When did movies get so long?

Don’t forget—the last 15 minutes are credits.

I remember feeling this same thing in the early ‘90s. Gone were the 90-min easy breezy movies of yore, everything started inching towards 120 mins & up, now most movies are around 2 hrs.

Recently I watched A Hidden Life by Terrence Malick—upwards of 3 hrs, very long & drawn out (albeit beautifully shot). I also watched Lost Daughter & while it’s a good film, it could’ve been 20 mins shorter (or more) without losing the plot.

OP, you must have young in the early 1930s. Movies have always been long. Case in point: Gone With The Wind (221 minutes), Rebecca (130 minutes), The Best Years of Our Lives (172 minutes), The Ten Commandments (220 minutes), Ben-Hur (212 minutes), It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (174 minutes)... you get the picture.

Yes R3 but most of those are epics or serious dramas. Nowadays even simple comedies run quite long.

[quote] From 1970 to 1985, however, things changed. With the threat of television fading, movies shrunk by an average of 10 minutes. One theory for the shrinkage is that movies became shorter to fit the standard storage capacity of VHS cassettes, which were increasing in popularity at the time. Ever since, movies have largely remained stable at the sub-120 minute run times, with the average length for a movie in 2018 coming in at a breezy 96.5 minutes.

I saw West Side Story in a theatre and the 20 minutes of previews beforehand made it a loooong experience. But that was one movie that actually felt like it needed most of the time it used.

Napoleon (1927) 330 minutes

Love it if TCM just once would give Lawrence of Arabia a rest and show this instead

I think very few movies can hold an audiences attention for more than 2 hours. Probably about 5% of all movies are good enough to do this. Whenever I encounter a long, boring movie I just assume the director was completely up their own ass and didn't have anyone around who would tell them the truth. No Time to Die and Bladerunner 2049 come to mind.

I know what you mean. I've been watching a lot of movies recently from, say 1980-odd to 2010 or so, catching up on films, and the vast majority of them have hovered at the 90 minute mark, a long one is about 110 minutes, maybe 2 hrs at most. The standard film nowadays is much likely to be over 2 hours. This is one of the reasons I much prefer watching them at home now... I can pause the television any time for food or a toilet break.

But the reality is, I just don't like sitting there with one story for so long, unless it's particularly worthwhile, if it justifies its running time. I honestly think the perfect running time for most movies is more around 70-80 minutes.

AMC is now showing up to 30 mins of previews before the movie. Including an ad with nicole kidman for AMC that you are watching in an AMC theater. they already have your business, they've already given you 28 mins of commercials and they're forcing you to watch Kidman for 2 extra mins.

The movies this holiday season are incredibly long. Nearly all the "big" movies are 2hrs 30 mins or more. Combination of mega directors with final cut (there's only a few but they're represented here), Marvel movies (which run long at this point) and probably some pandemic distancing with the studio and editing process--harder to oversee the process or make suggestions in this work climate since everyone is terrified they'll end up getting hacked and be responsible for a pre-release leak. if i was a studio exec i wouldn't even want login credentials for a movie in production. too easy to lose your career

[quote]I just assume the director was completely up their own ass and didn't have anyone around who would tell them the truth. No Time to Die and Bladerunner 2049 come to mind.

True. For me its Midsommar, which the director says has a special, nearly 3 hour version!

Theaters should take advantage of digital projection (thus, the ability to feed multiple displays) to put an acoustically-isolated single-person toilet at the rear of each theater (in the empty void below the stadium seats), with monitors showing the movie to both the person using the toilet & people waiting in line to use it. They'd sell a lot more bladder-busting large drinks if they did.

Shorter movies mean higher turnover for seats in the theater by more showings per night.

The much shorter Nightmare Alley (1947) did it better than the recent dog re-make which is half an hour longer.

Now that the average movie ticket costs $14-20, perhaps they are attempting to justify the price with excessive length that is additionally padded out with trailers, etc. "$18 for three hours of entertainment is quite reasonable" they may be hoping consumers think.

Kind of like restaurant meals being so enormous. "Maybe $30 for a mediocre meal is a little pricey, but there's enough food for three people on my plate!"

Musicals have always been long, OP. The Sound of Music, Funny Girl et al all had intermissions when first screened. I'm not old enough to remember South Pacific and Oklahoma! but they probably did too.

I quite liked Licorice Pizza, but it was at least 25 minutes too long.

As others have mentioned, musicals have always been longer as expectations are different between film and theater (which also includes an intermission).

That said, the last three big movies were all well over two hours. The Matrix Resurrections is 2 hours, 28 minutes. Dune is 2 hours, 35 minutes. And No Time to Die is 2 hours, 43 minutes. I think the extra time rarely benefits the film or adds to one's experience watching it.

Part of me suspects this trend began with Nolan's Batman trilogy (2005-2012). Batman Begins was 2 hours, 20 minutes, The Dark Knight was 2 hours, 32 minutes, and The Dark Knight Rises was 2 hours, 42 minutes.

I feel like all of these could've been trimmed by 20-30 minutes. Not every movie needs to be an epic experience, particularly a action-adventure one.

Movies in the 1930’s ran at a fun 85 minute clip, comedies and dramas. The “prestige” pictures, you remember, Norma Shearer costume dramas were a stately 120 minutes.

Just be thankful you don't live in Bangladesh they had Amra Ekta Cinema Banabo (English Title: The Innocence) a 2019 black and white Bangladeshi Bengali language fictional-feature film with a run time of over 21 hours.

We have that in the USA too, R20. Except here, corporations are smart enough to split it up into 21 one-hour episodes and force you to pay for a streaming service to watch it.

I watched 3 movies in the holiday House of Gucci 158 mins West side story 156 mins nightmare alley 150mins

I like a long movie if it’s good- period. I bailed on the Lost Daughter last night because despite some great acting and interesting moments it was like being hit over the head repeatedly. While some would say women are faced with difficult situations as young mothers, I could not muster an ounce of “like” or even empathy for the main character. She was self absorbed to the point of being toxic. I turned away from her (and the movie) in the same manner I would a real person.

Quentin Tarantino is by far the worst offender. The Hateful Eight and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood are reprehensibly overlong, but what's worse is that they are both empty, pointless self-indulgences on his part. Isn't it time that the hoax known as Quentin Tarantino be brought to an end? It has been perpetrated long enough.

I just saw Drive My Car, which has been winning accolades everywhere - it's 2 hours and 59 minutes long. And a significant part of that running time consists of close-ups inside a Saab sedan while the characters talk. The film had an interesting concept, the performances were quite good, but did the director really need three hours to tell this story - which was based on a short story by Murakami? You could probably read the original Murakami story collection in not much more than three hours.

I agree with r23 on The Lost Daughter. I also bailed about two-thirds of the way through, and had no interest in the main character. And with r14 on Nightmare Alley - at least 25 minutes too long. I love del Toro's work, but this one just wallowed around in the carny sleaze, and Bradley Cooper is so lacking in charisma that it's difficult to watch him.

These days so much content ends up on streaming services - viewers can pause and come back to a film if it's overly long. But that doesn't make for a particularly good moviegoing experience.

Some older films had intermissions, they were so long. [italic]Doctor Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia [/italic], both David Lean films too.

A Clockwork Orange, 136 minutes, 1971

Nashville, 159 minutes, 1975

The Deer Hunter, 183 minutes, 1977

Rain Man, 133 minutes, 1988

Happiness, 134 minutes, 1998

Inland Empire, 180 minutes, 2006

Knocked Up, 133 minutes, 2007

I liked the rambling dialogue in The Hateful Eight and OUATIH was entertaining enough to watch once and once only. Django is the most bloated Tarantino movie in my opinion. The entire third act of Django with him escaping and coming back should have been cut. The movie could have ended neatly after Waltz's death.

[quote]AMC is now showing up to 30 mins of previews before the movie.

They were doing this before the pandemic and I quit going to them. I was theater manager before commercials and two trailers were fine because it was the only place you could see them. Now you can sit in your seat and watch the same trailers on your phone while it is up on the screen. Ridiculous.

[quote]Movies in the 1930’s ran at a fun 85 minute clip, comedies and dramas. The “prestige” pictures, you remember, Norma Shearer costume dramas were a stately 120 minutes.

Yes, but remember unless they opened at a showplace like Radio City or Graumann's most theaters played double features. So you still had your ass in the seat for three to four hours.

No you didn't, unless you wanted to be there that long. Until the '70s/'80s it was typical to walk in and out of a movie whenever you wished. There was a reason that Psycho stated up front its policy of no one being allowed into the theater after so many minutes into the movie...because it was typical to get there and leave whenever it suited the customer.

Especially in the days of double features and before that newsreel, cartoon, serial, short subject, feature presentation, patrons watched until they'd had enough, at which point they left.

For the longest time the common length of a movie was 1 hour and 40 minutes which was fine. Since I only watch at home now it doesn't matter anymore.

I'm a child of the 1970s, and my Mama regularly took me and my sister to downtown New Orleans and the Canal Street movie theaters back in the day. I'm talking The Exorcist, Jesus Christ Superstar, Ture Grit, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Omen, Chinatown, the Godfather films, Jaws, Star Wars, I mean all the big movies if the 70s, many of which were R rated. There's not one film I can think of that I would edit, I recall being totally engrossed and mesmerized by every frame of excitement, and so loud the seats shook! Point being, a good long movie is a good movie, period. They just don't make them like that anynore.

R16 those are 50s-60s widescreen roadshow musicals. The overwhelming majority of the classic MGM musicals from the 40s-60s clock in around 1h45m, and nearly always under 2 hrs.

Anchors Aweigh is inexplicably over 2 hrs and you feel every minute! And studio B and C-level pictures from that era will almost always be under 90 minutes. They are often master classes in editing and speed: screenplays that get things done in short scenes, fast rate of speech, montages and shots that tell great swatches of story quickly.

MGM could even boil Show Boat in 1951 down to 1h48m. It was all about the number of showings per day.

You knew it was intended as a "prestige" MGM picture if they let it go over that 2h mark.

I've always thought of movies being about two hours long. Some a bit shorter, some a bit longer.

This has not changed in 50 years.

Quentin is like an aspies nephew who thinks he’s a genius and everyone is too scared to tell him he’s not.

not sure what the Tarantino hate is all about. I totally get his stuff isn't for everyone. If you've watched more than 2 of his movies, hated them, and continued to see his movies, you're the moron. Why would anyone subject themselves to a filmmaker they actively disliked? Because his movies got Oscar nominations? Because stars were in them? At the very least, if you can't stop yourself from watching a movie from a filmmaker you hate, do it at home so you can stop watching whenever you please (because we know how hard it is to pick your ass out of a movie theater seat, get a refund, and go home).

DL in a nutshell. "This is how I feel, therefore it is truth." You know what books bored the shit out of me? Dostoevsky novels. SO I DONT READ THEM ANYMORE. I don't spend my time on message boards calling him a hack.

I just don't have the attention span any more - I can only sit still for about an hour.

It's because television has been experiencing a resurgence and binging has become really popular. Movies have to compete with this.

QT needs a cuddle, and an editor.

OP you’re right, and I get it.

When FIFA proposed shortening Premier League football ⚽️ games to an hour, instead of the traditional ninety minutes (plus another forty minutes for half-time, extra-time, and punditry), I cheered. Despite my best efforts I cannot cope with expending attention on over two hours on weekends and evenings, just to sit through probably subpar play and stupid comments about it. DGMW; when the football is great, you want as many minutes as possible, but when it’s bad you want the pain to be over inside of a half an hour.

For context, I don’t usually agree with anything that vile organisation say or do, but I suppose statistically even those chuffers had to have one good idea in their locker.

OP, your complaint is laughable. The new version of West Side Story is three minutes longer than the 1961 version. Alert the authorities!!

Some films have always been more than two hours. Some Like it Hot, made in 1959, was 132 minutes and it was a comedy, not a roadshow musical of epic drama. Billy Wilder's followup The Apartment was 125 minutes. His Irma La Douce, another comedy, was 147 minutes.

I don't think the OP's complaint is laughable. R41 The movies you mention may be long but they are tight. Today, a lot of movies feel really self-indulgent when it comes to length. Every PTA movie, for example, and every Tarantino. And everything Del Toro puts out, especially this last one. Maybe it's in their contracts that they don't have to stick to a certain length because they're auteurs, I don't know, but a lot of current movies are inexplicably way over 2 hours in length.

I saw House of Gucci last week and it was waaaaay too long. But Directors often have huge egos and won't let an editor override their 'vision'. The job of a great editor however is the ability to synthesize footage that keeps the film moving at the right pace.

But bitching about previews is silly and the blame resides in your inability to arrive the very minute they end.

They need Adrienne Fazan

Hey R36, on behalf of everyone on this site, shut the f**k up! You hypersensitive, puerile, whiny Taranteenybopper fanboys are the most irritating twats around. You're as bad as those basement-dwelling, incel Dark Knight fanboys.

Bailed on Power of the Dog 25 minutes in. Snoresville. Why take so long to get a story going?

I don’t mind watching a long movie at home. But the theater is different.

Comedies are usually a tight 90 minutes or so. Awards circuit bait are needlessly overlong. Epics and musicals have always been long. Randomly pulling lists of movies to make a point that movies today are shorter than in the past is stupid.

R47 Same. I binge on entire series all the time, but a long movie in the theatre can be very frustrating,

I saw the Lord of the Rings series on my TV during the pandemic and I found it totally engrossing. All I remember about watching the first one in the movie theatre was that I had to pee terribly, and the movie seemed like it was just about to end over and over and over for the last hour, so I held it and held it, and every seeming denouement just led to another and another. I was so distracted by my bladder, but I wanted to hold out until the end if it was about to end. Sometimes biological functions play a real role in a viewing experience, as laughable as that may be. At home, anything can be paused or rewound if anything is missed. Closed captioning can be turned on (I am hard of hearing in one ear) if the volume is too low and the volume can be turned down during too-loud action scenes that can make my ears actually hurt in a theatre. (Why do movies have to be painfully loud??) And on a TV, you can also easily check where you are in the overall runtime of the movie, which can help to alleviate some frustration about how long it is.