Anybody else here hate movies with short runtimes?

[TooLazyToMakeUp1]

fukk NO!!! I wish more movies were only 90-99 minutes.

I feel like if a movie genuinely good, it should be able to sustain itself for at least 2 hours. If it's a bad or OK movie, there's no way you can hide that in 2 hours. People are going to remember that 70% of that movie sucked with a few hits here and there. If you can give 2 or 3 big hits in a 90 minute movie, it's easier to excuse it's weak spots

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

Like some of yall said, some movies are long just to be long. Transformers sequels are the worst. Way to long. Knocked up should've ended half hour early, Lord of the fukking rings, I know they are based on a book but fukk did return of the king need to drag on for another 45 mins?

I like long films however. Just not all of them.

 

[TheGodling]

I disagree, one of the biggest problems in cinema today is that way too many directors get leeway to make their shyt way too long instead of being forced to trim it down to an acceptable length. Almost every blockbuster that is pushing two and a half hours is probably half an hour too long.

Short run times keep things focused and you can't dilly-dally on some bullshyt, which is a lesson many filmmakers need to (re)learn.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

I don't care as long as it is good.


But I can often tell how good a movie will be depending on time. 1:34 isn't short....but when I look and see a movie is 1:16 it's almost always weak as fukk. It's not the runtime that makes it weak tho.

 

[Black]

It depends the Hobbit shyt was well worth it.

 

[FlyRy]

It depends the Lord of the Rings shyt was well worth it.

fixed.

Depends on the movie really. Some of them make sense to be 2-3 hours, others need to be short. a 2 hour horror movie would be terrible but then you've got a movie like a good day to die hard which was only an hour and a half and it definitely suffered because of it.you make four movies all at least 2 hours and then you make the fifth the length of a game of thrones episode

here marty i got one for you

Spoiler

Ex Machina 2015 ‧ Fantasy/Science fiction film ‧ 1h 50m

 

[Black]

fixed.


here marty i got one for you

Spoiler

Ex Machina 2015 ‧ Fantasy/Science fiction film ‧ 1h 50m

fixed for you I guess.

 

[FlyRy]

fixed for you I guess.

breh you in the REAL minority if you think the hobbit films are anywhere in the same league as LOTR.

lotr was 3 great movies. hobbit was 1 good movie 1 decent movie and 1 awful movie..and that's my favorite book

 

[Black]

breh you in the REAL minority if you think the hobbit films are anywhere in the same league as LOTR.

lotr was 3 great movies. hobbit was 1 good movie 1 decent movie and 1 awful movie..and that's my favorite book

idc about being the minority though.

 

[TooLazyToMakeUp1]

Spoiler

Ex Machina 2015 ‧ Fantasy/Science fiction film ‧ 1h 50m

Good movie, but they set the ending up for a sequel that I can already tell is going to be a strong 5 out of 10

 

[FlyRy]

Good movie, but they set the ending up for a sequel that I can already tell is going to be a strong 5 out of 10

i don't get this coli sequel logic.

the movie made 36 million dollars breh i don't see a sequel being made. granted its rumored to cost around 15 mil but they advertised the shyt out of this flick.

same with nightcrawler..also a critically acclaimed movie that made around the same..granted that cost less to make.. and coli brehs were calling for a sequel.

not gonna happen on either fronts.

and just found this before i hit reply


Alex Garland’s Overachieving ‘Ex Machina’ Jumps To 2000 Screens; Don’t Hold Your Breath For A Sequel
http://deadline.com/2015/05/ex-machina-alex-garland-2000-screens-no-sequel-1201421795/

 

[MR. SNIFLES]

HOUR AND 30 MINS FOR ACTION.

 

[HHR]

Yea in my opinion 90 minutes is not long enough to tell a good story. I will still watch but it automatically gets 1 star lower just for being too short

This is honestly one of the dumbest opinions on film I'm ever read.

 

[Spaceman Piff]

1.5-2 hours is perfect.

some movies need to be longer than that.. but most do not.

no movie should be shorter than 1.5 hours.

 

[Rayzah]

I think a comedy should be about 100 minutes..hour 40, then end it. I think an action b movie actually can be 2 hours and be fine but it depends on who's directing it

I'm about this movement. If a major movie is coming out and the runtime ain't long enough to let it develop right, I'm all before I even see it.

I feel like if a movie genuinely good, it should be able to sustain itself for at least 2 hours. If it's a bad or OK movie, there's no way you can hide that in 2 hours. People are going to remember that 70% of that movie sucked with a few hits here and there. If you can give 2 or 3 big hits in a 90 minute movie, it's easier to excuse it's weak spots

This is honestly one of the dumbest opinions on film I'm ever read.

I'm saying its obvious im not the only one who thinks this way... I agree comedies don't need to be longer than 100 minutes, and there has been a few movies that have been good around 90 minutes, but all not some all of my and most peoples favorite movies are around 2hrs.. so I don't see how this is a dumb opinion..