that is, one short novel a month to tell the whole story. Each short novel was a self-contained part of the story, with a beginning, middle and an end - but obviously, an ending that allowed the rest of the story to be told. The movie was thusly built around this as a structure, giving the audience a bunch of short stories to keep us entertained.
@@martinsorenson1055 I would think it being based on a serial novel if that came across in the movie, it'd make it feel longer not shorter because you would go through the motions of beginning, middle and end several times before the movie is even over having a bunch of climaxes would make it seem like forever, when I watch the movie it just feels like one whole, I'd never guess it was based on a serial just watching it.
I've wanted to watch Das Boot since I figured out it was almost five hours long. And I really respect the attempt to create a realistic and interesting story over a long period of time. We need to keep the emotions in film. I can also say the exact opposite, I don't care that it takes two hours to get Optimus Prime near enough to Megatron just so they can blow stuff up. The story and interesting characters is what makes the long film great.
I recently watched the 3 1/2 hour director’s cut, and that felt way too short, I look forward to seeing the miniseries. I can’t imagine what they cut out to hit 2hr29min in the theatrical cut
For all of the positives that this one anime film Pompo The Cinephile had (largely in wanting to be a sincere love letter to cinema and its excellent animation), one thing that was seriously off-putting was the idea espoused by its title character, Pompo that everything had to be 90 minutes long or else it wasn't "respecting the audience", and literally, this is the main conflict of the film, where the filmmaker, after having done principal photography on a movie that he's coerced to make, is required to essentially edit hours of footage down to exactly 90 minutes long all by himself, which in turn, transformed the second half of the film into a bizarre movie version of Whiplash: the sacrifices that you make to literally make the perfect, inspirational 90 minute film but without the abusive teacher or underlying subtext (though granted, it's not like this wasn't telegraphed earlier in the film since he was required to edit a 15-second commercial from a schlocky B-movie, but this guy literally passed out and sneaked out of the hospital just to keep cutting the film down). At the very end when the film is screened and gets its mock Oscars, his speech saying that he likes that it's exactly 90 minutes long felt like one big punchline (on top of the film itself excluding credits being exactly 90 minutes long). It felt like a very odd director tract regarding his views on film, but particularly the length of films. If a film isn't 90 minutes long then it's not respectful to the audience? Then what about films of the past that were significantly longer than that? Or hell, what about Cinema Paradiso, the film that Pompo seems to be referencing quite a lot in that film, with that being 2 hours and 30 minutes? There's not respecting people's time with overall length of a film, and there's also disrespecting people's time with scenes in a film that run for far too long, even if they are 90 minutes or less. For the director to seemingly say that this should be the core feature of a film audiences will like, centering an entire freakin' conflict over trying to cut the film to exactly 90 minutes long and then turn it into a punchline at the end seems to undercut the nature of wanting this film to be a sincere love letter to cinema and creators in entertainment, that films can be boiled down to a specific formula for success without considering other factors that made successful films work. It sadly doesn't work in the same way that other love letters to cinema do. Oh and there was one looooong scene that dragged out far too long about a banker being lionized because he needs to convince the bank to fund a reshoot for the filmmaker, and all it takes is a absurdly schmaltzy speech about how bankers can help people fulfill their dreams, streamed globally as part of a crowdfunding campaign to convince them, and they just say yes apart from the obvious naysayer (ie the CEO). Fuck that part so hard.
I even don't agree that "no bad movie is too short." Of course I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, but I definitely have memories of thinking "Wow, this dialogue is so bad/this character is so wooden/this plot point is so rushed and confused" and that if they had five more minutes to develop the idea, let things breathe a little, etc., the movie would have gone from bad to pretty good.
Long movies have always given me a sense of comfort, especially in the case of generational epics like The Godfather and Barry Lyndon. I've also found that German cinema has a fountain of great long cinema such as: Fritz Lang's 'Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler' Wim Wenders' 'Until The End Of The World' (Technically Australian) Wolfgang Petersen's 'Das Boot' (My favourite film of all time) It sucks that a lot of film lovers won't give these films a chance. Most films that have a long runtime usually put a lot of effort into feeling very engaging. Long movies are also much more likely to give a profound impact than a 80 or 90 minute film (at least in my experience).
Great video! I love how you mentioned that long movies let you spend extra time with the characters! I couldn't agree more! I usually always love long movies because it's like a good book, in that you never want it to end! I have however become disinterested in a movie, but I suspect my expectations or underlying issues with them were the issue, and not the run time.
People underestimate how a 2 hour bad movie can be so much more painful to get through than a 3 hour great movie. I recently watched Hobbs and Shaw through my Fast and Furious franchise binge, and this thing felt like damn near 3 and a half hours. Plus long good movies tend to actually leave an impact on you, that's already a mark of time not being wasted
Most of my favourite films are over the 2hr 30 min mark now that I think about it! I’ve never really understood the big fuss over long films. lord of the rings, metropolis, farewell my concubine, Lawrence of arabia, the bridge on the river Kwai, army of shadows, ran, Amadeus, Schindlers list are some of my favourites and it really bothers me when people complain and say that they could be shorter
You can always get away with a long film so long as it is paced appropriately. I have seen plenty of films that barely scrape 80 minutes and manage to drag because the progression of the story doesn't match that of the film's runtime. Epics succeed by having long runtimes because they are exactly that, epic.
My favorite movies like The Godfathers 1&2, Andrei Rublev, the LOTR Trilogy, Goodfellas, Irishman, etc., are all damn long, and I wish they were longer. Heck, if a film or story is constantly enthralling, I'd be fine if they never ended! I think it's just harder to make enough relevant content for 3 hrs.
honestly, if a movie starts to approach about 2h 30m, i split it up into two sittings to make it more manageable. i agree with you it's just that sitting for 3h straight is haunting. this is why i also love tv shows, since i have permission to watch for only an hour or so and continue if i want.
The vast majority of my favourite movies exceed two hours in length. The long cut of Fanny and Alexander is actually my favourite movie of all time. I much prefer the extended cuts of Cinema Paradiso (my second favourite of all time), Once Upon at Time in America, and so on. I find it sad that shortened attention spans make long run times less and less palatable as time goes on.
Funny, The extended cut of Cinema Paradiso is my example of the shorter version being better. All the added scenes reduced my affections for the characters, and so, drained a lot of the impact of the final scene.
I first watched the shorter version of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from which about 20 min. were cut, but then I watched some first-time watching reactions, and realized there was a longer, 3-hour, version. Now it's my favorite. It shows a split second of Clint Eastwood playing with a kitten, which the shorter does not!
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended Edition scores 4 hours and 23 minutes. That also includes the additional credits. If you can sit through all that without being distracted (minus the additional credits), good for you for taking up the time. It shows that you were fully invested in the journey's end of the characters.
I watched it for the first time last year. With it's incredibly distinct halves, I think it's a great movie (duh) and a great movie for getting people into the concept of long movies. "It's kinda like Hamilton" is an easier sell than "This couple grows apart for 5 hours" (Scenes from a Marriage).
I kinda feel like longer movies are kinda being phased out for tv mini series, for example Chernobyl couldn’t been a 6 hour long movie but they divided it into sections, making it more approachable to a general audience. Now I’m not saying the show is better for it or that it’s a more effective way to tell the story, both formats have their advantages and disadvantages, I don’t think Lawrence of Arabia would’ve been better as a tv series, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter sometime
One of the handful of good theatrical experiences I've had has been Lawrence of Arabia. It was titanic, LONG, and I desperately needed to pee halfway between the intermission and ending, but the size of the film and lack of external distraction (it was a Tuesday afternoon in the middle of the morning) really enveloped me. When I was a kid I would watch movies wholeheartedly. Now it's a bit harder, with any distraction from a game of Halo to the mortgage or whatever job I'm doing this month. I added Fanny and Alexander to my list of films to watch, and I'm looking forward to seeing more from this channel.
I'm not sure that long movies are inherently bad. But so many movies don't justify their runtime. Some of my favorite movies push three hours. But more often than not, I walk out of a lot of longer movies thinking, "That was pretty good, but they could easily have shaved off 15 minutes." If your pacing sucks, or you don't have interesting things happening in your movie, you're detracting from the good stuff. Either fix it or get rid of it. Make your movie as long as it needs to be, and I'll love it if it's good. But don't waste my time.
There is that weird disconnect people tend to have when talking about runtime. That a 4 hour epic is ungodly long. But the same viewers have no problem binging 6+ hours of the new Netflix show they found during a weekend. As long as the story is the length it needs to be I am happy with its length. If that means 5.5 hours of Lars von Triers Nymphomaniac or 1 hr 42 minutes of Robocop. Then so be it. But Robocop doesn't need to be 5.5 hours. It would probably lack the punch of its lean actual film. On a related note. I do feel that we really should get the intermissions back in the theaters. It allows people to replenish drinks and snacks and visit bathrooms. And it makes it feel more like an event than the quick stop that cinemas sometimes feel like. Although, it does mean that multiplexes become a very different beast as all the screenings would have to factor in the movement of people to and from each room on a pretty much constant basis.
I'd love for intermissions to return. I took some friends to 2001: A Space Odyssey a few years back and my one buddy was almost ecstatic about the intermission.
I actually thought magnificent seven was boring, even though it was only 2 hours. But 7 samurai, which was three and a half hours, flew right by for me
People binge 8 hour netflix series in 1 sitting. What's wrong with 3 hours?. I guess it's because 8 bitesize pieces is less intimidating that a 3 hour epic
I would say I do like and appreciate long movies but sometimes I just don’t feel like committing myself to a 3 hour movie or more. I love a lot of long movies but it can be hard sometimes
One thing that made me reconsider my stance on longer films was seeing so many TV shows that just bloat out a storyline so that it can meet some arbitrary number of episodes. Before that, I used to be a "more is better" kind of person, going for the extended editions of anything that had one. The other side of the equation of a long films / long serial is the indulgence it asks of the audience. There's only so much time we can spend watching - even those of us who love and live for experiencing a great film - and there's plenty else we could be doing in the limited time we have on the planet, such as watching a different film. If a long runtime is needed to get across what the filmmakers are trying to say, then by all means make the film long. But make it worth it for the viewer. It's when films feel drawn out that runtime starts to matter, and the longer the film the more apparent that can be. A 90 minute film that starts to drag can't drag long, even if the cause of that is the same underlying problem that a 3 hour film has.
I think it depends on how much your definition of a film is something designed to be watched in a single sitting, particularly in this age of home video and streaming. I did not see Hateful Eight in the theater in part because of runtime, but enjoyed watching the extended version in multiple installments on Netflix. Midnight Mass was one of my favorite "films" of 2021. The point being, the longer the film, the more it can be said it is playing to the strengths of modern-day prestige television rather than cinema. This is not necessarily bad in the way that a film like My Dinner with Andre is not inherently bad for resembling a play. It just seems like an intentional move away from the strengths of the medium that should be taken with care.
one of my favorite and weird film to watch is "Love exposure" a 2010 japanese movie that is 4 hour long but what i like about this film is that it's is divided in multiple Act that are fairly different in tone and story point. you could easily watch it in 4x1hour part like a serie so it's really good when you want to watch it with friend or family that may not be able to survive a 4hour long movie.
I used to be one of those "long movies have to work harder to justify their length" people; in retrospect, it's pretty embarrassing, and I'm glad I got out of that mindset. Dogville was the movie that finally brought me around: I almost didn't watch it because of the runtime, then did and thought it was fantastic. This video really underlines and expresses eloquently for me why it's so rewarding to embrace long movies. Thank you for your hard work!
Highly recommend Sion Sono’s “Love Exposure,” which is nearly four hours long in length and I don’t think I’ve ever had so much fun watching a movie! It’s free to watch on UA-cam if anyone is interested!!
When you stated how Mortal Kombat was too short of a film, I wasn’t sure if even that was the problem. You see video game movies seem to fail at understanding that THERE ARE LEVELS. And usually the average time depending on the game you’re playing usually takes up a lot of time. The average time to complete an entire game nowadays is up to 10 or so hours. And in that time, there’s so much story happening. So it hit me: if you’re gonna adapt a video game, make it a TV Series/miniseries. Each episode can be like a level in the game. First act you have the mission, second act is the journey and obstacles, and third act is where you are up against your first opponent and how you’ll beat him/her. If the creators in adapting Mortal Kombat thought about this, then maybe the adaptation would be receiving much more praise.
Another really good example of "what do you cut" is _Yojimbo_ vs _A Fistful of Dollars_. Dollars is an almost shot-for-shot remake of Yojimbo, but about ten minutes shorter, by removing some incidental scenes and dialogue here and there. And it really affects the storytelling of the film.
After a while you can intuitively tell when a movie is too long. A good movie takes as long as it needs to take but comedies that are too long are my pet peeve. So pretty much every Apatow comedy. On the other hand Animal House is almost two hours and you never get bored.
Some of my favorite movies are long films, examples like -Apocalypse Now -The Good The Bad The Ugly -Scarface -Blade Runner 2049 -Inglourious Basterds -Pulp Fiction -Eyes Wide Shut -Barry Lyndon -Django Unchained
Really great statement. Two of my favorite long movies were: The Evolution of A Filipino Family by Lav Diaz (It is a 10 hour film, that I watched episodically...cause I don't have that much time) and Love Exposure by Sion Sono. And I feel like if it wasn't for the runtime- these wouldn't feel as impactful and meditative for me.
For those who say they can't watch long movies, here's a list of movies shorter than Zack Snyder's Justice League, which clocks in at 4 hours and 2 minutes: Gone With The Wind (3 hrs 58 min) Lawrence of Arabia (3 hrs 48 min) Apocalypse Now Redux (3 hrs 22 min) The Ten Commandments (3 hrs 40 min) Schindler's List (3 hrs 15 min) Spartacus (3 hrs 17 min) 2001 A Space Odyssey (2 hrs 44 min) Barry Lyndon (3 hrs 7 min) Amadeus (3 hrs) Reds (3 hrs 20 min) Gandhi (3 hrs 11 min) All the Godfather movies (Part 2 being the longest, at 3 hrs 22 min) All the Middle Earth movies (Return of the King being the longest, at 3 hrs 20 minutes, though the Extended Edition of Return of the King is actually longer, at 4 hrs 23 min) Every Martin Scorsese movie (The Irishman being the longest, at 3 hrs 29 min) Every Quentin Tarantino movie (The Hateful Eight being the longest, at 3 hrs 7 min) Every Akira Kurosawa movie (Seven Samurai being the longest, at 3 hrs 27 min) Every Theo Angelopoulos movie (The Travelling Players being the longest, at 3 hrs 50 min) Every Andrei Tarkovsky movie (Andrei Rublev being the longest, at 3 hrs 25 min) Every Terrence Malick movie (A Hidden Life being the longest, at 2 hrs 54 min) Every Sergio Leone movie (Once Upon a Time in America being the longest, at 3 hrs 49 minutes, though the Extended Cut is actually longer, at 4 hrs 30 min)
Never had any problem with Zack Snyder's Justice League's length. Do I think the ending went on for a bit, and perhaps the last Knightmare sequence could have been trimmed or made a post-credits scene? Sure. But that's about it.
@@MrImastinker Oh yeah, definitely, neither did I, as it is the kind of movie that requires a longer runtime. I just find it amazing that it's even longer than Gone With the Wind.
LOVE this analysis, I have often on my movie reviews on my channel mentioned what I call "Twitter Syndrome" of audiences these days, on almost all issues, but where movies are concerned whining and complaining that they are too long. Almost all the negative reviews on the recent Zach Snyder cut of Justice League are whining about the length. I, as a movie buff, LOVE a long in depth movie, 3-4 hours are great to me. It's also why I love miniseries, or series in general in which I can binge watch hours and hours of a continuing story. I realize not many can stay still or have the time for a 4 hour epic movie in a theatre, But still, complaining about movies under 2 hours, especially ones with in depth and complex stories and characters is ridiculous to me. It's why I usually wait for a "Director's cut" or "Extended cut" to buy a movie on DVD or Blurray.
When it comes to long movies, there needs to be substance in order to justify it's length. For instance Godfather Part 2 is a fantastic movie for it's length, in fact I wish it was almost 4 hours because there were some things I think could have used some sprucing up. However Zack Snyder's Justice League is 4 hours in length and it offers almost nothing extra except some Steppenwolf scenes replaced with Darkseid, a couple Darkseid scenes, and walking segments were made twice as long for no dang reason. Like did we need to see the entire Justice League walk up some stairs by offering no dialogue at least? Ghostbusters 1 had a stair scene and it wasn't boring to watch. Long movies can be good and can be bad. But just because a movie is longer does not make it better. That is an absurd notion to make and is just as asanine to say as shorter movies are better to just get to the "Good bits".
I disagree, Snyder cut add depth to Cyborg, better pacing (not rushed), some great introduction scenes like Wonder Woman in the pyramids, the "post credits" scene is the only who felt unnecessary.
I agree with this 1000%, man. Whenever I hear a movie is going to flirt with the 3-hour mark, it just feels special and gets me so excited. Fantastic analysis.
The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/eyebrowcinema08211
Could you tell me what the movie is that the samurai is looking at colorful clouds
I binge UA-cam. One Channeler pointed out that some cut scenes can add meaning to the part of the movie that we do see. Often what we see doesn't make sense because we go from scene A to scene E.
I watched The Good, The Bad, The Ugly recently. It was about 2 hours and 58 minutes long, but I must say… every millisecond was worth it. Every scene grabbed your attention and never overstayed its welcome.
Truly one of the greatest films ever made.
Wish they still made movies like that. Clint Eastwood will always be the most legendary actor in Hollywood
I saw it for the first time a couple of months ago, and it has become one of my favorite movies of all time.
The real cut is 2hr 41mins long, theatrical version is a must why the 2hr 58mins one is for all the deleted scenes.
It's the same with Once Upon A Time In America.
That movie is 3hr 49mins long but every frame holds your attention.
Leone was a master of the art.
I dont mind long movies as long as I'm invested in the characters and where the story is going, like Seven Samurai. I just watched the Ninth Configuration few days ago. Loved it so much that I wanted the film to be even longer just to spend more time with these insane interesting characters.
I'm with you all the way, Jw.
I watch Lord of the Rings extended versions all the time
Ok then you must watch 'Once Upon A Time In America'
@@orafaeldipietro I’ve seen War And Peace (1967), Fanny And Alexander (1983), Scenes From A Marriage (1974), The Godfather Part II, Lawrence Of Arabia, Magnolia (1999), Gone With The Wind and Seven Samurai.
When you rewatch Seven Samurai again is like visiting your old friends in a world of fantasy, just as in the Neverending story. I've only watched it fully twice (the other three or so times I had to walk the dog/ cook dinner) but when I watch it I'm hooked
Ive said this before and I'll say it again, it's insane to me that people will casually binge a season of a show in a day but hesitate to watch a 3+ hour movie. Like I get it to an extent, movies are generally supposed to be a straight shot expierience where as you can take breaks with shows. But, and here's a little trade secret their gonna kick me out of the industry for giving away this one, you know you can like... Take a break? If a movie is long and your watching it at home you can just take break. Heck, most classic long-as-hell movies have intermissions, I mean granted that was partly for technical reasons with film reels but still. I am not ashamed to admit that I did not watch Lawrence of Arabia or Godfather II in one shot, just take your time if you need to.
I feel you it’s crazy and hypocritical
Absolutely. I really enjoyed The Irishman despite all the criticism it got for being too long, and I must have watched it like 10 or 12 times at least, but other than the time I screened it for the film club I used to run I've never watched it in one sitting.
Having said that I once did the entire Godfather trilogy in one go, but that was pretty heavy going I admit. I just wanted to get the full perspective of the story and see if I spotted anything new re character arc or visual references.
Also I wish more theatres still provided an intermission. I was bursting for a pee for about the last hour of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the first time I watched it, but really didn't want to miss anything.
I really liked how Snyder Cut had designated chapter breaks
Well, you sarcasm doesn't make your points any better it only makes people hate you more. And, TV shows and movies are very different which already puts a lot of hokes in your argument. And, a movie only has to draw in an audience once while a tv show has to do it for every episode so that is why TV shows are more addictive and attractive to watch than movies. A movie doesn't need to be 3 hours and you shouldn't have to take breaks to watch it, always less than 2 hours and 40 minutes and if you want to expand more, make a sequel or a TV show if you need a lot of time to world build.
Films have different run times for a reason. Some can do the job in 86 minutes While others might need two plus hours or even three to four hours to fully tell its story. Like Ebert always said, No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.
The Roaring Twenties with Cagney and Bogart tell's a epic story in 100 minutes.A remake would be 200 minutes long
“No bad movie is short enough” lol ain’t that the truth
The last sentence hits home for me especially with No Country For Old Men.
Agreed. High Noon is only 80 minutes long but it feels like a full movie. Schindlers List is over 3 hours long, but it never feels slow, if anything it feels a little fast
Just like what I discovered when playing the radio at work: coworkers only complain about how loud it is when they don't like the style of the music.
People will refuse to watch a 3 hour movie and then gladly sit around watching a tv show for 9 hours straight
Aint that the truth!
If the Irishman had been 90 minutes, it would have been garbage. At the end of the film I felt like DeNiro’s character was an old friend, like I grew up with him, which everything about it all the more tragic. Imagine a 90 minute 2001 a space odyssey…..
I agree with most of this but admittedly my perspective has shifted as movie viewing has become more of an at home experience rather than a theatrical one. In the film projection era the only way to see a movie with its intended audiovisual quality was to see it in a theater and being stuck in a seat for 3 plus hours can be difficult even if you’re loving the movie. Now, at home you can pause, go to the bathroom, eat lunch, move your laundry from the washer to the dryer and resume a pristine 4k transfer of a 3 hour plus movie. This makes movie viewing feel more like the process of reading a hefty novel - you can set it down and start it up again. You’re not required to consume it all at once.
There used to be intermissions in the middle of long movies back then.
Good points. It's much easier to fit long movies around a schedule.
Only in the 50s, 60s and occasionally but rarely the 70s. As someone who saw many long movies in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s before HD home viewing was a thing I can assure you there were no intermissions. Some obvious exceptions before and after those periods.
Mostly agree, but I think it's still better to at least consume all the "chunks" in one afternoon/night, so it's still a cohesive experience of the film. I had a friend that watched all movies spread out over days in 20 minute sittings, which is just wacky unless the movie's just mindless entertainment.
I fully agree with this - feature films are meant to feel like a single tonally and emotionally evolving experience and it’s good to experience great films this way at least once in your life even if you’re breaking it up on subsequent viewings. Having said that I fully understand why someone might need to pause especially long movies once or twice.
"Once Upon A Time In America" was cut from it's original 3 Hr 43Min runtime to just a little over 2 Hours for it's US release and the film was panned by critics and bombed at the box office. Luckily, I still got to see the full film at my local theater In 1984 so when critics blasted it I was confused as to why they would hate such a masterpiece not knowing it was cut to 2 Hours by the editor of "Police Academy 2". When the 80s were coming to a close a lot of critics who saw the actual full length film put it in the their top 10 films of the decade (Raging Bull was voted #1 by all the critics.
The Best of Youth (6 hours), The Decalogue (10 hours), Once Upon a Time in America (4 hours) Children of Paradise (3 hours) Malcom X (3 hours 20min) Schindler’s List (3 hours 20min) are some of my all time favorite films
Dekalog is a mini-series. I don't think you can get away with calling that one movie. I love it, too, but that's a stretch.
@@dannygillespie6614_The_ _Human_ _Condition_
People will binge an entire season on their favorite shows within a day, but wig out if a movie's longer than 2 hours.
It's maddening.
Right?
Completely different things. Shows need to attract viewers weekly while movies don't so they aren't as addictive.
@@channel45853films are more interesting formally…
I cannot tell you how many times in the past few years I've said "this movie should've been longer, it should've slowed itself down so we could really get to know the characters and become invested."
Howl's moving castle *cough*
Tenet*
@@zak-of-all-trades9638 I personally thought that was just right, but I can see why you would think that!
@@Arider56107 It's the fact that it hammers you with exposition, but then gives you no time to process any of it. I think a 3-hour runtime with few additional scenes, but mainly the existing scenes made longer and delivered at slower pace--especially the explaination of the backstory to Sator, who had the potential to be a very complex individual, but just came off as the abusive husband he is on the surface.
Also, I would have dedicated time to building the character of "the scientist" (completes the algorithm in the future, splits it up and hides it). She should have been the woman we are introduced to at the start who explains inversion to the protagonist).
@@zak-of-all-trades9638 I wouldn't have minded a longer movie, but I also think I'm able to forgive it's nature as it's modeled after the spy genre. At least with the Protagonist, we're not supposed to get to know who he is, because it's in his nature to not let us. That's just me.
This is what I found so frustrating almost 20 years ago about the discourse around Return of the King's "multiple" endings. It always came across as very disingenuous to me considering how many things there were to wrap up in the story by that point. Especially since the extended editions came out, and now so many fans prefer those versions. I would have thought that now with long form stories in TV shows on streaming platforms, people have more patience for longer movies, but really it's the opposite.
I argue a lot with a friend about the extended versions. I think the things that were cut are unnecessary while he absolutely prefers the extended versions. I think his perspective is that he just wants to spend as much time as possible in the world and I think those extra scenes are meandering. Though it probably comes down to nostalgia, we both prefer the versions we are most used to.
Exactly, people are complaining about a 20 minute ending to an 11+ hour long story
The issue with return of the King. You have 2 previous movies so the many endings makes sense because if everything that came before it. However if you only seen the movies in theatres before hand. You've been on a three year journey. And when that last step takes over 1/3 of your time it can seem overwhelming.
I tend to like long movies. But LotR extended versions felt excruussiating to me. Really boring stuff that didn't add anything to the story and only made the already slow but great pace a terribly slow one.
I love the first two Lord of the Rings films, but as a non-book reader, I detest RotK because it's full of plot holes and didn't make sense. There was no excuse for cutting an hour of context out of the film for the theatrical release that reduced it to a nonsensical mess for anyone that didn't have the book knowledge.
As a result, I've never seen a Peter Jackson film in the cinema since. I refuse to pay money for films that aren't completed and will only ever be seen in full on home entertainment.
Same reason I won't watch Ridley Scott films on theatrical release anymore. Kingdom of Heaven was a fucking atrocious mess on theatrical release, but the extended version is hands down one of the best films ever.
I'm genuinely surprised there was no mention of any Tarkovsky movies.
Stalker is close to three hours, and the length (coupled with long takes) simply adds to the trance like state it puts me in.
Yeah me too I thought he would mention Andrei Rublev which is also another great film and is 3hrs long.
there shouldnt be a way to make a video about movie length without talking about satantango!
I am biased as a Hungarian, but also Bela Tarr, although he is arguably even more unapproachable then Tarkovsky, and not just due to his even longer run times. To paraphrase the master himself, "Tarkovsky is way more optimistic then I am. In his movies, the rain cleanses people, in mine, it just makes mud."
Genuinely tho, if you are only going to watch one Hungarian movie in your life, make it Werckmeister Harmonies. It is such a beautiful rendition of an already amazing book.
The Seven Samurai is my favorite action movie of all time. Yes, it's long, but it flies by so fast. Even when "nothing is happening", there is a reason Kurosawa allegedly spent hours painting some of the shots from the movie. Nobody quite shoots the Japanese landscape as beautifully as he does.
There's a difference between long and TOO long. Too long is when the scenes just don't serve the story, or perhaps more precisely, don't serve the story well. Of course, that can be a sticky wicket, since it's all subjective. But honestly, if I'm totally engaged with a great film, time stops for me. And sometimes, the characters and world are so fascinating and emotionally resonant that I don't want it to end - even if the finale is otherwise "perfect." Great stuff!
So it's actually a way of talking about a different problem: The film not being engaging.
A film can be too long when the script is poorly written. For example, instead of describing a character by his actions he is described by dialogues. Or the characters repeat to us for a 15th time what we already know.
Or when the director wants to do too much, he wants to please his audience too much by lengthening or adding scenes that bring nothing (at all) to the story again and again.
That's how I felt after finishing Gone with the Wind. I could watch Seven Samurai, The Godfather Part II, and The Irishman dozens of times, but Gone with the Wind was a one-and-done experience for me.
the thing is that most people who hate long movies literally only care because its long, not because of the content of the scenes. They think the LOTR or Dark Knight movies are too long despite the fact that they are masterpieces that are captivating throughout. You're talking about people who spend half the movie on their phone because they have a 10 minute attention span.
LOTR... Dark Night... seriously? We talk about cinema here.
Talk about Fincher, Scorsese, Eastwood, Stone even Tarantino. But not Nolan or Jackson. If you think Dark Night and LOTR are masterpieces it's either that you know nothing about real cinema or that you don't like cinema at all.
I can see why a movie can benefit from shorter runtime if it feels like certain scenes are lingering or just that the story is a bit too messy and cutting some scenes will make it clearer and more engaging.
The thing is - it isn't about how objectively long the movie is, a movie can be four hours and great (or even benefit from another 20 minutes or so) and a movie can contain too unnecessary stuff that harms it when it's 90 minutes, the question is rather pr not all the parts work together and what will be best to enhance this particular movie.
Don't think you can underestimate how important music is in longer films, especially when talking about Sergio Leone films. The haunting and epic scores of Morricone create an incredibly immersive film experience, turns a decent film into one of the greats
This is a really good point. I watched Doctor Zhivago this past summer and the 3 hours (with a couple breaks) flew by in part because that gorgeous score.
The good the bad and the ugly is my favourite movie of all time
Yes, the collaboration of Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood and Ennio Morricone is one of the all time best
I have an interesting experience with many Leone films, as my mother really loves the music of Morricone, so I listened to most of his music on road trips years before I ever saw the movies themselves. And yes, I 100% agree. The way the music pulls you in during the big slow montages, so you just get lost in the imagery is amazing. The only western to pull this off for me that is not scored by Morricone was the Last of the Mohicans, but that has a very different "kind" of score.
"No good film is too long and no bad movie is short enough." Roger Ebert
Brilliant quote
“Who gives a f#cking sh#t how long a scene is!”
~ David Lynch
Being self indulgent and drawing out scenes to get as much emotion and impact out of them as possible, along with knowing how little plot matters and having moments to breath or derail that have more subtle and meaningful purposes than just pushing the plot forward, make a movie all the more great to me
I think my favorite movies should be longer and more self indulgent, where’s that 20 hour cut of OUATIH!
Agreed. I've never wanted a director's cut/miniseries more than with OUATIH. The characters were so compelling, and despite the long run time there was not a single dull moment. Of course, Tarantino has expanded the story in the novelisation (which I still haven't received yet- dammit, Amazon!) and plans to do so even further in the stage adaptation he is writing, but I can't tell you how happy a release of the four and a half hour cut would make me. Would love to see the extended Manson sequences, not to mention all of Tim Roth's cut scenes. And if the mythical 20 hour version actually exists then 100% sign me up as well!
That’s my favorite quote about movies ever, I love David Lynch
This video should have been 1 hour long
Patreon exclusive.
Deliberate movies are good. If every shot matters narratively or thematically, then length shouldn't matter, meaning long films have the potential to be good. But a long film that is bad can be worse than bad short film because it drags out pacing, doesn't engage the viewer. That may have an effect if the point of the film is to endow a perspective of tedium or tiredness.
Every filmmaker shouldnt make a long film cause they have the potential to make a story better, but a long film that is packed only with individual bricks of quality has reason to be long.
[MK Spoilers\/]
Also the Mortal Kombat setup for scorpion and Subzero is subpar since the opening scene spends longer sequences on short ideas: scorpion has family, house assaulted, family killed, scorpion dies, vows revenge. And then it gets diffused by the modern day protagonist that's very passive for the most part in the narrative and summons scorpion at the end. No full film about scorpion, and no real setup or pay off for the descendent protagonist, worse for both worlds.
For what it's worth I don't really have a stake in the Mortal Kombat debate, I just thought the infamous tweet was a useful way to introduce this topic.
It's the first time I've seen a movie-blog with the subject of 'long movies'. Excellent. Director Robert Wise (West Side Story, The Sand Peebles) said, "Pace is not 'speed'. Pace is interest. I try to get the audience's interest from the start and never lose it."
I recently saw a Twitter hot take saying that Come and See is way to long. Like sure you can cut the story to maybe a half hour, but that misses the point. It’s suppose to show how war is long stretches of calm and boring with moments of intense destruction/trauma.
Same with Das Boot. Not much happens from a plot perspective in either film, but both need every second of their runtimes to fully state their case.
Isn't that movie like barely 2 hours? Maybe 2:10? It's exhausting, sure, but I don't think that critique makes any sense.
@@dannygillespie6614 people’s attention spans are so short that anything over 90 minutes is a long movie
Film Twitter is god fucking awful. Most takes on there is just them not understanding the movie itself. One time someone said "Why is The Matrix so green? This is basically the Mexico filter but green."
Come and see is not the type of film that I would need to watch a second time so soon. But I honestly would not change a frame of that masterpiece. I felt every moment of that film and that is a huge compliment
I'd give a years pay to see Leone's original version of Once Upon a Time...in America.
Not the extended version, the full 6 hour version he originally intended.
Also, long runtimes are usually a good thing; the more invested you get, the more you appreciate every single frame. Especially when witnessing the work of geniuses like Kurosawa, Leone, Lean and Tarantino.
Honestly, I’m guilty for doing “This movie doesn’t need to be this long” (especially with Jackson’s King Kong). But honestly, I don’t think a long movie is a bad thing. I think it helps flesh out characters and the world much better as well as focus on pivotal emotional moments that shorter cuts would’ve ignored completely. Amadeus is one of my all time favorites and I honestly can’t imagine it being anything shorter than a three hour historical-fiction drama epic. Back in July, I watched Stalker for the first time. And yeah, I felt the runtime in parts, but what kept me engaged was the visual presentation and the themes Tarkovsky was exploring, I really don’t think it would be as effective if it was only 90 minutes. Long doesn’t always equal bad. If only parts of Film Twitter understood that 😔. Great video Dan
I love long movies but I do in fact feel Peter Jackson's King Kong is the quintessential "there's no reason for this movie to be this long" movie. I admire it more than I actually like it.
I watched stalker and amadeus for the first time last year, both incredible films
Finally someone made a video defending long movies.
Glad it got to be me.
another good one: ua-cam.com/video/JLMW7Xl3tGI/v-deo.html
Stay away from children on the internet. In professional circles long movies never had to be defended.
Why'll I completely agree with practically everything in this video... I agree the most with feeling a bit guilty when consuming one very long film, especially one sitting over 3 hours (but I feel the worst when the long runtime wasn't justified). I find myself having to be in the "mood" to enjoy a long and gripping movie. However, we would be robbed of so many great cinematic experiences if there was a time limit. For example, the running time of a movie almost always gives a film an "identity" so to speak. To use Andrei Tarkovsky as an example, his short film "The Steamroller and the Violin" was a masterclass in developing a strong bond between the streamroller and the kid while being under 45 minutes in total length and even less time that the steamroller and violin were actually on screen together, which made for an easy-to-consume, heartfelt tale. To find an example of Tarkovsky going almost overboard with runtime is "Andrei Rublev". This film was a masterpiece in immersing the audience in a medieval time period, and making the audience feel as if they were a true spectator to the events involving the russian world falling apart around a torn but immensely talented icon painter. Can the movie be considered long at about 3 hours? Of course, but it is also up to the viewer in how they wish to tackle this concept, in embracing it, or resenting it. I believe it should be up to the viewer to interpret if the extra runtime served the experience well (rather than shallowly examining specific scenes and if they added to the plot or not) after they have experienced the film as a whole. Cinema is not just about telling a story, it enthralls people yearning for a fictional world, and if a movie runs an hour more to indulge us in a story, creating seemingly meaningless events, scenes, and characters, and bring us into a world far more interesting than our own than so be it (after all nobody is forced to like a film and we all have our own opinions and walk away from any film slightly different than everyone else). Was the end montage of paintings in Andrei Rublev needed? You can argue no, as the biographical story was fine and stood alone as a masterpiece (at least in my eyes), but did the painting montage at the end add to what Andrei Rublev did as a painter and his prestige that others mentioned throughout the film as well as finally showing the masterpieces he constructed in between the mellow but insightful religious encounters and dialogues throughout the film, absolutely. Tarkovsky seemed to intentionally avoid focusing on any color or analysis of painting as he worked to create his own piece of "art" or "painting" in the form of a black and white film and I feel he definitely succeeded. This approach can teach us that film is not about how good of a story was it and how good do we feel afterwards (because long runtimes leave us all a bit guilty). It is about how impacted we were by the viewing. Did we gain or lose a part of ourselves within the runtime that forces us to question and walk away from a faulty attitude or belief we once so closely held? Or was our enjoyment of the film so intense that we would sit through it once more?
Andrei Rublev as a film is unconventional to say the least, as a painter working on grand projects historically and the director depriving the audience of any direct artwork made by Rublev until the end of the film creates an odd experience. However, with every ounce of dialogue in the film, layers and layers are built and it left me wanting to hear more of the wisdom and insight the monks provided to others willing to listen or not listen (in the case of Foma). Tarkovsky seemed to create a 3 hour piece of art questioning human meaning (addressing the argument for existentialism or if a life without God was really that glamorous), how those without God truly reap the rewards of this world (as seen with the Tatar invaders), and if we are indeed redeemable in this life as well as the next (seen with Andrei and the bellmaker together). I highlight Andrei Rublev because it seemed Tarkovsky tried to go as far as he could in the runtime and different episodes of Andrei Rublev's life to illustrate the lack of patience and lack of attention to detail audiences have when consuming the medium of film. The film was long and drawn out (longer than it had to be) but used this mellow depth to dive into the religious value and other slow burning conflicts in the film which in turn, used the long runtime to its advantage and build the "identity" I mentioned earlier. As people in a society dominated by dopamine overload inducing devices like smart phones and computers, we want an enjoyable and easy experience that leaves us joyful and energetic, but rarely do you come across an individual who admires the artform of cinema as an ability to speak to the audience and create a new experience no matter what film you are watching. Usually individuals who still go out of their way for films of the highest caliber (or just unique films) or go out of their way to read cinema articles and watch video essays (like this channel) are among individuals who Tarkovsky (and other great directors like Bergman and Kurosawa who you mentioned) aim to communicate to through film with no acknowledgement of the issue of runtime (or to scoff at the impatience of us modern viewers, intentionally or unintentionally). Before going into the film I knew Andrei Rublev was an artist, but a 3 hour runtime made me reflect on what cinema is and the gravity and weight a long film can carry which left me wanting to hear another monologue or engaging conversation between Kirill and Andrei, or other characters who did not even matter in the grand scope of the story. If Andrei Rublev were cut even 10 minutes I believe it would have left a different impression on me. I'll stop myself here, but many other films are long and I feel similarly about how they create a grand world for the viewer to live through temporarily and give us something valuable to walk away with. It is why we watch films in the first place, to find something in ourselves that we did not know was there, or to just escape our meaningless lives because without cinema we would be deprived of the greatest form of art which would be an immense travesty to mankind.
So... Although a long runtime can be challenging, we should not deny ourselves the enjoyment of a long and magnificent form of artwork (wow I should have just said that instead).
Also, what about books and TV? If a book takes five hours for the average person to read, it's considered short. A five hour TV show would hardly be considered a show at all but rather a miniseries. Does Gilmore Girls "demand" more time than the Godfather in these people's eyes?
A good example of how runtime complaints have less to do with literal minutes and more how we perceive media and what should and shouldn't be a certain length.
Because TV shows aren't meant to continually pull in viewers weekly, movies are not. And books and movies and tv are all waaaaay too different from each other.
It's a different kind of watching. Gilmore Girls and The Godfather fit different purposes in people's lives. Time spent watching is not the primary consideration. I can breeze through 4 hour crime documentaries and struggle with 4 hour movies. I don't know why exactly, but that's how it is. The comparison is useful, but only to a point.
to me i always find myself more invested, more connected to characters in long films, the extra runtime just gives more time to spend with the characters and by the end it truly feels like you’ve been taken on a journey and you know the characters the best you can the same way a television show does
Yeah for me, if I connect with a movie on any emotional level, then I don't care about the running time. A Brighter Summer Day, Once Upon a time in America, and Magnolia are easily top films of all times for me as well as You Were Never really here and like Hi, Mom which are like 90 mins exactly. If something clicks, I'll go along for the ride. Now finding the time in my day to day schedule is a different story.
I find there is also an interesting argument with with stuff like movies that were cut down considerably. The stories I like most are about how First Blood and Planes, Trains and Automobiles both had cuts that were over 3 hours long. One I feels was the right choice while the other always has me curious as to what that would have been like.
Well, you're talking about rough cuts, which are usually that long. On the audio commentary of Austin Powers 2 it is mentioned that the rough cut of that movie was also over three hours long, which contained every joke from the script plus all the stuff they made up on the set. They managed to bring the movie down to ninety minutes by simply cutting all the jokes they did not find funny the second time around.
In spite of this video's title, I would actually argue that the shorter 162 minute cut of 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' is the better experience overall.
In summary, the Extended English Version (or the most widely available cut on Blu-ray) is this weird hodgepodge hybrid cut, that is neither the original Italian cut or the International Cut, assembled over a decade after Sergio Leone died. It also adds modern sound effects (like gunshots heard in this video) that feel absolutely wrong in a '60s Italian production. Finally, Italian-only scenes that were removed from the International cut were dubbed in English in 2002 and it's painfully obvious Clint and Eli are 40 years older and a soundalike is performing Lee Van Cleef's dialogue.
The 4K actually marks the first time the International Cut has been seen on disc since the '90s and I heartily recommend it.
The actual length of a film isn't ever really the true problem, it's the pacing. I've seen short films that lasted an eternity and long films that shocked me when they ended seemingly short. The runtime should accommodate the film not the other way round.
Over 90% of the time if I have an issue with a movie, the issue is with pacing.
@@dannygillespie6614 yep. That’s usually the main problem when I dislike a film.
Thanks for making this video. Once Upon a Time in America, The Godfather Part II, Scarface, Lawrence of Arabia and so many other 2.5-3+ hour movies are some of my all time favorites. They really take the time to GO for it.
I could do without the rape scene in Once Upon a Time in America I think it added nothing to the movie. It's not like they made it a plot point as to why she turned away from Robert De Niro's character.
Are these past two videos just an elaborate scheme to get more people to finally watch Barry Lyndon? Because if so then yes it is working.
For real, I love this video. It’s making me think that one of the questions that is really being raised by discussion of long movie lengths is truly “what do you do when you don’t seem to engage with a film’s story?” Especially for long, highly regarded films, it can be difficult to decide if it’s “the film” or if it’s “you.” Completing the story is still probably the best option, but it can be difficult to consider
If anything Zack Snyder made his point with his new cut of the Justice League, the 4-hour mark fits all the narratives of 6 characters incredibly well
True. The SnyderCut was legitimately good. The designated Chapter segments were really well done. You got to marinate in various scenes that contributed to the overall dynamic between the team and the characters in the movie generally.
10/10. This is what I’m fucking talking about. I was thinking the other day about Seven Samurai and I just love how long it is. By the end of the film the battle is such a repetitive and painful struggle, and it’s so perfectly rooted in the character experience. Anxiously waiting till the battle can be ended. I feel as though I’m with them and I want to make every hit last and get everyone closer to safety, especially after all the death that has occurred prior. Those scenes being as plentiful and as long as they are to really invest us in the motivations of all the characters. Excellent video.
Love me some great essay videos, and these are some tightly edited and informative masterclasses of them. Great examples that form a full and reasoned perspective. Subscribed.
The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is a strong argument for a longer movie. It's basically a different film from the theatrical cut which I believe was cut due to studio interference, partly regarding runtime.
True.
I was actually disappointed with that movie
Legit just yelled, "yeah!" while you were making one of your points.The one about loving movies so much it shapes who you are, but you want to spend less time doing so? F'ing BRILLIANT.
I will stand here and defend Mortal Kombat! Yes it's plot is incredibly shallow and simplistic, it's supposed to be, but what gives the series it's weight and longevity is the characters, and they having development and fun interactions deserve a longer run time to explore.
I loved the new one, but I would have liked another twenty minutes to get to now our newest addition to the roster.
Just got out of killers of the flower moon and, for my sins, did the UA-cam dive of initial reactions; many of which proclaim the too long, but x-minutes out, blah blah blah. I remembered this video and revisited it. Great, evergreen stuff 😎
the boat is very similar to the good the bad and the ugly in what you described. It doesnt have much of a plot, but it intensifies the drama to epic proportions with music and unreasonably stretched scenes.
Most of my favorite movies are usually 3+ hours long. My absolute favorite is The Good The Bad and the Ugly and it's current cut on most blu-ray and dvd releases is almost 3 and a half hours. (So glad you used it as an example and that trailer is really weird 😂)
I remember telling my friend the green mile was three hours long and he didn't believe me and it got to the point I had to pull out the DVD to prove it to him and something similar happened to me when I learned scent of a woman was three hours long, I couldn't believe it and had to check, thing is when you are enjoying it so much you don't even know it's a long movie, took both of us years to notice each movie was that long, we may never have.
The same happened to me recently when I had a friend over and we had time to watch a two hour movie, so I pulled out Pulp Fiction from my shelf, only to stop and be amazed when I saw it’s three hours long.
(Well, to be fair, Scent of a Woman was 2 1/2 hours - still longer than you would expect, and that's not why I am commenting.) However, I think The Green Mile feels shorter because the original material - the novel - was written as a serial novel; that is, one short novel a month to tell the whole story. Each short novel was a self-contained part of the story, with a beginning, middle and an end - but obviously, an ending that allowed the rest of the story to be told. The movie was thusly built around this as a structure, giving the audience a bunch of short stories to keep us entertained.
@@martinsorenson1055 I would think it being based on a serial novel if that came across in the movie, it'd make it feel longer not shorter because you would go through the motions of beginning, middle and end several times before the movie is even over having a bunch of climaxes would make it seem like forever, when I watch the movie it just feels like one whole, I'd never guess it was based on a serial just watching it.
I've wanted to watch Das Boot since I figured out it was almost five hours long. And I really respect the attempt to create a realistic and interesting story over a long period of time. We need to keep the emotions in film.
I can also say the exact opposite, I don't care that it takes two hours to get Optimus Prime near enough to Megatron just so they can blow stuff up. The story and interesting characters is what makes the long film great.
I recently watched the 3 1/2 hour director’s cut, and that felt way too short, I look forward to seeing the miniseries. I can’t imagine what they cut out to hit 2hr29min in the theatrical cut
"Rather girthy runtimes." I need to start using this phrase.
For all of the positives that this one anime film Pompo The Cinephile had (largely in wanting to be a sincere love letter to cinema and its excellent animation), one thing that was seriously off-putting was the idea espoused by its title character, Pompo that everything had to be 90 minutes long or else it wasn't "respecting the audience", and literally, this is the main conflict of the film, where the filmmaker, after having done principal photography on a movie that he's coerced to make, is required to essentially edit hours of footage down to exactly 90 minutes long all by himself, which in turn, transformed the second half of the film into a bizarre movie version of Whiplash: the sacrifices that you make to literally make the perfect, inspirational 90 minute film but without the abusive teacher or underlying subtext (though granted, it's not like this wasn't telegraphed earlier in the film since he was required to edit a 15-second commercial from a schlocky B-movie, but this guy literally passed out and sneaked out of the hospital just to keep cutting the film down). At the very end when the film is screened and gets its mock Oscars, his speech saying that he likes that it's exactly 90 minutes long felt like one big punchline (on top of the film itself excluding credits being exactly 90 minutes long). It felt like a very odd director tract regarding his views on film, but particularly the length of films.
If a film isn't 90 minutes long then it's not respectful to the audience? Then what about films of the past that were significantly longer than that? Or hell, what about Cinema Paradiso, the film that Pompo seems to be referencing quite a lot in that film, with that being 2 hours and 30 minutes? There's not respecting people's time with overall length of a film, and there's also disrespecting people's time with scenes in a film that run for far too long, even if they are 90 minutes or less. For the director to seemingly say that this should be the core feature of a film audiences will like, centering an entire freakin' conflict over trying to cut the film to exactly 90 minutes long and then turn it into a punchline at the end seems to undercut the nature of wanting this film to be a sincere love letter to cinema and creators in entertainment, that films can be boiled down to a specific formula for success without considering other factors that made successful films work. It sadly doesn't work in the same way that other love letters to cinema do.
Oh and there was one looooong scene that dragged out far too long about a banker being lionized because he needs to convince the bank to fund a reshoot for the filmmaker, and all it takes is a absurdly schmaltzy speech about how bankers can help people fulfill their dreams, streamed globally as part of a crowdfunding campaign to convince them, and they just say yes apart from the obvious naysayer (ie the CEO). Fuck that part so hard.
the ironic and hypocritical thing is when somebody will complain about a movie being too long but will watch hours of a tv series.
“No good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short” - Roger Ebert
Btw, I watched Seven Samurai yesterday and I agree with you. Not only that, the movie never bored me despite its 3+ hours length.
I even don't agree that "no bad movie is too short." Of course I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, but I definitely have memories of thinking "Wow, this dialogue is so bad/this character is so wooden/this plot point is so rushed and confused" and that if they had five more minutes to develop the idea, let things breathe a little, etc., the movie would have gone from bad to pretty good.
Long movies have always given me a sense of comfort, especially in the case of generational epics like The Godfather and Barry Lyndon. I've also found that German cinema has a fountain of great long cinema such as:
Fritz Lang's 'Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler'
Wim Wenders' 'Until The End Of The World' (Technically Australian)
Wolfgang Petersen's 'Das Boot' (My favourite film of all time)
It sucks that a lot of film lovers won't give these films a chance. Most films that have a long runtime usually put a lot of effort into feeling very engaging. Long movies are also much more likely to give a profound impact than a 80 or 90 minute film (at least in my experience).
Great video! I love how you mentioned that long movies let you spend extra time with the characters! I couldn't agree more! I usually always love long movies because it's like a good book, in that you never want it to end! I have however become disinterested in a movie, but I suspect my expectations or underlying issues with them were the issue, and not the run time.
People underestimate how a 2 hour bad movie can be so much more painful to get through than a 3 hour great movie. I recently watched Hobbs and Shaw through my Fast and Furious franchise binge, and this thing felt like damn near 3 and a half hours. Plus long good movies tend to actually leave an impact on you, that's already a mark of time not being wasted
"Does a frivolous musical NEED to be 3 hours long?"
Sit down a moment, let me introduce you to My Fair Lady.
A movie should always be as long as it needs to be. If you’re invested in the story, characters, and world, the runtime doesn’t matter.
"I like its length" -Ralph Sepe Jr.
Most of my favourite films are over the 2hr 30 min mark now that I think about it! I’ve never really understood the big fuss over long films. lord of the rings, metropolis, farewell my concubine, Lawrence of arabia, the bridge on the river Kwai, army of shadows, ran, Amadeus, Schindlers list are some of my favourites and it really bothers me when people complain and say that they could be shorter
You can always get away with a long film so long as it is paced appropriately. I have seen plenty of films that barely scrape 80 minutes and manage to drag because the progression of the story doesn't match that of the film's runtime. Epics succeed by having long runtimes because they are exactly that, epic.
About thumbnail. Bear in mind that for a LONG time the Seven Samurai viewed in cinemas outside Japan, was a cut version.
By about 50 minutes!
My favorite movies like The Godfathers 1&2, Andrei Rublev, the LOTR Trilogy, Goodfellas, Irishman, etc., are all damn long, and I wish they were longer. Heck, if a film or story is constantly enthralling, I'd be fine if they never ended! I think it's just harder to make enough relevant content for 3 hrs.
honestly, if a movie starts to approach about 2h 30m, i split it up into two sittings to make it more manageable. i agree with you it's just that sitting for 3h straight is haunting. this is why i also love tv shows, since i have permission to watch for only an hour or so and continue if i want.
The vast majority of my favourite movies exceed two hours in length. The long cut of Fanny and Alexander is actually my favourite movie of all time. I much prefer the extended cuts of Cinema Paradiso (my second favourite of all time), Once Upon at Time in America, and so on. I find it sad that shortened attention spans make long run times less and less palatable as time goes on.
That's why all superhero movies are fucking 2 and a half hours long? If anything shorter movies are LESS common now.
Funny, The extended cut of Cinema Paradiso is my example of the shorter version being better. All the added scenes reduced my affections for the characters, and so, drained a lot of the impact of the final scene.
I first watched the shorter version of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from which about 20 min. were cut, but then I watched some first-time watching reactions, and realized there was a longer, 3-hour, version. Now it's my favorite. It shows a split second of Clint Eastwood playing with a kitten, which the shorter does not!
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended Edition scores 4 hours and 23 minutes. That also includes the additional credits. If you can sit through all that without being distracted (minus the additional credits), good for you for taking up the time. It shows that you were fully invested in the journey's end of the characters.
You talked me into Barry Lyndon.
Excellent flick. Excellent.
I watched it for the first time last year. With it's incredibly distinct halves, I think it's a great movie (duh) and a great movie for getting people into the concept of long movies. "It's kinda like Hamilton" is an easier sell than "This couple grows apart for 5 hours" (Scenes from a Marriage).
Great video as always! I must say that I love long movies, especially Sergio Leone's and F.F. Coppola's films.
What is the film at 17:52?
I am going to make guess and say it's Doctor Zhivago. I have yet to see that movie, though.
@@iododendron3416 Omar Shariff in Russian uniform = Doctor Zhivago.
Thank you very much!
Doctor Zhivago
Thankd Marko! Leone and Coppola are among my favourites too, particularly when it comes to long runtimes.
I really enjoy long movies. Makes me feel like I’m a part of something.
Man, I couldn't agree with you more, and I've been saying this for years. I'm so glad to have stumbled across your channel!
just based on the title i think we're gonna be friends
I kinda feel like longer movies are kinda being phased out for tv mini series, for example Chernobyl couldn’t been a 6 hour long movie but they divided it into sections, making it more approachable to a general audience. Now I’m not saying the show is better for it or that it’s a more effective way to tell the story, both formats have their advantages and disadvantages, I don’t think Lawrence of Arabia would’ve been better as a tv series, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter sometime
One of the handful of good theatrical experiences I've had has been Lawrence of Arabia. It was titanic, LONG, and I desperately needed to pee halfway between the intermission and ending, but the size of the film and lack of external distraction (it was a Tuesday afternoon in the middle of the morning) really enveloped me. When I was a kid I would watch movies wholeheartedly. Now it's a bit harder, with any distraction from a game of Halo to the mortgage or whatever job I'm doing this month.
I added Fanny and Alexander to my list of films to watch, and I'm looking forward to seeing more from this channel.
I love how you quoted my favorite film critic
I'm not sure that long movies are inherently bad. But so many movies don't justify their runtime. Some of my favorite movies push three hours. But more often than not, I walk out of a lot of longer movies thinking, "That was pretty good, but they could easily have shaved off 15 minutes." If your pacing sucks, or you don't have interesting things happening in your movie, you're detracting from the good stuff. Either fix it or get rid of it.
Make your movie as long as it needs to be, and I'll love it if it's good. But don't waste my time.
There is that weird disconnect people tend to have when talking about runtime. That a 4 hour epic is ungodly long. But the same viewers have no problem binging 6+ hours of the new Netflix show they found during a weekend.
As long as the story is the length it needs to be I am happy with its length. If that means 5.5 hours of Lars von Triers Nymphomaniac or 1 hr 42 minutes of Robocop. Then so be it. But Robocop doesn't need to be 5.5 hours. It would probably lack the punch of its lean actual film.
On a related note. I do feel that we really should get the intermissions back in the theaters. It allows people to replenish drinks and snacks and visit bathrooms. And it makes it feel more like an event than the quick stop that cinemas sometimes feel like. Although, it does mean that multiplexes become a very different beast as all the screenings would have to factor in the movement of people to and from each room on a pretty much constant basis.
I'd love for intermissions to return. I took some friends to 2001: A Space Odyssey a few years back and my one buddy was almost ecstatic about the intermission.
I actually thought magnificent seven was boring, even though it was only 2 hours. But 7 samurai, which was three and a half hours, flew right by for me
People binge 8 hour netflix series in 1 sitting. What's wrong with 3 hours?. I guess it's because 8 bitesize pieces is less intimidating that a 3 hour epic
This is my go to example of people saying one thing, and meaning something else: "The movie is too long" means "The movie is badly paced".
I would say I do like and appreciate long movies but sometimes I just don’t feel like committing myself to a 3 hour movie or more. I love a lot of long movies but it can be hard sometimes
One thing that made me reconsider my stance on longer films was seeing so many TV shows that just bloat out a storyline so that it can meet some arbitrary number of episodes. Before that, I used to be a "more is better" kind of person, going for the extended editions of anything that had one.
The other side of the equation of a long films / long serial is the indulgence it asks of the audience. There's only so much time we can spend watching - even those of us who love and live for experiencing a great film - and there's plenty else we could be doing in the limited time we have on the planet, such as watching a different film. If a long runtime is needed to get across what the filmmakers are trying to say, then by all means make the film long. But make it worth it for the viewer.
It's when films feel drawn out that runtime starts to matter, and the longer the film the more apparent that can be. A 90 minute film that starts to drag can't drag long, even if the cause of that is the same underlying problem that a 3 hour film has.
I think it depends on how much your definition of a film is something designed to be watched in a single sitting, particularly in this age of home video and streaming. I did not see Hateful Eight in the theater in part because of runtime, but enjoyed watching the extended version in multiple installments on Netflix. Midnight Mass was one of my favorite "films" of 2021.
The point being, the longer the film, the more it can be said it is playing to the strengths of modern-day prestige television rather than cinema. This is not necessarily bad in the way that a film like My Dinner with Andre is not inherently bad for resembling a play. It just seems like an intentional move away from the strengths of the medium that should be taken with care.
one of my favorite and weird film to watch is "Love exposure" a 2010 japanese movie that is 4 hour long but what i like about this film is that it's is divided in multiple Act that are fairly different in tone and story point. you could easily watch it in 4x1hour part like a serie so it's really good when you want to watch it with friend or family that may not be able to survive a 4hour long movie.
And here I was about to sink into 9 hours of Tie Xi Qu: West of The Tracks
I used to be one of those "long movies have to work harder to justify their length" people; in retrospect, it's pretty embarrassing, and I'm glad I got out of that mindset. Dogville was the movie that finally brought me around: I almost didn't watch it because of the runtime, then did and thought it was fantastic. This video really underlines and expresses eloquently for me why it's so rewarding to embrace long movies. Thank you for your hard work!
Highly recommend Sion Sono’s “Love Exposure,” which is nearly four hours long in length and I don’t think I’ve ever had so much fun watching a movie! It’s free to watch on UA-cam if anyone is interested!!
Greatest movie of all time
When you stated how Mortal Kombat was too short of a film, I wasn’t sure if even that was the problem. You see video game movies seem to fail at understanding that THERE ARE LEVELS. And usually the average time depending on the game you’re playing usually takes up a lot of time. The average time to complete an entire game nowadays is up to 10 or so hours. And in that time, there’s so much story happening. So it hit me: if you’re gonna adapt a video game, make it a TV Series/miniseries. Each episode can be like a level in the game. First act you have the mission, second act is the journey and obstacles, and third act is where you are up against your first opponent and how you’ll beat him/her.
If the creators in adapting Mortal Kombat thought about this, then maybe the adaptation would be receiving much more praise.
Congrats on that sponsor!
Thanks Isaac!
I suggest the 1966-7 Russian version of “War and Peace” clocking in at 7 hours, 11 minutes, the longest film to ever receive an Oscar.
Another really good example of "what do you cut" is _Yojimbo_ vs _A Fistful of Dollars_. Dollars is an almost shot-for-shot remake of Yojimbo, but about ten minutes shorter, by removing some incidental scenes and dialogue here and there. And it really affects the storytelling of the film.
After a while you can intuitively tell when a movie is too long.
A good movie takes as long as it needs to take but comedies that are too long are my pet peeve. So pretty much every Apatow comedy. On the other hand Animal House is almost two hours and you never get bored.
Some of my favorite movies are long films, examples like
-Apocalypse Now
-The Good The Bad The Ugly
-Scarface
-Blade Runner 2049
-Inglourious Basterds
-Pulp Fiction
-Eyes Wide Shut
-Barry Lyndon
-Django Unchained
Really great statement.
Two of my favorite long movies were: The Evolution of A Filipino Family by Lav Diaz (It is a 10 hour film, that I watched episodically...cause I don't have that much time) and Love Exposure by Sion Sono. And I feel like if it wasn't for the runtime- these wouldn't feel as impactful and meditative for me.
For those who say they can't watch long movies, here's a list of movies shorter than Zack Snyder's Justice League, which clocks in at 4 hours and 2 minutes:
Gone With The Wind (3 hrs 58 min)
Lawrence of Arabia (3 hrs 48 min)
Apocalypse Now Redux (3 hrs 22 min)
The Ten Commandments (3 hrs 40 min)
Schindler's List (3 hrs 15 min)
Spartacus (3 hrs 17 min)
2001 A Space Odyssey (2 hrs 44 min)
Barry Lyndon (3 hrs 7 min)
Amadeus (3 hrs)
Reds (3 hrs 20 min)
Gandhi (3 hrs 11 min)
All the Godfather movies (Part 2 being the longest, at 3 hrs 22 min)
All the Middle Earth movies (Return of the King being the longest, at 3 hrs 20 minutes, though the Extended Edition of Return of the King is actually longer, at 4 hrs 23 min)
Every Martin Scorsese movie (The Irishman being the longest, at 3 hrs 29 min)
Every Quentin Tarantino movie (The Hateful Eight being the longest, at 3 hrs 7 min)
Every Akira Kurosawa movie (Seven Samurai being the longest, at 3 hrs 27 min)
Every Theo Angelopoulos movie (The Travelling Players being the longest, at 3 hrs 50 min)
Every Andrei Tarkovsky movie (Andrei Rublev being the longest, at 3 hrs 25 min)
Every Terrence Malick movie (A Hidden Life being the longest, at 2 hrs 54 min)
Every Sergio Leone movie (Once Upon a Time in America being the longest, at 3 hrs 49 minutes, though the Extended Cut is actually longer, at 4 hrs 30 min)
2001 is actually only 148 minutes, and The Hateful 8 has an even longer cut on Netflix that runs over 210 minutes
Never had any problem with Zack Snyder's Justice League's length.
Do I think the ending went on for a bit, and perhaps the last Knightmare sequence could have been trimmed or made a post-credits scene?
Sure. But that's about it.
@@MrImastinker Oh yeah, definitely, neither did I, as it is the kind of movie that requires a longer runtime. I just find it amazing that it's even longer than Gone With the Wind.
@@niktri8312 That is pretty wild.
LOVE this analysis, I have often on my movie reviews on my channel mentioned what I call "Twitter Syndrome" of audiences these days, on almost all issues, but where movies are concerned whining and complaining that they are too long. Almost all the negative reviews on the recent Zach Snyder cut of Justice League are whining about the length. I, as a movie buff, LOVE a long in depth movie, 3-4 hours are great to me. It's also why I love miniseries, or series in general in which I can binge watch hours and hours of a continuing story. I realize not many can stay still or have the time for a 4 hour epic movie in a theatre, But still, complaining about movies under 2 hours, especially ones with in depth and complex stories and characters is ridiculous to me. It's why I usually wait for a "Director's cut" or "Extended cut" to buy a movie on DVD or Blurray.
i am happy to see someone who is as enthusiastic about "fanny and alexander" as i am :)
That Roger Hebert quote... Yep.
Two of my favorite
unusually long movies:
"Short Cuts" (1993)
"The Longest Day" (1962)
I like The Longest Day, but I mentioned it to my civics teacher in high school, and she called it "The Longest Movie".
@@bfish89ryuhayabusa
"Star Wars", "E.T.", "Fried Green Tomatoes"
& even "Saving Private Ryan" seemed a lot longer to me.
When it comes to long movies, there needs to be substance in order to justify it's length. For instance Godfather Part 2 is a fantastic movie for it's length, in fact I wish it was almost 4 hours because there were some things I think could have used some sprucing up. However Zack Snyder's Justice League is 4 hours in length and it offers almost nothing extra except some Steppenwolf scenes replaced with Darkseid, a couple Darkseid scenes, and walking segments were made twice as long for no dang reason. Like did we need to see the entire Justice League walk up some stairs by offering no dialogue at least? Ghostbusters 1 had a stair scene and it wasn't boring to watch.
Long movies can be good and can be bad. But just because a movie is longer does not make it better. That is an absurd notion to make and is just as asanine to say as shorter movies are better to just get to the "Good bits".
I disagree, Snyder cut add depth to Cyborg, better pacing (not rushed), some great introduction scenes like Wonder Woman in the pyramids, the "post credits" scene is the only who felt unnecessary.
I agree with this 1000%, man. Whenever I hear a movie is going to flirt with the 3-hour mark, it just feels special and gets me so excited. Fantastic analysis.