A movie needs to have a damned good reason to be longer than 90 minutes, and crap like The Batman don’t have that reason, other than director ego and lazy editing and, yes, I’m looking at you, Quentin MassiveEgo.
shareOh, if a film justifies its length, I don't mind how long it is. I've seen 70 minute films that are massively overstretched short films and I've seen 4 hour films that shouldn't be a second shorter.
It's about the editing rather than the length per se. A film is overlong if it feels overlong, which is to do with accumulating pacing issues throughout its runtime.
That said, I do gravitate towards films that are around the 90 minute mark. And I certainly admire the discipline in bringing your film in at a proper length.
I’m sure Tarantino will take your comment under advisement.
shareThe Tiktok generation would agree with you.
shareSome stories are dense enough, substantive enough, to merit longer runtime, just as some books are thicker than others.
I don't see why we need to have rules about these things. Usually runtime is known beforehand.
you can eat your favorite cheese while watching a long movie.
shareI fed up with too many movies with bad editing.
The problem is with the content, some movies needs to shorten up.
Yes, the editing these days is terrible. There is a truism in many art forms: “Editing is Everything.” When TS Eliot finished his poem, The Wasteland, he ask his buddy, Ezra Pound to look it over. Pound read it, saw genius but also a plethora of problems. He heavily massaged the poem, which today is considered a masterwork.
Closer to the topic of film, no one has ever seen a complete production of a Shakespeare play. His manuscripts are too long to be presented in their entirety. The play’s director decides which scenes to present and which to eliminate—and the show goes on and the audience is happy.
As architect Mies van der Rohe said, “Less is More.”
If there's a reason for it I don't mind but if a film's long for the sake of it then i just find it annoying.
share