How long is too long for a movie at the cinema?

ixoy · 11-11-2004 3:50pm #1

I'm curious to see how long people could sit for a movie in a cinema. It came about because I see UGC are showing Best of Youth starting tomorrow.There's no indication that they're cutting its running time by dividing it in half because, as it is, it's stated at 403 minutes - 6 hrs 43 mins. Now that's pretty damned long, no matter how good a movie is.

How long do you think you could stick it? Many people seemed to be getting shifty by the end of LotR:RotK and I remember awaiting the end of 'Apocalyse Now: Redux' (roughly 3hr 30) despite enjoying it. Is there a point where, no matter what's on screen, enough is enough? The question's not about DVDs btw, because you can pause them. It's relating to cinema releases...

Jim · 11-11-2004 3:53pm

Woa!
Nearly 7 hours is certainly pushing it. Thats more than half a day ffs. You'd go in for the matinee and come out at night. Although I suppose its something similar to when they used to show 2 or 3 films in one go.

I'd like to go to it, it would use up a day and I'd like to see if I could stick it. I start to get uncomfortable after 3 hours when watching a film though.

neGev · 11-11-2004 4:03pm

I'd have to go with roughly 3 hours too, although the quality of the film would certainly be a major factor in that. I have to admit that I was getting a little antsy nearing the end of RotK too, even though I loved the LotR films.

magpie · 11-11-2004 4:07pm

Anything over 90 minutes is pushing it in my book. Learn to use editing suites people! I think there's a certain art to being able to cut something down to a set length. Anyone can make sprawling 6 hour-long wankfests, but it takes art to make a film 90 minutes long. Same goes for CDs. Just because you can get 73 minutes of music on there doesn't mean we want to hear 'skits' and other crap dredged off the cutting room floor to fill the time. Keep films to 90 minutes and albums to 45 minutes.

Sherifu · 11-11-2004 4:11pm

Anything over 2 1/2 hours and its starting to feel like youve been in the cinema forever.
Anything over 3 1/2 hours should be split into a few films a la KILL BILL.

LOTR:ROTK just got away with the one film, though there was no need to see the hobbits going back to hobbittown at the end, or where dildo baggins went to.

The didlo is intentional

D!ve^Bomb! · 11-11-2004 4:24pm

3.5 hours max would do it for me...

although how many of you have been in a cinema for only an hour and your arse just starts achin!!:D its a bastard when that happens, especially when you just wanna enjoy the film.... i'd be in the cinema all day tho if i could.. there's nothin better!!!

mycroft · 11-11-2004 4:38pm

magpie wrote:

Anything over 90 minutes is pushing it in my book. Learn to use editing suites people! I think there's a certain art to being able to cut something down to a set length. Anyone can make sprawling 6 hour-long wankfests, but it takes art to make a film 90 minutes long. Same goes for CDs. Just because you can get 73 minutes of music on there doesn't mean we want to hear 'skits' and other crap dredged off the cutting room floor to fill the time. Keep films to 90 minutes and albums to 45 minutes.

Thats got to be one of the most profoundly ignorant comments about editing I've ever heard.

Would sprawlling epics like oh say Lawerence of Arabia, Zhivago, Three colours, the godfather movies, a fist full of dollars, 7 samuari, jesus I could go on, be as epic if they are all 90 minutes long? Cookie cutters movies that are just an hour and a half long. Of course not.

Now redux, did anyone else getting that sinking feeling in their stomach and extra twinge from your bladder when the french plantation sequence ended and you remembered he hasn't even met Kurtz yet? Directors cuts are usually over indulgent wankfest and directors have probably just forgotten how long they spent massaging the cut to realise why that scene didn't work in the first place.

As for your question is, how long is too long? I think a movie is too long when you feel you don't want to invest your time watching it. So in my own opinion it's subjective.

Hugh Hefner · 11-11-2004 4:48pm

I could probably spend an entire day at the cinema as long as I had 15 mins. breaks every 2 1/4 hrs. or so but anything over 3 hrs. is too long for a cinema showing. That said, I could go futher if the film was good enough.
I'd probably go longer again just to see if I could. like chalenging myself to sit and watch all Matrix movies in a row with the Animatrix chronologically interspersed.

herobear · 11-11-2004 4:55pm

ive been eagerly anticipating this film, since the its premiere at the DFF earlier this year in which it had a 30 minute intermission in the middle.
it was released months ago in the u.k cut into 2 parts, which i heard was going to be the same here, but unfortunately looking at ugc.ie thats not going to be the case

although SCREEN may do just that.
the reason for its length is that it was originally a 6 hour tv mini-series(cut into several parts) in italy, that due to its popularity was adapted for the big screen.
im going to hopefully be checking this out tomorrow, will let you know what i think of it then.
its starts at 4, so wont be over until nearly 11pm...lol

Tusky · 11-11-2004 6:42pm

magpie wrote:

Anything over 90 minutes is pushing it in my book. Learn to use editing suites people! I think there's a certain art to being able to cut something down to a set length. Anyone can make sprawling 6 hour-long wankfests, but it takes art to make a film 90 minutes long. Same goes for CDs. Just because you can get 73 minutes of music on there doesn't mean we want to hear 'skits' and other crap dredged off the cutting room floor to fill the time. Keep films to 90 minutes and albums to 45 minutes.

One of the most rediculous posts Ive ever read on boards.ie

mayordenis · 11-11-2004 6:47pm

Tusky wrote:

Would of the most rediculous posts Ive ever read on boards.ie

why yes tusky that quote was entirely random, think then type ok magpie

Retr0gamer · 11-11-2004 8:02pm

Too long is when the other cheek of my ass goes to sleep and rotating pressure from one cheek to the other is futile.

Really don't mind how long a film is as long as i'm enjoying it. But comfy seats in cinemas would be nicer.

Raoul Duke · 11-11-2004 9:02pm

herobear wrote:

the reason for its length is that it was originally a 6 hour tv mini-series(cut into several parts) in italy, that due to its popularity was adapted for the big screen.

What adapting? Seems to me like they've thrown it all on the big screen

Das Boot was adapted.

If you're a stickler for value for money then this film sounds the business.

Couldn't tell you how long I could stand. Like someone said above, it's all relative. Maybe it's worth going to see just to test yourself. Hmmmm....sounds like an idea.

Chad ghostal · 11-11-2004 10:02pm

i sat through the 5hrs+ grainy footage, crappy/no sound, no special effects workprint version of apocalypse now in a single, no breaks sitting..
and i really enjoyed the film

id definetly give 7 a go, but it is pushing it severly to the limit,

especially if your sitting next to someone annoying,
with chewables.. chewing and chewing and chewing, and the spitlits
landing in your ear.. and the noise grating in your head..

your bound to snap and go haywire, sporking every FOo you see. .

they must have some sort of intermission, if not get on to the human rights commision and demand satisfaction. .

Capt'n Midnight · 11-11-2004 10:34pm

newband wrote:

although how many of you have been in a cinema for only an hour and your arse just starts achin!!:D its a bastard when that happens,

It's a fairly objective measure of how interesting the film is.

Raoul Duke wrote:

Das Boot was adapted

BBC showed the mini series with subtitles, UTV showed the film with terrible dubbing - no contest there.

When I was young there was a thing called an "intermission" in the middle of the film which would sort these problems..

ixoy · 11-11-2004 10:59pm

Raoul Duke wrote:

Couldn't tell you how long I could stand. Like someone said above, it's all relative. Maybe it's worth going to see just to test yourself. Hmmmm....sounds like an idea.

I'd see it almost as a challenge, an endurance test. Unfortunately, due to its time I can only see it this Saturday 'coz I have to work. I know I'd need to use the bathroom at some point, and have a few drinks but I'd like to think my mind wouldn't wander too much and the film would be engaging enough to hold my attention.

Now let's see if some cinema is up to the marathon challenge of a continuous run of all the extended editions of Lord of the Rings, without playing the credits for the first two. Over eleven hours if memory serves me correctly. Bring it on!!!

Phil_321 · 12-11-2004 12:21am

Only if there was a special 7-hour extended version of Predator with added gore, would I stay in the cinema for more than 3 and a half hours.
In general I like a film to last about 2 hours.

herobear · 12-11-2004 4:02am

Raoul Duke wrote:

What adapting? Seems to me like they've thrown it all on the big screen

wrong choice of word, jut got confirmation that SCREEN will be splitting the film up into 2 parts, with part 1 being released friday, and part 2 on the 19th...seems alot more sensible idea to me

monkey tennis · 12-11-2004 4:56am

Hmm. I like long movies (although 6 hours would be pushing it...), but I don't usually like sitting in cinema seats for more than a couple of hours. BUT I very much dislike intermissions. Luckily they're rare, but I was very put off when I went to see LOTR:TTT and there was an intermission - presumably for the stupid kids, it was a matinee (although what kind of moron parent would bring a five-year-old to a three-hour movie??). It completely took me out of the movie. Fair enough, people need to go to the toilet, move around, whatever - but those of us who don't shouldn't have to be put out because a crowd with a short attention span needs its popcorn/toilet/whatever.

TheDuke · 12-11-2004 9:40am

7 hour movie ?!?!?!?! imagine the baby sitter costs... not value for money at all :eek:

and what about the idea of taking your lady to dinner and a movie..... no need for her to have a 'headache' then... is there.

On a more serious note, I would never have the time to go an watch something that length which brings the potential audience down to students and unemployed... who probably will be tight for cash and have better things to do with it!

I'd say there a bunch a directors with a bet on who can produce the numbest arce....

magpie · 12-11-2004 11:32am

Wow, you cinema anoraks are touchy. Here's another comment for you to lose the rag over entirely: Back to mono!

And Monkey Tennis, are you affiliated with MT in an official capacity or just a simpering fan?

mycroft · 12-11-2004 11:39am

magpie wrote:

Wow, you cinema anoraks are touchy. Here's another comment for you to lose the rag over entirely: Back to mono!

And Monkey Tennis, are you affiliated with MT in an official capacity or just a simpering fan?

I get touchy when some suggests what I do for living is "make it shorter and better" and displays such ignorance about film that they deserve to have their eyes removed and replaced with minature TVs facing inwards showing nothing but "who's the boss" on a 24hr loop wired to their optic nerve.

magpie · 12-11-2004 11:55am

displays such ignorance about film that they deserve to have their eyes removed and replaced with minature TVs facing inwards showing nothing but "who's the boss" on a 24hr loop wired to their optic nerve.

Sounds good!

mycroft · 12-11-2004 11:57am

magpie wrote:

Sounds good!

Fine "Leave it to Mrs O Brien" it so is then.

Now where did I leave that spoon?

magpie · 12-11-2004 11:59am

You couldn't hook me up with "Darby O'Gill and the little people" in the left eye and "Look who's talking" in the right eye could you?

monkey tennis · 12-11-2004 12:00pm

magpie wrote:

And Monkey Tennis, are you affiliated with MT in an official capacity or just a simpering fan?

It's not a reference to the band.

Ahaaaa.

magpie · 12-11-2004 12:02pm

I get touchy when some suggests what I do for living is "make it shorter and better"

Ah, so I get it now. You make it longer and worse?

Pigman II · 12-11-2004 12:04pm

This is a bit of a simplification, but in my opinion A film .... is as long as it feels. Hense if a film feels too long as you watch it .... then it IS too long.

For example, when I watched Magnolia for the first time in the cinema I wasn't aware of it's runtime in advance was suprised when I came to find over 3 hours had passed. Same goes for Riget (4+ hrs?) and a few others. On the other hand films like Lost in Translation, Secretary both clock in at only around 1 3/4 but felt like about 5 each to me as I watched them.

As an aside, Almost I find it slighty pathetic that there are people would go to an extremly long move to see if they could 'endure' or meet the 'challenge' of it. Go to a film cos you've heard good things about it, not because you want to see how long you can sit on your arse staring at the screen before you or yours falls asleep.

12-11-2004 12:18pm

I would have no problem with watching a seven hour film, as long as I got a break at some stage.

Whenever I go to the cinema I usually go to see three or four films together. The beauty of Galway is that they dont give a damn.

D!ve^Bomb! · 12-11-2004 1:17pm

where is this galway you speak of? i shall like to visit some time:D

mobile04 · 12-11-2004 1:20pm

i read that the last lord of the rings
had over 2 hours removed from the final release
its due out next month 4 dvd set
really looking forward to seein it
if its an epic like the lord films id for sure watch a 7 hr film

How long is too long for a movie at the cinema?

Comments