View Full Version : 3 hour+ movies....zzzzzzzzzzzzz
sweetpants
07-02-2002, 09:57
It's probably just me but no matter how good a film is I do find it a chore to sit through a movie that's over 200 mins.
After a hard day's work it's almost impossible to sit through one without falling asleep and as a result all the DVDs I have left to watch are all over 3 hours.
I'm finding i'm splitting them in two parts or watching on a Sunday afternoon when no decent footie is on.
Am I alone in this???
SP
Usually, i would struggle to watch a flick that was 3 hours long...saying that though, I sat through Lord of the Rings no problems. :)
Arch Stanton
07-02-2002, 10:23
Depends on the film.
If Kevin Costner's in it, then yes it's a chore.
Then don't watch one after a hard day's work :p
The first two Godfathers are three and three and a bit hours long, but never get boring - slow, but not boring. Once Upon A Time In America is 4 hours, but it needs to be fairly long (even if not THAT long) to tell all of what it wants to tell. Eyes Wide Shut approaches three hours, and partly as a result you feel you've trudged the long hard path that the protaganists have.
If the above films were ninety minute things you'd feel as if you were watching someone's life rather than living it. The longer the director/editors give you to watch a performance the more you understand the emotions (Eyes Wide Shut), and the longer they put aside to telling you a story the more you'll experience it (Once Upon A Time).
While many films couldn't possibly be three plus hours (imagine Mad Max where every ten minutes we have half an hour of driving steadily down a straight road), some of those that are really benefit from it.
gotta agree with Sputnik, any film 3hrs long usually gets saved till the weekend for me.
But then, I have no life. :D
So I take it you won't be buying the R1 edition of Reds when it comes out then? That clocks in at around 3 1/2 hours and needs a lot of concentration to really enjoy it. Worth watching though. :)
Depends on the film.
If Kevin Costner's in it, then yes it's a chore.
Not true, 'cos I find that Dances With Woles passes the time quicker than any other 3 hour film I've seen.
But I'm sure The Postman is a chore, hence why I've never watched it.
Arch Stanton
07-02-2002, 14:55
Originally posted by nc
Depends on the film.
If Kevin Costner's in it, then yes it's a chore.
Not true, 'cos I find that Dances With Woles passes the time quicker than any other 3 hour film I've seen.
But I'm sure The Postman is a chore, hence why I've never watched it.
Nah, it's very true.
Dances with wolves is the most overrated film ever made.
Prefered the Postman, at least that's got some funny dialog and a bizare Tom Petty cameo.
Jazzatola
07-02-2002, 15:10
Originally posted by other forumites
...Dances With Wolves...The Postman...
Give me the JFK directors cut every time. :)
I love long movies. If it's the right material I'd much rather a filmmaker spend time fleshing out the characters and adding backstory than trying to wrap up the story too quickly. I like time to settle into a movie.
On the other hand, sometimes you have to sit through a movie like Pearl Harbor....
Long films are definitely weekend jobs for me. However, I do quite like long films when they are justified. Seven Samurai is one. There are quite a few others too. As some may say, it's not the length that matters but what they do with it :)
Confucius
07-02-2002, 16:41
JFK & DWW are two of a very small number of movies that I've watched several (4+) times.
Run-time doesn't bother me as long as I enjoy watching it.
Paul Bennison
07-02-2002, 22:43
Most long movies 'feel' long. And that's not in any way refering to their quality. They just 'feel' like long movies.
With one exception. I am yet to watch JFK and not be amazed how fast the last hour and a half spins by.
Originally posted by Paul Bennison
With one exception. I am yet to watch JFK and not be amazed how fast the last hour and a half spins by.
Have to agree - I have no idea how accurate it all was, but it's riveting stuff nonetheless.
Acually quite a few of my top movies are around the 3 hr mark - e.g. Godfather, Braveheart, Schindler's List, Heat, Dances with Wolves, Das Boot.....
Laurence of Arabia is about 4 and a half hours innit ? Great movie.
Thanks to my insomnia (just part of my medical condition that resemble's Fight Club more and more each day) I watch long films starting at around 10pm. On Film Four the night before last was Paris, Texas and I got through it without any problems.
Generally I don't care how long a film is - just that it's good.
I'm sure most of the unwatched movies in my collection are the 3 hour jobs - once we get the kids off to bed and do all the chores we're too knackered to watch anything long. Even doing a 2 hour film is an adventure sometimes. (Doesn't stop me buying them though!)
It took us a year to get round to Magnolia - still got Seven Samurai, The Right Stuff and The Messenger to watch.
I have to agree about the length of a film getting you more involved. A common criticism I hear of films is "it was slow to start" - to me, that usually means you get more of a chance to get to know the characters.
Michael Brooke
08-02-2002, 11:00
Three hours? Pah! I can’t believe how wimpish some of you lot are.
Try watching Hans-Jurgen Syberberg’s <I>Hitler: A Film From Germany</I> (seven-and-a-half hours) or <I>The Kingdom II</I> (five hours) in one go, as I have, and you’ll know what long films are <U>really</U> like!
(I admit I hesitated before buying a ticket for <I>The Kingdom II</I>, as I wasn’t feeling wonderful that evening – but it was the last show of its run, and in the event it moved so fast and was so ridiculously entertaining that it felt shorter than many films a third of the length!)
Originally posted by Madm@tt
On Film Four the night before last was Paris, Texas and I got through it without any problems.
But that's not even 2 and a half hours long! Still I always thought it was something round 3-4 hours when I saw it as a kid... Fascinating stuff - definately slow paced tho'
Pike Bishop
08-02-2002, 13:15
Lord of the Rings and Schindler's List are pretty long films but just seemed yo fly by when I watched them.
Now I remember watching Hook at the Cinema once upon a time and believe me, that felt more like a week sitting through that turgid mess, even though its only 2 hrs long.
SqueakyG
08-02-2002, 15:06
I think there is a massive difference between 3-hour films that need to be that long and are worthy of being epic in size, and dumb Hollwood crap that is just too bloated to cut down its run-time.
So films like Magnolia are amazing to me. I can never get tired of that film. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is another example.
But I cringe at the idea of watching bloated Hollywood crap that hasn't been strict enough in the editing room. Armageddon, Titanic, Pearl Harbor, etc. Even things like Terminator 2 are too indulgent with their over-long special editions. I hate the recent trend in films to be longer and longer. 10 years ago, the average film was 90 minutes. But it kinda became like, unless a film was 2 hours long, you weren't getting your moneys-worth. Then if a movie wasn't 2 and a half hours long, you weren't getting your money's worth. So you end up with dumb Hollywood crap that stretches a tiny crappy plot over 2 and a half hours, just because it would feel too "small" if the run-time was shorter.
Michael Brooke
08-02-2002, 15:38
I completely agree, and the films suffer as a result. <I>The Negotiator</I> would have been a terrific 90-minute thriller, but at two-and-a-half hours its essential thinness is all too obvious – and that’s just one of many hundreds of examples.
People often confuse length with depth – but some of the greatest films ever made have been under 90 minutes, which is more the rule than the exception for directors like Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson and Luis Bunuel. The ten films in Krzysztof Kieslowski’s <I>Dekalog</I> cycle run for less than an hour apiece, and there’s nothing lightweight about any of them. Alain Resnais’ <I>Night and Fog</I> runs a mere half an hour and says more about the Holocaust than <I>Schindler’s List</I> managed at three times the length.
Most films are improved through shortening – sometimes drastically. And while I don’t think Robert Bresson’s ultra-pared-down approach would work in Hollywood, film students today could do one hell of a lot worse than study films like Howard Hawks’ <I>His Girl Friday</I>. How many current directors could bring a script that verbose in at under two hours without making drastic cuts? Hawks manages it in 92 – because he doesn’t waste time!
Of course, if a film <U>needs</U> extreme length, that’s a different matter. With something like Jacques Rivette’s four-hour <I>La Belle Noiseuse</I>, a major part of the film’s hypnotic fascination comes from the way Rivette shows us just about every brushstroke, illuminating the process of artistic creation (complete with early drafts) better than almost any other film I can think of. There’s a two-hour cut as well, but it’s a radically different film.
I also agree with squeaky. Take The Mummy Returns. I despise this film, partly 'cos as its filled with crap, its 130 mins. It would have been much better if they cut out 40 mins and used more time to make the effects more realistic.
The theatrical version of T2 is excellently paced at 135 mins. But the 2 longer cuts on DVD slow the film down way too much.
I do like long films, but they have to be well paced and keep u interested.
Originally posted by perfecta
But that's not even 2 and a half hours long!
Fair enough, but Paris, Texas is draining.
Chyna Tsui
08-02-2002, 17:45
Just read on BnB that the R1 DC version of Dune coming out soon is 295mins - Thats.................(working it out)...........nearly 5 hours!!! And it has DTS.
Something tells me this might be a change discs job.
tj_director
08-02-2002, 23:50
Originally posted by SqueakyG
But I cringe at the idea of watching bloated Hollywood crap that hasn't been strict enough in the editing room.
Before i left for India i watched Pearl Harbour, and felt a good 30 mins could have been cut out, to make an even half decent film. 6 months later i come back to UK, and watched it again and found the time flew by... why?? because i'd watched far too many Bollywood films... only then will you understand what lazy editing is all about!!! 30 mins of story expanded to a ridiculous lentgh!!! I dont imagine there are many deleted scenes for the poorer output of Bollywood... even the good films are sometimes 10-20 minutes too long!!! not to be racist or complacent, but i think the Indian lifestyle is more suited for long films... spend a couple of days in a farming village, and you'll see the benefit of a 3hr film, not matter how banal it is!!!.
Wolverine
08-02-2002, 23:53
Tomorrow, i'll be mostly watching...Solaris...hope i can't survive it... :p
Panavision
09-02-2002, 14:48
Most films are improved through shortening – sometimes drastically. And while I don’t think Robert Bresson’s ultra-pared-down approach would work in Hollywood, film students today could do one hell of a lot worse than study films like Howard Hawks’ His Girl Friday. How many current directors could bring a script that verbose in at under two hours without making drastic cuts? Hawks manages it in 92 – because he doesn’t waste time!
His Girl Friday is superb, but the crux of the problem with overlong films is the SCREENPLAY, if the foundation isn't solid, everything else falls apart!
I do wish I could take some shears to a great many films that are needlessly too long, and will spring on the technology to do so as soon as possible.
The R1 edition of Dark Star has both the extended theatrical release and the original edition of John Carpenter's hilarious, extraordinary debut, and there's no question that the shorter version is superior.
I'd love to cut about 15 minutes out of Black Christmas, which has some unbearably creepy sequences, but has far too much blatant padding in the form of unnecessary subplots and exposition between scares.
I was pleased to see that the R1 special edition of Quadrophenia has several minutes of extraneous scenes removed from the feature. I can only presume this was done by the director Franc Roddam, as he makes no mention of this on the commentary track, but he surely would have noticed. As a result the film's pacing is far swifter but still manages to hammer home the same points. The same goes for the shorter director's cut of Picnic at Hanging Rock and Walter Murch recut of Touch of Evil
The great majority of my absolute all-time favourite films run 90 minutes or thereabouts. I'm not an impatient viewer, but I do find economical storytelling is often the most satisfying.
Originally posted by Panavision
His Girl Friday is superb, but the crux of the problem with overlong films is the SCREENPLAY, if the foundation isn't solid, everything else falls apart!
Surely the editor's job is to tighten a loosely-structured script into a taut, finished piece?
It makes me smile when I hear of fans desperate to see the initial rough cut of their favourite film with tons of fabled excised footage - they'd probably be bored to tears!
George vader
09-02-2002, 16:13
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
Three hours? Pah! I can’t believe how wimpish some of you lot are.
Try watching Hans-Jurgen Syberberg’s <I>Hitler: A Film From Germany</I> (seven-and-a-half hours) or <I>The Kingdom II</I> (five hours) in one go, as I have, and you’ll know what long films are <U>really</U> like!
(I admit I hesitated before buying a ticket for <I>The Kingdom II</I>, as I wasn’t feeling wonderful that evening – but it was the last show of its run, and in the event it moved so fast and was so ridiculously entertaining that it felt shorter than many films a third of the length!)
Somehow I knew you'd say something like this!
i.e pretentious:rolleyes:
Panavision
09-02-2002, 19:23
Surely the editor's job is to tighten a loosely-structured script into a taut, finished piece?
Indeed it is! But they can only do so much, although films like Predator were saved by good editing, Stuart Baird saved the film.
But, a good structured screenplay makes all the difference.
It makes me smile when I hear of fans desperate to see the initial rough cut of their favourite film with tons of fabled excised footage - they'd probably be bored to tears!
Agreed there, couldn't finish a 5 hour cut of Apoc Now, a film I adore in its theatrical cut and maybe the Redux.
My girlfriend bought me the Magnolia DVD for XMAS, which I've STILL not got round to watching....
XMAS 2000 though !!
I'm just always either too tired, too busy or not in 'the mood' for it and watch one of my other DVD's....
I think film's have to justify their length. A Knight's Tale was way too long and boring at two hours twenty minutes, and would have been better suited to ninety minutes, and yet a film like [i.Short Cuts[/i], due to its multi-plot strands, fully deserves a three hour duration.
Originally posted by Raphph
I think film's have to justify their length. A Knight's Tale was way too long and boring at two hours twenty minutes, and would have been better suited to ninety minutes, and yet a film like Short Cuts, due to its multi-plot strands, fully deserves a three hour duration.
I totally agree on both counts. Three of the most "epic" films I can think of - Written on the Wind, The Seventh Seal and Days of Heaven - clock in at just over the 90-minute border and are as grand and impressive as anything I can think of.
Padding is sometimes difficult to pinpoint as long sparse stretches where not a lot happens can often be justified as "mood-setting", but then again, it's like pornography - it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
Originally posted by Chyna Tsui
Just read on BnB that the R1 DC version of Dune coming out soon is 295mins - Thats.................(working it out)...........nearly 5 hours!!! And it has DTS.
Something tells me this might be a change discs job.
Urrr yes... I think you will find this is the Sci-Fi Channel (US) mini series. It was made to be shown in installments, and the original issue of it is out on 2 discs, and runs 265 mins.
I wont watch anything longer than 2.5 hours if that
i have yet to see Lord of the rings or hary potter
i waited for video to see pearl harbour (didn't bother with the ****** DVD rental)
i probaly have a short attention span or
get restless/antsy
quicker
Michael Brooke
11-02-2002, 15:51
<B>Somehow I knew you'd say something like this!
i.e pretentious </B>
I prefer “relevant to the thread” – unlike your childish personal abuse.
I honestly thought you’d grown out of this sort of thing. :(
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<B>Somehow I knew you'd say something like this!
i.e pretentious </B>
I prefer “relevant to the thread” – unlike your childish personal abuse.
I honestly thought you’d grown out of this sort of thing. :(
Michael, if you're going to quote someone you could at least have the courtesy to use the proper quotation facility instead of your own format which omits the identity of the original poster. You're the one always asking for references to counter your own opinions (unreferenced too!).
How can calling someone pretentious be childish abuse? Our opinions are just as valid as yours, or is that something alien to your definition of free speech? Believing in your own hype too much is dangerous. :rolleyes:
Referring to the last post, can someone tell me how to do the 'Originally posted by' quotation? 1550 posts on here and I still can't bloody do it!
Originally posted by nc
Referring to the last post, can someone tell me how to do the 'Originally posted by' quotation? 1550 posts on here and I still can't bloody do it!
Click on the 'quote' button on the bottom right-hand corner of each post, like so....
http://ssamara.50megs.com/quote.jpg
Cap'n Al
11-02-2002, 20:19
If the film is a masterpiece, then the length is a blessing.
If the film is weak or mediocre, then the length is a torment.
If the film, which is more usual, is somewhere in between, then excessive length is not necessarily a bigger problem than, say, weak acting or a cliche-ridden script; I would <i>much</i> rather have seen the 2-hour version of <i>The Avengers</i>, which was supposedly at least offbeat and amusing, than the 90-minute nonsense that was inflicted on unsuspecting audiences.
(And, yes, I'd happily have cut <i>Lord of the Rings</i> down by an hour...)
Gary Couzens
11-02-2002, 20:46
My personal record for longest film seen from beginning to end in a day is six hours: both parts of <i>Little Dorrit</i> at the Electric, Notting Hill (as was), with an interval of one hour between them. Worth seeing, glad I saw it, no hurry to watch it again.
You could also count Parts Two and Three of Masaki Kobayashi's three-part, nine-hour <i>The Human Condition</i>, which I saw on the same day, but that was on TV (Part Two taped, Part Three live). Channel 4 showed the whole lot over three consecutive nights (in b/w 2.35:1 no less, not to mention subtitles) back in 1985. I can't imagine that happening nowadays.
I have to admit I was considering going to see Bela Tarr's <i>Satantango</i> (seven and a quarter hours) when the NFT showed it last year, but didn't in the end.
But as everyone has said, length doesn't necessarily equal depth and brevity doesn't equal speed. One of the most interminable films I've ever seen is Godard's <i>Hail Mary</i>, and that's only 79 minutes long!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.