To think that films should be no more than 90 mins long

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

DC want to see the new Avatar film. It’s 3 hours and 20 minutes long!! WTF?!?!

Not a chance will I manage not to go the loo for that long. Everyone in the cinema is likely to have to get up to go to the loo and miss part of the film. No mention of an intermission.

There’s just no need. 90 minutes is the correct length for a film. Anything else is just the director’s ego.

I know what you mean. I'd struggle with three-and-a-half hours of an Avatar film because I don't rate them, but I delight in watching, for example, Seven Samurai, which is also 3.5 hours long, because it's so good it doesn't drag!

Oh thats me. Managed fine so far in my life though. And if its a 3 hour film I can just go to the loo. Do make sure I sit on the end of an aisle though

Think 2 hours is my max but I did watch the new avatar and as amazing overall as it was, it really was too long. There was some boring repetitive stuff happening in the middle that could have been cut out. Stunning visually though.

I have strong views on this. Lots of issues with the Marvels of this world giving hugely tedious action movies that are disengaging because they are too bloody long.
While some people here are (wrongly) telling you to watch other films, part of the issue here is the film making business is currently hugely struggling with costs, and studios are less likely to take risks on something unknown hence endless minor tweaks on reliable IPs. Shorter films cost less to make. No one needs a 3 hour action film.

90 mins- any comedy or animation
110 mins most action films
2 hrs dramas
2 hrs 30 biopics or huge historical dramas.

This is why I will only ever take an aisle seat

I've never been to the loo during a film at the cinema..... Or at home tbh. I get too involved. My biggest annoyance at the cinema is people getting up and down all the time. Maybe wee before you go in, and don't drink a pint of coke during the showing. Oh, and don't eating anything smelly or noisy. Or be on your phone. Actually I hate the cinema as it's full of other people being annoying 😂

So, in summary, I love a long film, but only in an empty cinema or at home. And, no, I don't need a wee every couple of hours.

My DD loves avatar but the thought of sitting through 3 hours really puts me off.
I’d probably not need the loo as long as I didn’t have a massive drink beforehand but I do find cinema seats uncomfortable after an hour or so

Get yourself a projector - life-changing!

Fully agree- if you can’t tell a story in 90 mins then you’re bad at telling stories.

Titanic was more than three hours. And the iceberg doesn't appear until well into the second hour. All that subplot about the diamond was soooooooooo boring. And the silly thing is, those looking for the diamond didn't want to know the 3-hour-story of Titanic. They never said "yes, Rose, very interesting, but about the f- diamond?"

Sound of Music is 2h44, so it depends!

I accept your film timings and that I am being unreasonable when it comes to epic films where the length is necessary.

I totally agree OP, it’s something I drone on about regularly

A cinema I used to live near (not UK) charged more if it was longer. So let's say 8 euro for 90 mins and 12 euros for 3 hours.
It was quite handy as I knew if it was 12 euros, I would miss my last bus!

Completely agree. The film has to warrant that length. There are far too many film who have no business being multiple hours long.

The new Avatar received a one star review in Guardian so maybe bring a pillow maybe.

I feel I’ve missed a post that said this already so sorry 🤣 sound of music actually had an intermission of 10 minutes at around the 2 hour mark, very sensible plan and I’m sure they got to sell more ice cream too.

*12 hours - obviously the extended editions are the only way to go 🤣

And it’s not just men, there are also dwarves, elves, hobbits and wizards.

If you're adapting a novel, it normally takes much longer than 90 minutes to do the story justice. Two hours isn't really long enough either, unless it's a novel where not much happens! For this reason, I think most film adaptations of novels are an unsatisfactory compromise and a TV series would be better.

I do have sympathy with needing a loo break, though. I rarely get through a film without one these days.

Of course it did. Back then they were sensible and had a break in long films, and there were lots of kids seeing that one (it was one of the first I ever saw, that and A Man for All Seasons. The latter was less scary!)

3 hours sitting can be too much for quite a lot of people who don’t need to ‘see a doctor’. I’d have thought more posters on MN would have been pregnant at some stage for one thing.😂 blokes with prostate problems, people with bad backs etc.

The small town I used to live in had a little cinema - we went to see Willow there (a mere 2hrs 6mins) and were charmed when they somewhat abruptly stopped about half way through and the icecream seller appeared.

The full version of one of my favourite films is 5 hours long, Fanny and Alexander.

I don't mind a long film but do prefer to watch them at home. We watched Oppenheimer yesterday and with interuptions it took us 4 hours!

I also find lots of films too long
anything >2h and I start to feel a bit antsy.

Totally agree! 3 hours 17 is far too long!

YES I agree with this so much and have thought it for so very long. I will join you on the campaign trail. If you can’t say it in 90 mins I DON’T CARE.

I’d go stir crazy. I went to see I Swear recently and it was great but good heavens it wouldn’t end!