Movie lovers, are you finding that many modern movies go on too long?

Oh, me! I am not thrilled with that either. As I age and get more ouch and my bladder shrinks, I am picking and choosing more carefully what I will sit through in the theater. I now tend to opt for the sillier ones, where it doesn’t matter if I miss a few minutes here and there.

I just saw the new Top Gun -Maverick movie. I liked the movie, it kept me on the edge of my seat, but I felt it went on about 15 or twenty minutes longer than it needed to. I was needing to go to the bathroom at the last 15 minutes, but I didn’t want to miss anything.

But movies aren’t really getting longer. Hitchcock’s “The Man Who Knew Too Much” was 2 hours 17 minutes. The Lord of the Rings movies were all around three hours.

@zenvelo Yes, but those were more the exceptions rather than the rule. And it’s not just the length for me, it’s the knowing when to stop, that the point has been made.

Although, I think I saw about 5 places where the last Lord of the Rings movie should have ended.

@zenvelo, you cite a few examples, sure, but the standard running time (with, of course, some exceptions) for the bulk of theater based made-for-the-masses has been 90–120 minutes for decades.

I agree with @chyna that Top Gun could have been 20 minutes shorter. The very ending seemed awfully contrived to me. It didn’t add to the plot at all.

Is it lousy editing? Or is it contractual? (Actor A is guaranteed to be on screen for no fewer than ‘x’ minutes)

I agree in principle – most movies go on too long.

I hadn’t noticed, but I am wondering if there is an intermission when the movie is very long.

@JLeslie Not usually.

Considering I have ditched the theater entirely I appreciate the longer duration now that I can hit pause and get up to do my business. I don’t want a cut down version of the story to fit the 2 hour bracket, I want the full story as the director intended. “Going to the movies “is a different experience now. We host “watch parties” where friends and family gather at home to watch something new together without paying the inflated theater prices.

I do have a problem with sitting still so long, I really noticed it watching Elvis. It would be nice to have an intermission, actually.
I saw Maverick on Imax so it kept me riveted, the only thing saving Elvis ending was the good music. :)

It depends on what the story will bear.
Generally, a comedy shouldn’t run more than 85 minutes, but there are exceptions. LOTR: ROTK certainly had several good ending points, but they left it long for those who wanted more.
Justice League was too long, but the Snyder cut, which was much longer, was fine.
The new Avatar movie will be 3 hours. If it is done well, I won’t complain.

Yes! It’s just hard for me to sit and do nothing for more than 2 hours. Maybe I need to bring as fidget or something.

@filmfann I’m pretty excited about it, hope it’s on Imax. :)

@chyna The original Top Gun was 1h 50m. The new one is 2h 10m. Exactly 20 minutes longer. It’s interesting you found it about 15–20 minutes too long.

It feels like this is just the economics of movie theaters these days. Paying $25+ dollars per head for a ticket and food just doesn’t seem worth it for a 90 minute movie anymore. As content platforms have proliferated, the value of a minute of content has gone down. Movie theaters are just trying to offer a decent value proposition as they struggle to stay relevant.

I will add my voice to those opining the long movies. I noticed it and don’t care for it. I don’t analyze most movies, so I don’t really have an informed opinion about content, but I definitely find that a movie over 2 hours will irk me.

@Smashley I rarely buy “snacks” in the movies any more and I pay $12 as a senior but I understand your point. For me, it is worth going to the movies for a matinee as a single person because it is a fun activity to do on my own but it is certainly true that movie theaters are struggling to stay in business.

No, not at all.

I don’t mind a longer movie unless it has a lot of filler nonsense. Then I’m just annoyed. I tend to watch movies for little details that I can seem come together in the end. So if there are about 10 to 15 minutes of minutiae that adds nothing to the story, then I get really pissed off, and my opinion of the movie drops because I just remember how I wasted time evaluating what was being said. Imagine reading a book and there is one whole chapter of filler. Characters who are introduced for no reason. I hate it. I mean I get needing a proper ending but sometimes useless details will always be useless.

@gorillapaws If I hadn’t drank a drum barrel of pop, it probably wouldn’t have been 20 minutes too long. But I really needed to pee.

It’s nothing new, multiple movies over the years have ran for up to & beyond 3 hours & sustained throughout.

I think it’s as simple as this, if the film entertains & keeps your attention then the length shouldn’t matter.

@eyesoreu the brain may be engaged, but the bladder speaks for itself.

I don’t mind a long movie, but a poorly edited movie is excruciating.

I see a lot of movies every year and only a handful of movies outstayed their welcome, but they weren’t even that good in the first place. I feel that tv shows last way too long, even short miniseries. For example I liked the show “Mare of Easttown” but I think it could’ve been even better as a 2 and a half hour film. Also, someone made a fan edit of the Obi-Wan Kenobi show, and it works so much better as a film.

Well, I like long movies . . . IF they’re good. I get immersed in them and generally don’t want them to end, nor do I usually have a sense of time I’m caring about while watching a good film.

The problem I have with many modern movies, that that they’re too stupid, with dumb illogical forced plots and characters I don’t believe are actual people in the situations shown, all of which prevents me from being immersed in them . . .

. . . or even, going to see them, since I have found some Youtubers such as Ryan George (q.v. Pitch Meeting videos ) or MauLer who can entertainingly sum up (the stupidity of) a suspicious film or TV show, and who let me trade an expensive waste of time into a free fun few minutes.

For me, the right length for a movie is around 90 minutes and part of the director’s art lies in telling a story to fit this timeframe.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy directed by Peter Jackson. The last 45 minutes or so.

If you don’t like long movies, be prepared to skip Avatar 2:

The new Avatar sequel is three hours long — but director James Cameron doesn’t want to hear any complaints.

“I don’t want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch [television] for eight hours,” Cameron, 67, recently told Empire.

@zenvelo Weird analogy from Cameron, considering that nobody sits and binge-watches television for eight hours without pausing to go to the bathroom, taking the dog out, preparing a meal or two, taking phone calls etc etc etc and seeing to normal life stuff.
If he is planning to have an intermission, fine. And if the story can’t stand up to a not big screen viewing (which, of course is preferable but shouldn’t be necessary) then shame on him.

I’ve been planning on missing Avatar 2 since they announced it twelve years ago.