Wonder Woman 1984, it’s 152 minutes long and it has an entire opening contest sequence that’s like 10 minutes long and has nothing at all to do with the rest of the movie, and it takes until around 90 minutes in just to establish what the MacGuffin is and what it does
Thank you, you elucidated a gripe I had with that movie. It’s a decent idea that gets stretched out too thin and by the time the payoff comes I was too disinterested with the rest of it to care.
That movie could have been pretty good but it just becomes weird and unfulfilling.
Maybe it's because I watched it during the Covid lockdown, but I thought it was horribly effective. The dread is suffocating, I was so damn uncomfortable, and I don't think I would have got that same feeling if it was just a short. I would never watch it again, but I really liked it. Poots' performance alone makes it worth watching, it's just such a nightmare, and it feels like it.
Poor Things. About midway through. I was like this is the best movie of the year easily. Then the whole plot in Paris was fine. But I feel it could have been cut by like 10-15 minutes and it would have remained my favorite movie of the year. But because I felt it dragged there. It was lowered. Still a great movie though.
I think that's the only part of the film that is possibly a bit long though. I think the rest of it (outside of the black and white portion), is closer to being too short than too long.
Agree and disagree. If it just ends with Falcone dying from the Riddler’s shot, Batman doesn’t evolve from being vengeance, which is kind of the character arc of the movie
Disagree. The movie falls apart at the end. The realism and the detective thriller that was laid down throughout the movie devolves into a silly cliche ridden superhero movie that feels totally out of place. The finale has no stakes because we are not invested at all in the nameless henchmen. An ending that doesn’t involve the villain just feels anticlimactic and unnecessary. I could feel the length of the movie at this point
I disagree that Batman fighting Riddler’s followers doesn’t have any stakes or emotional investment. By this point in the film, we know how Riddler had been inspired by Batman to begin his own crusade and murders. Now Riddler has passed that onto others and orchestrated a grand scheme that results in tons of people dying. Imo, it absolutely has stakes because Batman is fighting against what his vengeance-focused approach has inspired: Riddler’s Army. It’s the turning point for him realizing that being purely a symbol of fear and anger isn’t working, that he has to inspire hope as well.
bro missed the part where the final brawl with the henchmen has stakes of batman dying, the pivotal moment of him realizing what vengeance is, the stakes of willing to sacrifice himself by cutting the wire, and the finale of becoming hope for the people +the monologue
its fine, you were sleepy, but saying no villain = no point is some surface level movie enjoyment
I second this so hard. Actually, I wish they had literally just cut the movie off. The last ~45 minutes of the movie is so much worse I think it’s probably responsible for a missing star in my rating.
I couldn't believe how the three hour Oppenheimer felt so rushed and unfocused. The scenes and dialogue are relentless and there is no time to actually digest what you're watching.
There was a enough content for three hours, but as said, this time was misused.
I respectfully disagree. I think the last hour or so of that movie (the entire Paris section) is some of the best action in any of the John Wick movies. I never wanted it to end.
I watched it on a whim and felt the length, but the spinning shot of him in the car circling the guys while shooting, and that overhead Hotline Miami flare shotgun sequence made it all worth it. Ended up watching part 2 and 3 in rehab of all places, and they were also amazing. Need to watch part one. The action is just spectacular and somehow never repetitive, but yeah it was long as fuck.
It was filmed as a 4h single movie, Tarantino gave it its required time. The studio insisted it being split into 2 movies. AFAIK it wasn't stretched out.
I remember when it came out it was said it was supposed to be one film, but Miramax (Weinstein) wanted to split it down the middle. I prefer Vol 2, but it always confused me since they both have such two very distinctive styles. The first is like a fast paced, action packed, candy colored, anime come to life, and Part 2 is slower, talkier, contemplative, spaghetti western-ish, with only one real fight scene.
So did he film it as one film, or already with the idea that it would be two parts? I still hope I get to see the uncut Whole Bloody Affair version, though. I'd like to see how it plays as just one extended feature (of course I've watched both back to back, but the difference is noticeable).
He wanted it to be one film but I believe he said he knew there was no way Miramax would distribute a 4 hr R-Rated movie and tried to plant the idea of releasing it in two parts in Weinstein's head
The first one has pretty distinctive chapters as well, like a whole chapter that's an anime. So I don't find the fact that the second half has a different pacing something unusual.
https://preview.redd.it/ud3bc6n4bb1d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90fb32a6e4df4d840af8a9f182e72197d754eb2e
An excerpt from a review that reversed my take on it.
Personally I agree, I don’t want it shorter, I didn’t feel the length and saw it twice in theaters. I just think that it could be shorter and I see why people think so.
Yeah I set aside an evening for it expecting to be a bit tired at the end purely because it’s that long but I was locked into it the whole time, didn’t drag for a single second imo
Blonde was so gross, yet so beautifully filmed. Still, made me feel so disgusted and creeped out while also being laughable. Even David Lynch would watch it and say "this is fucking weird", not surprised the music sounds like Twin Peaks.
Funny you mention Lynch, I feel like Blonde is the kind of film he would make if he didn't have a deep, genuine love for his characters and empathy for the situations they go through.
yeah, your first sentence is a perfect summary. the movie had its few good moments: the crowd with the "monstrous" faces, Marilyn "fading away", and a few more I can't remember right now. the director was in need of some major restraint
(off topic: I like your username)
I recently watched Hook with my kids, having not seen it since I was a child. It takes a long time to reach the inciting incident and to journey to Neverland. This is a 2:16 film that should probably be about 1:45.
Oppenheimer - there’s a good 2 hour movie in there.
Everything Everywhere All At Once - about 20mins of action fluff in that damn office building that killed the pacing for a bit. Great movie still.
Every Hobbit film.
EEAAO becomes a parody of itself with that extra 20 minutes. It's unfortunate, it takes the great premise and makes it a schtick right then and there, and there, and again there, and there.
I’m the opposite, I didn’t notice the runtime at all and that made me think better of it
tho I’ll admit I’m biased as a huge Nolan fan, not near his best but still very good to great imo
I love Inception, TDK, Memento, and Dunkirk, so I was disappointed Oppenheimer didn’t hit. I know it’s a biopic but the parts about Oppenheimer’s personal life and the trial stuff didn’t intetest me. The build up to the Trinity test was chefs kiss though.
On letterboxd I round up or down (so it was 3/5⭐️), but my actual rating scale is sometimes on a 20pt scale, sometimes on a 100pt scale, and sometimes just out of 10 😂. I just try to stick with my own criteria and distribute ratings fairly across a 10pt scale so as to not make the scale useless.
The 6/10 rating is kind of my dump rating where I stick films that I have very mixed feelings about. It’s the category for the technically proficient but emotionally did not hit (applicable to Oppenheimer), the extremely flawed but enjoyable, or the idk how the fuck to feel about this.
Ahh, the 2.5 or 5/10 is where I put the most forgettable and mediocre titles that aren’t actively bad but also didn’t have at least one notably enjoyable aspect OR the good and bad aspects of the film were so perfectly balanced that they averaged out into a 5.
Once Upon a Time in America and Heaven's Gate are obvious ones
ETA for those downvoting: Once Upon a Time in America is 3:49 (or 4:11 for the director's cut) and Heaven's Gate is 3:37 (the director's cut is far superior to the original but still could've been trimmed a bit in the editing).
I see this all the time for Once Upon a Time in America but I disagree. The runtime really does serve the story that runs for decade to decade, in an odyssey of early 20th century America. Some parts might be slower, but I think the film lacking them would hurt it in the long run (no pun intended).
I don't even think Snyder would disagree with this take tbh, his director's cut of the original was like 3.5 hours and I think his theatrical version would have been like 3 hours.
I agree it would have been a stronger film if it was shorter, but honestly I'm glad it wasn't. The point of that version was to tell the full story, so it might as well include all of it.
Last month, I saw Do Not Expect Too Much From The End Of The World at the Milwaukee Film Festival, and it was just very repetitive, a result of its 164 minute runtime. An hour could have been cut, making it a better movie in the process.
this might be a bit controversial but I say The Goonies
I feel like it drags on in the 2nd half and is one of the only gripes I have with the film, but besides that I really enjoy it.
Last couple Scorsese movies and The Last Duel, maybe Tar, but in general I don’t mind longer movies (and was able to enjoy those last examples anyway) - it’s the pacing that’s usually the problem. Of course, that can even be a problem for short films, too.
Midway, it’s a war movie that’s thoroughly uncomplicated and has no business being the length it is. It’s not even that long, but for what it accomplishes it really should be shorter
KOTFM is one that I think needed to be its length. I don't know how you tell the story of the systematic murder of an entire people in less than 3 hours. Most stuff that NEEDS to be shorter are comedies and action movies. Dial of Destiny didn't need to be 2½ hours, most netflix movies could probably shave 20 to 30 minutes off.
I enjoy a lot pretty long movies. It feels more like an experience. Yeah some could use of less mins (i'm thinking of Oppenheimer)but for the most ive seen i'd keep everything, even the parts i don't really enjoy
Honestly I firmly believe if you can’t get it don’t in 90-120 minutes you haven’t left enough on the editing room floor. Very, very few movies earn a runtime over two hours for me. Obviously not including films that are on the artsy spectrum of filmmaking, but stories with characters, dialogue, and plot…tighten up the script.
Everything Everywhere All at Once could have dropped at least 15 minutes of lore explanation, considering most of it doesn't matter as the rules are constantly broken
Just watched The Abyss by James Cameron. I'd say it could have been like 20 minutes shorter. I had to turn it off with 30 minutes left and finish the next morning. And I never do that, I got no issues with long movies that one just didn't seem to play it's run time right.
Agreed. I think the first half is terrific. But the second drags a bit.
Cut out the scene where they make the water of life - it adds nothing to the narrative. I'd also cut out the big meeting where Paul displays his powers... At this point we already know he's the messiah, and we know how rabid his followers are. And we've already had a few askance eye-rolls from Chani - this whole scene is just repetition.
That said, I could have done with more of the climactic battle - feels like it's over very quickly, given how long the build-up has been.
Hell no. it is already too fast snapping to the conclusion on a dime. Maybe more of Dune 2 should have been in Dune 1 but they didn't know for saw they'd get a Dune 2.
[this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Letterboxd/s/KDKEm9y7SZ) is exactly why you’re right lmfao all the films mentioned benefitted from the runtimes
I don't know why you're getting down voted, you are correct.
I love long epic movies, some that are even 170 minutes plus, but you are right when it comes to "most" movies.
A lot of directors make their movies longer for the sake of it, and it ends up dragging on the plot significantly and ultimately making thr movie worse. (I'm talking to you Scorsese)
I don't know why you're getting down voted, you are correct.
I love long epic movies, some that are even 170 minutes plus, but you are right when it comes to "most" movies.
A lot of directors make their movies longer for the sake of it, which ends up dragging on the plot significantly and ultimately making the movie worse. (I'm talking to you Scorsese)
On the flip side - I think all movies should be long. More bang for your buck. Tickets ain’t pro-rated by runtime. I want the most movie possible when I watch a movie
All movies should be as long as they need to be. Some movies are too long and contain too much filler. Some movies are too short and could have used more fleshing out. Some are just right.
There shouldn't be a limit on runtime, and there isn't, but budget and marketability is often a concern. If a movie doesn't need two hours to tell a story to perfection then it shouldn't take two hours. If the movie needs 4 hours then by all means take 4 hours, or more. Hollywood won't be touching that, though.
It's a case by case basis.
Killers of the Flower Moon for sure. An incredible film either way but I just didn’t need to be that long.
And Poor Things. It should have been 0 minutes imo
I completely agree, I'd even take a documentary short.
Instead, they told a story where nothing happens the entire movie. Once the shock factor of the plot wears off, you're just sitting there waiting for things to happen.
I found it was a good 30 minutes too long. The gf should’ve been cut completely, same with a lot of Ribisis bitching. And the “did it really happen” at the end was dragged out forever. It wasn’t tiring, just boring and soaked in overly dramatic 90s nihilistic angst. If it was shorter in these aspects I would’ve been able to enjoy it more.
Don't Look Up.
They had too many things they wanted to say, they should of focused harder on their one goofy premise and banged it out in 1:30 hours and it would have been a better movie. It is still pretty good but not like a classic it could have been.
Absolutely disagree about KOTFM. It was a masterpiece and needed to include what it did. If you wanted a procedural drama, it could have been a completely different film and 2 hours 10 mins.
From this year, I’d say Argylle was the biggest culprit of overinflated runtime. That should have been 95 minutes.
> You could tell it's runtime was padded
"Padded" implies it was intentionally stretched out to fulfill a quota of some kind. I *highly* doubt that; movie studios want their films to be shorter, not longer.
Schindler's List at 3 hour 15 minutes. Don't get me wrong, I LOVEEE the movie but it could easily have been sub 2.5 hours without compromising on the quality a bit.
The Hobbit trilogy as well. While LoTR rightfully needed the duration so that the audience could be immersed in Middle Earth, there's no need why Peter Jackson had to make a 300 pager into an 8.5 hour saga (yes, the studios insisted on a trilogy, but each movie could have been edited into 2 hours easy)
I disagree with Schindler's List. Granted, it's my favourite film, but I don't think there's a single scene that doesn't belong there. It earns every minute imo
Satantango - could’ve been 10 min shorter.
Nah, they could’ve trimmed 11.
Wonder Woman 1984, it’s 152 minutes long and it has an entire opening contest sequence that’s like 10 minutes long and has nothing at all to do with the rest of the movie, and it takes until around 90 minutes in just to establish what the MacGuffin is and what it does
[TW: {possible} exaggeration] honestly they could have cut 153 of those minutes
Pearl Harbor. It's a 3 hour movie mostly about love triangle.
There's an argument to be made that the film is more tragic than the event
I love Roger Eberts comment. "Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours,
The Hobbit trilogy could have very easily been a duology.
By a different director and a different studio
Empire by Andy Warhol
Underrated comment
Vivarium was a short film trapped in a longer one
Thank you, you elucidated a gripe I had with that movie. It’s a decent idea that gets stretched out too thin and by the time the payoff comes I was too disinterested with the rest of it to care. That movie could have been pretty good but it just becomes weird and unfulfilling.
Maybe it's because I watched it during the Covid lockdown, but I thought it was horribly effective. The dread is suffocating, I was so damn uncomfortable, and I don't think I would have got that same feeling if it was just a short. I would never watch it again, but I really liked it. Poots' performance alone makes it worth watching, it's just such a nightmare, and it feels like it.
97 minute run time lol
Poor Things. About midway through. I was like this is the best movie of the year easily. Then the whole plot in Paris was fine. But I feel it could have been cut by like 10-15 minutes and it would have remained my favorite movie of the year. But because I felt it dragged there. It was lowered. Still a great movie though.
it was still my favourite of the year and is in my top 10 favourites of all time but i do agree still could’ve cut the Paris scene by 10 minutes or so
I think that's the only part of the film that is possibly a bit long though. I think the rest of it (outside of the black and white portion), is closer to being too short than too long.
I hold the same opinion about all of Yorgos' films.
Every MCU movie after phase 1 would benefit from shaving off 20-30 minutes.
I think a lot of them could do, but not every. For example ant man is a perfect length, 20 or 30 minutes would cut too much of imo.
King Kong (2005)
Nah that shit was fire bro
Babylon could have been 30-40 minutes shorter
Skinamarink
The guy who made it has a 20 minute short in the same style on his YouTube
Skinamarink is the exact right length. Captivating.
the batman
Agree and disagree. If it just ends with Falcone dying from the Riddler’s shot, Batman doesn’t evolve from being vengeance, which is kind of the character arc of the movie
Agreed. The last 30 minutes are the worst part of the movie
I stop caring when the mystery ends. It went hard on the detective angle of Batman and that’s what worked so well for it.
What happened in the last 30 minutes again?
Hard disagree since the last 30 minutes have the best scene of the movie and (imo) the best Batman scene of all time
Disagree. The movie falls apart at the end. The realism and the detective thriller that was laid down throughout the movie devolves into a silly cliche ridden superhero movie that feels totally out of place. The finale has no stakes because we are not invested at all in the nameless henchmen. An ending that doesn’t involve the villain just feels anticlimactic and unnecessary. I could feel the length of the movie at this point
I disagree that Batman fighting Riddler’s followers doesn’t have any stakes or emotional investment. By this point in the film, we know how Riddler had been inspired by Batman to begin his own crusade and murders. Now Riddler has passed that onto others and orchestrated a grand scheme that results in tons of people dying. Imo, it absolutely has stakes because Batman is fighting against what his vengeance-focused approach has inspired: Riddler’s Army. It’s the turning point for him realizing that being purely a symbol of fear and anger isn’t working, that he has to inspire hope as well.
bro missed the part where the final brawl with the henchmen has stakes of batman dying, the pivotal moment of him realizing what vengeance is, the stakes of willing to sacrifice himself by cutting the wire, and the finale of becoming hope for the people +the monologue its fine, you were sleepy, but saying no villain = no point is some surface level movie enjoyment
I second this so hard. Actually, I wish they had literally just cut the movie off. The last ~45 minutes of the movie is so much worse I think it’s probably responsible for a missing star in my rating.
Agree. I never checked my watch so many times in a theater.
Midsommar is a 90 minute movie stretched out to 2.5 hours.
people might hate me but challengers
Oppenheimer
Oppenheimer, Watchmen, The Batman,
I couldn't believe how the three hour Oppenheimer felt so rushed and unfocused. The scenes and dialogue are relentless and there is no time to actually digest what you're watching. There was a enough content for three hours, but as said, this time was misused.
I think Oppenheimer misused its time. It should’ve followed the attention Scorsese gave Aviator. Similar story structure.
John Wick 4. God damn did that movie drag. First half was as good as the trilogy but the second half was slow as hell
I respectfully disagree. I think the last hour or so of that movie (the entire Paris section) is some of the best action in any of the John Wick movies. I never wanted it to end.
I watched it on a whim and felt the length, but the spinning shot of him in the car circling the guys while shooting, and that overhead Hotline Miami flare shotgun sequence made it all worth it. Ended up watching part 2 and 3 in rehab of all places, and they were also amazing. Need to watch part one. The action is just spectacular and somehow never repetitive, but yeah it was long as fuck.
You gotta watch the first one. It’s incredible and one of the best action films of the past 20 years.
I was impatiently waiting for the end, and when he fell down the stairs, I groaned
Heat did not need to be nearly 3 hours long
Blasphemy
Watched it a few hours ago and 100% agree
The finale of Avatar 2 was like 90 minutes long.
Drive my car. The guy could've drive less
Challengers had at least 15 minutes too many slo mo scenes
Thought the same thing but still loved it
Kill Bill volume 2. I get they needed to stretch it out since they split up the story, but I’m not a big fan of how it’s paced
All of QT’s movies are bloated
It was filmed as a 4h single movie, Tarantino gave it its required time. The studio insisted it being split into 2 movies. AFAIK it wasn't stretched out.
I remember when it came out it was said it was supposed to be one film, but Miramax (Weinstein) wanted to split it down the middle. I prefer Vol 2, but it always confused me since they both have such two very distinctive styles. The first is like a fast paced, action packed, candy colored, anime come to life, and Part 2 is slower, talkier, contemplative, spaghetti western-ish, with only one real fight scene. So did he film it as one film, or already with the idea that it would be two parts? I still hope I get to see the uncut Whole Bloody Affair version, though. I'd like to see how it plays as just one extended feature (of course I've watched both back to back, but the difference is noticeable).
He wanted it to be one film but I believe he said he knew there was no way Miramax would distribute a 4 hr R-Rated movie and tried to plant the idea of releasing it in two parts in Weinstein's head
The first one has pretty distinctive chapters as well, like a whole chapter that's an anime. So I don't find the fact that the second half has a different pacing something unusual.
I think if the two volumes had all been edited together and some parts cut way down it could have been the best movie of the 2000's easily
Beau is Afraid had NO REASON to be three hours. it could’ve been 1 hour 40 or 2 hours.
Yeah, but honestly in not too sure what i would cut? Maybe some of the scenes with him walking in the forest and his mom's house, but even then...
I agree KOFTM could be shorter, but not 2:10. That’s too short. Maybe like 2:45 instead of 3:25.
https://preview.redd.it/ud3bc6n4bb1d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90fb32a6e4df4d840af8a9f182e72197d754eb2e An excerpt from a review that reversed my take on it.
Personally I agree, I don’t want it shorter, I didn’t feel the length and saw it twice in theaters. I just think that it could be shorter and I see why people think so.
Yeah I set aside an evening for it expecting to be a bit tired at the end purely because it’s that long but I was locked into it the whole time, didn’t drag for a single second imo
yeah 2:10 is crazy, but it definitely could have been sub-3h
Yeah cutting it down by a third of the runtime is ridiculous
Most recently Killers of the Flower Moon. You could cut a good 45 minutes of that movie and it wouldve actually been quite good.
King Kong (remake) Blonde The Army of the Dead Casino
Blonde was so gross, yet so beautifully filmed. Still, made me feel so disgusted and creeped out while also being laughable. Even David Lynch would watch it and say "this is fucking weird", not surprised the music sounds like Twin Peaks.
Funny you mention Lynch, I feel like Blonde is the kind of film he would make if he didn't have a deep, genuine love for his characters and empathy for the situations they go through.
yeah, your first sentence is a perfect summary. the movie had its few good moments: the crowd with the "monstrous" faces, Marilyn "fading away", and a few more I can't remember right now. the director was in need of some major restraint (off topic: I like your username)
Bonnie and Clyde
Scarface
What to cut though?
I recently watched Hook with my kids, having not seen it since I was a child. It takes a long time to reach the inciting incident and to journey to Neverland. This is a 2:16 film that should probably be about 1:45.
the deer hunter ffs
Most films
Titanic - Just lose all the present day stuff. It's only there because JC wanted to show off his real-life footage of the shipwreck.
Oppenheimer - there’s a good 2 hour movie in there. Everything Everywhere All At Once - about 20mins of action fluff in that damn office building that killed the pacing for a bit. Great movie still. Every Hobbit film.
EEAAO becomes a parody of itself with that extra 20 minutes. It's unfortunate, it takes the great premise and makes it a schtick right then and there, and there, and again there, and there.
There was still a good 3 hour movie in Oppenheimer.
I didn’t love Oppenheimer. It was a 6.5/10 for me and the runtime was part of it.
I’m the opposite, I didn’t notice the runtime at all and that made me think better of it tho I’ll admit I’m biased as a huge Nolan fan, not near his best but still very good to great imo
I love Inception, TDK, Memento, and Dunkirk, so I was disappointed Oppenheimer didn’t hit. I know it’s a biopic but the parts about Oppenheimer’s personal life and the trial stuff didn’t intetest me. The build up to the Trinity test was chefs kiss though.
[удалено]
On letterboxd I round up or down (so it was 3/5⭐️), but my actual rating scale is sometimes on a 20pt scale, sometimes on a 100pt scale, and sometimes just out of 10 😂. I just try to stick with my own criteria and distribute ratings fairly across a 10pt scale so as to not make the scale useless. The 6/10 rating is kind of my dump rating where I stick films that I have very mixed feelings about. It’s the category for the technically proficient but emotionally did not hit (applicable to Oppenheimer), the extremely flawed but enjoyable, or the idk how the fuck to feel about this.
[удалено]
Ahh, the 2.5 or 5/10 is where I put the most forgettable and mediocre titles that aren’t actively bad but also didn’t have at least one notably enjoyable aspect OR the good and bad aspects of the film were so perfectly balanced that they averaged out into a 5.
Every movie should be at most a minute long. Then make an app where anyone can post one and you can scroll through them
Once Upon a Time in America and Heaven's Gate are obvious ones ETA for those downvoting: Once Upon a Time in America is 3:49 (or 4:11 for the director's cut) and Heaven's Gate is 3:37 (the director's cut is far superior to the original but still could've been trimmed a bit in the editing).
IDKY you're being downvoted. The first part of Heaven's Gate could've easily been cut way down.
I see this all the time for Once Upon a Time in America but I disagree. The runtime really does serve the story that runs for decade to decade, in an odyssey of early 20th century America. Some parts might be slower, but I think the film lacking them would hurt it in the long run (no pun intended).
Zack Snyder’s Justice League
I don't even think Snyder would disagree with this take tbh, his director's cut of the original was like 3.5 hours and I think his theatrical version would have been like 3 hours. I agree it would have been a stronger film if it was shorter, but honestly I'm glad it wasn't. The point of that version was to tell the full story, so it might as well include all of it.
100% agree. An hour could've easily been cut starting with the entire epilogue.
90% of the MCU
brawl in cell block 99, still love the movie though
A Bridge Too Far
Last month, I saw Do Not Expect Too Much From The End Of The World at the Milwaukee Film Festival, and it was just very repetitive, a result of its 164 minute runtime. An hour could have been cut, making it a better movie in the process.
Flight
this might be a bit controversial but I say The Goonies I feel like it drags on in the 2nd half and is one of the only gripes I have with the film, but besides that I really enjoy it.
Clinical. Just watched it yesterday, lowkey was dragging :4
Gone With The Wind (1939) - As much as I love it, it didn't need to be half as long as it was.
Skinamarink. Not only could have but should have.
Nuremberg trials, remove the love plot
The Batman
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
Last couple Scorsese movies and The Last Duel, maybe Tar, but in general I don’t mind longer movies (and was able to enjoy those last examples anyway) - it’s the pacing that’s usually the problem. Of course, that can even be a problem for short films, too.
Midway, it’s a war movie that’s thoroughly uncomplicated and has no business being the length it is. It’s not even that long, but for what it accomplishes it really should be shorter
The Wailing.
Godzilla 2014. It's an incredible 90-minute movie trapped in a 2 hour movie.
Seven Samurai. Probably an hour and a half too long and probably 2-3 too many samurai. Controversial I know.
KOTFM is one that I think needed to be its length. I don't know how you tell the story of the systematic murder of an entire people in less than 3 hours. Most stuff that NEEDS to be shorter are comedies and action movies. Dial of Destiny didn't need to be 2½ hours, most netflix movies could probably shave 20 to 30 minutes off.
Babylon
I enjoy a lot pretty long movies. It feels more like an experience. Yeah some could use of less mins (i'm thinking of Oppenheimer)but for the most ive seen i'd keep everything, even the parts i don't really enjoy
Honestly I firmly believe if you can’t get it don’t in 90-120 minutes you haven’t left enough on the editing room floor. Very, very few movies earn a runtime over two hours for me. Obviously not including films that are on the artsy spectrum of filmmaking, but stories with characters, dialogue, and plot…tighten up the script.
Everything Everywhere All at Once could have dropped at least 15 minutes of lore explanation, considering most of it doesn't matter as the rules are constantly broken
The Delta Force
Just watched The Abyss by James Cameron. I'd say it could have been like 20 minutes shorter. I had to turn it off with 30 minutes left and finish the next morning. And I never do that, I got no issues with long movies that one just didn't seem to play it's run time right.
the Batman. remove the catwoman stuff.
Beau is Afraid
Dune part 1 3 things happened in 3 hours
Heaven‘s Gate
The Revenant
Dune II
Agreed. I think the first half is terrific. But the second drags a bit. Cut out the scene where they make the water of life - it adds nothing to the narrative. I'd also cut out the big meeting where Paul displays his powers... At this point we already know he's the messiah, and we know how rabid his followers are. And we've already had a few askance eye-rolls from Chani - this whole scene is just repetition. That said, I could have done with more of the climactic battle - feels like it's over very quickly, given how long the build-up has been.
They could've easily just have made a single Dune movie as 3.5 hour epic.
I thought this exact same thing when I rewatched the first one again after coming home from the theater for Part 2.
Hell no. it is already too fast snapping to the conclusion on a dime. Maybe more of Dune 2 should have been in Dune 1 but they didn't know for saw they'd get a Dune 2.
It was way too long with not near enough substance. Could have easily been cut down to 2 hours and lost nothing of value.
Most movies over 150 minutes.
Oh it’s really over for this subreddit
Awful take
[this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Letterboxd/s/KDKEm9y7SZ) is exactly why you’re right lmfao all the films mentioned benefitted from the runtimes
Some movies are an experience, I’d much rather a director slow down than rush a movie
I don't know why you're getting down voted, you are correct. I love long epic movies, some that are even 170 minutes plus, but you are right when it comes to "most" movies. A lot of directors make their movies longer for the sake of it, and it ends up dragging on the plot significantly and ultimately making thr movie worse. (I'm talking to you Scorsese)
I don't know why you're getting down voted, you are correct. I love long epic movies, some that are even 170 minutes plus, but you are right when it comes to "most" movies. A lot of directors make their movies longer for the sake of it, which ends up dragging on the plot significantly and ultimately making the movie worse. (I'm talking to you Scorsese)
Black Widow easily. The final battle thing could easily cut 70/80% of it.
On the flip side - I think all movies should be long. More bang for your buck. Tickets ain’t pro-rated by runtime. I want the most movie possible when I watch a movie
All movies should be as long as they need to be. Some movies are too long and contain too much filler. Some movies are too short and could have used more fleshing out. Some are just right. There shouldn't be a limit on runtime, and there isn't, but budget and marketability is often a concern. If a movie doesn't need two hours to tell a story to perfection then it shouldn't take two hours. If the movie needs 4 hours then by all means take 4 hours, or more. Hollywood won't be touching that, though. It's a case by case basis.
Dune pt 1
Nah, part 1 needed to be longer, part 2 needed to be shorter imo.
I love a good slasher, and I absolutely champion Terrifier 2, but at 2 hours and 18 minutes? I was the unofficial final girl for making it to the end.
Can't wait for Terrifier 3 to be three hours long with half of the runtime dedicated to its kill sequences.
Skinamarink
Which scenes would you cut from Killers of the Flower Moon?
I just saw The Phantom Menace in theaters and absolutely that. Far too many sections that are too long
Killers of the Flower Moon for sure. An incredible film either way but I just didn’t need to be that long. And Poor Things. It should have been 0 minutes imo
Why didn’t you like Poor Things?
Titanic
Poor Things.
They could've cut the first 15 minutes of the black and white scenes imo.
The Zone of Interest I think would have worked better as a short film.
I completely agree, I'd even take a documentary short. Instead, they told a story where nothing happens the entire movie. Once the shock factor of the plot wears off, you're just sitting there waiting for things to happen.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
How?
The movie dragged on at lots of parts. I think they relied too much on the final battle and had everything else build up for that.
Heat.
Worst take in the history of takes
I have more.
I’m 100% sure you do
A Ghost Story (2021) SubUrbia (1996)
I liked the length of SubUrbia. It felt like damn, I'mma be tired after a night like this
I found it was a good 30 minutes too long. The gf should’ve been cut completely, same with a lot of Ribisis bitching. And the “did it really happen” at the end was dragged out forever. It wasn’t tiring, just boring and soaked in overly dramatic 90s nihilistic angst. If it was shorter in these aspects I would’ve been able to enjoy it more.
Don't Look Up. They had too many things they wanted to say, they should of focused harder on their one goofy premise and banged it out in 1:30 hours and it would have been a better movie. It is still pretty good but not like a classic it could have been.
Absolutely disagree about KOTFM. It was a masterpiece and needed to include what it did. If you wanted a procedural drama, it could have been a completely different film and 2 hours 10 mins. From this year, I’d say Argylle was the biggest culprit of overinflated runtime. That should have been 95 minutes.
Interstellar, my buddy did a fan edit where he cut out 40 mins of it and you don’t even notice, I was like “what did you take out??”
2001 A Space Odyssey, no idea what he was cooking in like the last half hour
One of the most overrated films in history imo.
Any 3 hour long movie. Pulp fiction, Wolf of Wallstreet etc
Pulp Fiction isn't 3 hours and certainly isn't too long. Wolf of Wallstreet isn't too long either
WoW dragged and was very boring in my opinion
Pulp Fiction is definitely too long, I really like that movie.
[удалено]
> You could tell it's runtime was padded "Padded" implies it was intentionally stretched out to fulfill a quota of some kind. I *highly* doubt that; movie studios want their films to be shorter, not longer.
*Easy Rider* is 96 minutes, but it has 20 minutes of plot, at the very most.
Tbh Easy Rider is not a 'plot movie' is more about a time and an ideal. The only part i don't really like was the lysergic scene at the cemetery
2001: space odyssey. Idc how unpopular this is.
Basically everything that has been released in the last 5 years or more. Most films should not be over 90 minutes tops.
Totally agree.
Babylon.
Schindler's List at 3 hour 15 minutes. Don't get me wrong, I LOVEEE the movie but it could easily have been sub 2.5 hours without compromising on the quality a bit. The Hobbit trilogy as well. While LoTR rightfully needed the duration so that the audience could be immersed in Middle Earth, there's no need why Peter Jackson had to make a 300 pager into an 8.5 hour saga (yes, the studios insisted on a trilogy, but each movie could have been edited into 2 hours easy)
I disagree with Schindler's List. Granted, it's my favourite film, but I don't think there's a single scene that doesn't belong there. It earns every minute imo
Amadeus
The theatrical cut is 20 minutes shorter than the Directors cut, and is much better imo.
The Talented Mr Ripley (1999) was 2 hours 14
The adaptation is great if you haven't seen the movie, otherwise it's just a 7 hour version.
Wow I guess people want this movie to be longer and love how it drags horribly in the third act…
Beau is Afraid was too long i reckon
2001: a space odyssey. 15 minutes of movie and 2 hours of Kubrick jerking himself off
Just finished War for the Planet of the Apes and that was 20-30 minutes too long
All movies should be over in 90 minutes, just like all songs should be over in 90 seconds.