the longest running movie which also makes sense
i would like to know the names of movies long in lnegth whic have done well . and only mainstream movies only.
shareI remember back when I was a kid I was looking through the Guinness Book of World Records and I read about this exact film. It was 48 hours long and then shortened to 90 minutes.
I was totally picturing an actual movie. You know, like a whacky English comedy where horny old men chase beautiful women (Benny Hill anyone?). Like 48 hours of that! Tonight I finally got around to looking it up on IMDB.com and I sadly find out it's mostly newsreels. Basically some "artistic" guy thought it would be "artistic" to BLOW PEOPLE'S MINDS! "TAKE THAT BOUGHWAAH(sp?), UPTIGHT WHITE PEOPLE! I made a film just to me "artistic'!" I can't stand these people. This isn't art! Well... maybe by definition. Next time make a REAL film, "Artistic" dude!
SO anyways, I was looking at Wikipedia and I found out about another film made in 1987 called "Cure for Insomnia". It's 87 HOURS LONG! It also has this link on its IMDB page:
http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/long9.html
ya i even looked that up but what i am looking at is to know mainstream movies which have been fairly sucessful and yet pretty long in length ..say lawrence of arabia , dances with wolves in more recent times...any 5 hr long movie??
shareI know what you meant. That's why I included that link. If you go to that website and scroll down you will see examples of actual movies (not newsreels and artsy movies made to piss people off).
sharehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_films_by_running_time
i checked out that link ..and thanks for that ...but check out the link above ..
and how could i miss the following
fanny and alexander
les miserables
the deluge
lord of the rings : the return of the king.(but thats cos it is the longer version which is really long )
Bourgeois.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
Art is fine, but I definitely take your point. I think defining either this or Cure for Insomnia as film could be over-privileging the medium (a relatively trivial consideration )and not paying enough attention to the practices of the artform itself (which is really the point). These are filmed, but that doesn't necessarily make them film. I haven't seen them, so this is just wool-gathering rather than critique. I'm just sayin' is all...