Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 12:56:51 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Optimum Film Length

Started by Chedney Honks, October 19, 2021, 11:24:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Chedney Honks

Full disclosure, my attention span is quite bad and I have a tendency to watch films in chunks, however sacrilegious that may be. I get more out of a film by watching for thirty minutes at a time when I give it all my attention and then thinking about it and looking forward to going back for the next chunk than I do by ploughing through as my attention drifts.

On the other hand, I can say that a film is really brilliant or exceptionally entertaining if I watch it in one sitting. This year, such films have included Walkabout, The Red Shoes, Fallen Angels, Shane, Duel to the Death, Blanche, Three Outlaw Samurai, Vampyr, Suspiria, Dr Jekyll and Miss Osborne, Night of the Hunter, Dragon Inn, House, One Armed Boxer, The Eight Diagram Pole Fighter, Body Double, High Noon, Yojimbo, The Transformers: The Movie, The Tale of Zatoichi, Goodbye Dragon Inn, Johnny Guitar, The Night Is Short Walk On Girl and Mr Vampire. Maybe there have been more, maybe some of these are false memories, but this is my recollection.

Beyond that, part of the reason why I enjoy watching films with my wife is that a) I tend to enjoy stuff more for the shared experience (unless it's something I know she won't like) and b) we end up watching films all the way through. In this way, I've really enjoyed Batman, Blade, BTTF, the other Batman films, La La Land, Woman In Red, Robocop, Weird Science, Adventures In Babysitting, Halloween, REC, Labyrinth, probably some others. Very few of these films I'd watch by myself ever, partly because they're popcorn films or partly ignorance (LLL is one of the films I've most enjoyed all year) or partly because some films are just better with company. Some of them I've seen before and no interest in watching them again on my own but they're brought back to life through someone else's eyes.

My conclusion is that 90 minutes is absolutely plenty for me and 80 will comfortably do the trick in most cases. Unless it's a rare epic by a fucking master, like Seven Samurai or Spartacus or Ran or Once Upon A Time In The West, where the I'm happy to give myself for a few hours, most films could do with some serious trimming. I don't mind films being slow, as with Goodbye Dragon Inn, composed of a number of three/four/five-minute still shots, but in terms of leaving me wanting more, it's rare for a film to achieve that especially these days.

I suspect it's been said a lot but modernish popcorn films are way too long and bloated for me. I went to see the IT remakes and they felt loooonnnnng. I dunno how long but that second one in particular was an arse crusher. Dark Knight Rises is like nearly three hours. Pure misplaced egomania. It's fundamentally an advert like The Transformers The Movie but cunt thinks he's Bela Tarr. Know your place. Ninety minutes of cunting about, brilliant, boofffff bang bang da end. Great movie. No, almost three hours of Batman like it's a profound character study. I've not seen Snyder Cut but the idea reminds me of when some cunt in a village makes the world's biggest Scotch egg. Wonder Woman sequel is 2h30m. The new Bond is 2h45m. Clown Inc. Who do they mistake themselves for? I just picked them at random, not having a go at anyone who likes those films.

What is even the purpose? Sell more popcorn? Is it an attempt to justify the theatrical experience when the cinema is dying? If films were shorter, I would pay to see two back to back. I love the idea of a double bill, two eighty minute rippers. No, let's have three hours of backstory about Rocksteady and Bebop. I should say that whiles modern films are terrible for this, I find that almost all films are too long. I started watching Wings, the 1927 silent wartime romance and it's nearly two and a half hours. That's like 1% of your lifespan in 1927.

What is the optimum film length for you?

I wrote this post very long to satirise modern editing.

13 schoolyards

Just a guess, but I think these days films are seen as "a night out". Once you factor in traveling to the cinema, possibly needing a baby sitter, and paying insane prices for parking plus movie snacks & drinks, audiences expect to get at least two hours worth of movie for their trouble.

These are massive blockbusters where the amount of money spent has become a major marketing hook - having the whole thing wrapped up in 90 minutes or less is going to feel like a let down even if that's all the time the story requires.

Thomas

90, bang on. When I put on a film from 1930-whatever, and I see that it lands within a minute or two of 90, I relax. Perfect. The best of all the classic Universal monster films I've seen is The Invisible Man (1933) - looking now, I see it chimes in at a mere 70 minutes.

That said, I do sometimes relish getting a load of biscuits and settling in on a Friday night with a sprawling 3-hour gargantuflick, or going out for the lengthy cinema experience described above. I was actually quite excited to hear that No Time to Die would be the longest Bond film ever. But if it's a Sunday or a Wednesday, and I'm watching at home, I'm going to have to cap it at 90 minutes.

Of course, the real answer is that - as with a written story - there is no objectively optimum length. Ideally it should be dictated by the needs of the emotional arcs, world exploration, and plot beats. If it genuinely takes 3 hours, and is a rewarding, absorbing experience rather than a bloated advert, fine. But I've got to go to bed at some point, so for practical reasons I delight when I see '89 minutes' listed under runtime on Wikipedia.

El Unicornio, mang

Definitely depends on the film. Comedies generally 90 minutes. Something like Heat needs to be 3 hours, can't imagine it working at only 2.

dead-ced-dead

It depends on the film, of course. But I feel near orgasmic joy when I see a film has a 90-100 (max) running time.

El Unicornio, mang

Also worth noting that film length doesn't necessarily mean how long a film feels. No Time To Die was 3 hours but I thought it zipped by, whereas The French Dispatch is only 90 mins and seemed like it was going on forever.

sevendaughters

obv Satantango is great @ 7hrs but the absolute perfecto amount for me is 80 give or take 5%.

steveh

One of the few good things about the Weinsteins was their commitment to keeping films close to the 90 mins point, though that was primarily to fit in more screenings each day so they could make more money.

Waiting for a streaming service that will let you specify how long you have for watching a film and then have it automatically assemble a cut that picks the most important scenes necessary to meet that length.

Waking Life

JustWatch as an app is very good for presenting you with 90 minute films. You load whatever relevant streaming apps you have, add some films you like to a watch list, then it'll give you a list of films 90 minutes or less that you can watch via streaming. This is the default list for me every time on the app, usually presenting a lot of options.

Woody Allen firmly sticks to the 90 minute rule. I'll break with the consensus here though and suggest 120 minutes as the optimum length. Obviously depends on the film, but I find that 90 minute films often follow a more rigid start / middle / end structure; two hours feels like it can breathe a bit more or explore certain elements in greater detail. The other issue with 90 minutes is that it can sometimes feel films have been purposefully edited to this length, which can show in plot gaps or truncated characterisation. I'd easily watch two episodes of an HBO show in a row, so the time investment / concentration doesn't feel too bad for two hours. Anything longer does feel too baggy though.

Solid editing is crucial obviously regardless of length. Interestingly, given Leone has been mentioned, I'd happily watch longer edits of any his films. I was excited for the extended cut of Once Upon A Time In America. It might feel bloat to some - Good, Bad, Ugly is probably his least successful 'longer' edit with some civil war sequences - but I enjoy luxuriating with his films.

PlanktonSideburns

Might have liked heat if it was 90mins, wanted the city to be nuked by the end of it

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on October 19, 2021, 12:27:47 PM
Also worth noting that film length doesn't necessarily mean how long a film feels. No Time To Die was 3 hours but I thought it zipped by, whereas The French Dispatch is only 90 mins and seemed like it was going on forever.

I agree 100% with this.  Andrei Rublev, Aszparuh, Potop, Novecento, Heimat, Dekalog and Gangs Of Wasseypur all absolutely whizz by for me, but Punchline and Battleship Potemkin (which, to this day, I refuse to accept is only 65 minutes long) feel like weeks go by, and when you pause them for a piss or to get a drink and you see only half an hour has gone...

That being said, I acknowledge that suggesting every film being 3-5 hours long is fine is ridiculous, so 90-130mins (depending on genre) is an acceptable average in my opinion.  Most action, comedy and horror films can easily be wrapped up in 90-100mins, whilst dramas typically need and/or benefit from a bit more.

GoblinAhFuckScary

Quote from: sevendaughters on October 19, 2021, 12:39:33 PM
obv Satantango is great @ 7hrs but the absolute perfecto amount for me is 80 give or take 5%.

the finest

Old Nehamkin

Quote from: steveh on October 19, 2021, 12:42:47 PM
Waiting for a streaming service that will let you specify how long you have for watching a film and then have it automatically assemble a cut that picks the most important scenes necessary to meet that length.

I think I'd feel quite depressed about the future of cinema (well, moreso than I am now) if that ever happened.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Roger EbertNo good film is too long and no bad movie is short enough.
That said, more than 2 hours is taking the piss a bit.

Quote from: Chedney Honks on October 19, 2021, 11:24:04 AMI've not seen Snyder Cut but the idea reminds me of when some cunt in a village makes the world's biggest Scotch egg.

Haha, that's brilliant :D

It depends on the film, is the honest, boring answer. There have been really long films where I've wished they were twice as long, and lean 90 minuters that I thought would have benefited from being half their length.

Sometimes when I start a film though, I'll see the running time and be like "nope, not tonight, josephine". You either haven't got the time or you just don't fancy wallowing in anything for too long.

Quote from: GoblinAhFuckScary on October 19, 2021, 01:47:22 PMthe finest

I was at my sisters when I read you talking about that and I said "here, somebody's just recommended me a film and I've looked it up and it's a hungarian comedy about a farm that lasts 7 and a half hours."

and my sister goes "you're not gonna fall for that, are you?" :D I will try it one day.

holyzombiejesus

I thought Dogville zipped and that was just shy of 3 hours. Rarely watch films over 100 or 105 minutes now as after boy has been put to bed we don't have time for anything longer. Quite happy to sit in cinema for 3 hours though.

Replies From View

Whenever I watch any movie whatsoever, I always boot up Disney+ on my phone and hit play on their Robin Hood cartoon, which I hold within view while the movie is playing.  The split second that Robin Hood ends:  BANG I hit stop on the stupid movie that had plenty of time and failed to finish soon enough.  ITS OWN FAULT



I refuse to check the running times beforehand because this method has never let me down

Johnny Textface

88 minutes unless you're Michael Mann

petercussing

90mins.
Can go for 1hr45mins and not be too disgruntled.
2hrs, if only mediocre, disgruntlement zone entered.
3hrs: fuck you, you lord of the rings mother fuck!

As everyone's said though, if it's a banger it doesn't really matter. Stalker should be super boring but it's great and seemed to go by quick enough. Dawn of the Dad is like 2hrs 9mins and is one of my bestest.

Swings and round aboots, i guess, and like someone pretending to be outraged at someone watching a film in chunks for their own meta amusment because they really think someone really being concerned about how someone watches a film is totally strange, it makes no sense.

Noodle Lizard

For two DeNiro films to compare: Once Upon A Time In America is just shy of 4 hours long (or over 4, if you watch the recent extended version) but it really goes by quicker than some 90 minute films I've seen. There's zero fat on it. The Irishman, on the other hand, is nearly as long and feels like it.

It's strange, though, that we can bingewatch TV series which are upwards of 5 hours per season, but the idea of watching a film like Satantango at 7 hours TRT is unthinkable. Twin Peaks: The Return is essentially an 18 hour movie, but it feels better if it's prescribed in hour-long chunks - regardless of whether you might easily watch five of those in one evening.

To answer the OP, though, anywhere between 90 and 120 minutes tends to be optimal for me. Bizarrely, I've noticed that films which are two and a half hours long tend to be half an hour too long.

dissolute ocelot

Certainly if it's one sitting, 90 minutes is plenty. I am very bad at pausing films and going off to do something else for a bit, especially if watching on my own. Something absurdly long is probably better treated like a serial or a book where you don't try and watch it all in one sitting.

Having watched Renoir's Partie de Campagne recently, 40 minutes is an underrated length for a film. A lot of films could be told in less than an hour. The likes of (the original) Nosferatu and Metropolis exist in hour-long versions, and it's hard to argue that the constant desire to add bits to Metropolis has made it any better.

greenman

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on October 19, 2021, 01:41:28 PM
I agree 100% with this.  Andrei Rublev, Aszparuh, Potop, Novecento, Heimat, Dekalog and Gangs Of Wasseypur all absolutely whizz by for me, but Punchline and Battleship Potemkin (which, to this day, I refuse to accept is only 65 minutes long) feel like weeks go by, and when you pause them for a piss or to get a drink and you see only half an hour has gone...

That being said, I acknowledge that suggesting every film being 3-5 hours long is fine is ridiculous, so 90-130mins (depending on genre) is an acceptable average in my opinion.  Most action, comedy and horror films can easily be wrapped up in 90-100mins, whilst dramas typically need and/or benefit from a bit more.

I think you could argue really those two extremes are often the most sucessful, when your pushing towards or past 3 hours there is generally going to be some kind of justification for that having to be made even if only by the director to themselves. By comparison I think its more common you have films around the 2 1/2 hour lenght that have bloated out for 30 mins more than they needed to as theres very little justification needed for that these days.

Quote from: dissolute ocelotHaving watched Renoir's Partie de Campagne recently, 40 minutes is an underrated length for a film. A lot of films could be told in less than an hour. The likes of (the original) Nosferatu and Metropolis exist in hour-long versions, and it's hard to argue that the constant desire to add bits to Metropolis has made it any better.

The Dekalog comes to mind as well, basically a series of films in the 50 min range and I think works very well, can I think actually free a director up to make very focused films not having to add in extra plot/setting to push past the hour mark.