General Movie (Film for snobs) News Thread

[Devon Malcolm]

But I would argue even those would benefit from trimming the fat off them. Editing Bueller out completely would be a start, the smarmy little turd.

[Chest Rockwell]

Here is said chart -

 

http://imgur.com/dXYUwdh

 

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Surely if the quality is there then the running time doesn't matter? The Big Lebowski is 2hrs & is fucking ace throughout.

Hate to disagree. Maybe its because I watched it years after they hype, or maybe its because I find the cohens to be hit and miss, but I didnt love it at all

 

That's the exception rather than the rule though. There are certain genres where, generally, films are harmed by being too long and I think comedy and horror are the two most notable ones in that case.

 

The problem with Apatow's films is that they really don't need to be that long at all. There's so much unnecessary junk in Trainwreck that it could easily be eased down to at least an hour and 45 minutes and not suffer a jot. In fact, it would be a significantly better film.

 

But it's a general problem across cinema, I think. Films are so much longer these days. Look out how long these superhero films are these days. Wasn't the last Captain America one 2 hours and 20 minutes long? Watchmen was 3 hours long! Mainstream and Hollywood cinema has lost the art of telling a story in a compact running time.

 

There are exceptions, of course, but even the last Bond film clocked in about 2 and a quarter hours long and wasn't any the better for it. 

Watchmen is based on a 12 comic book issue mini series. The only way they could have done it would have been to divide it into 2 or 3 movies or HBO to have made it. For what its worth, have alot of time for that film, but Synders other superhero work is the pits

[WyattSheepMask]

It's a tightrope for studios to walk now when adapting things, particularly from comics books as you get the inevitable moaning if something is left out or tweeked. It's like with Game of Thrones on TV, if something is changed from what it was in the book, Christ almighty are there some who have a hissyfit about it. They don't understand what 'Based On...' means, it has to be exactly as it was in the source.

 

I do enjoy the Watchmen film, and am a big fan of the book also, but the film is a slog to get through at times. It's not something you can just whack on, you've got to dedicate the time to it

[King Pitcos]

No comedy should ever be over 90 minutes really. If they can't tell the plot in 90 minutes in a comedy movie then there's too much plot and not enough jokes.

It's usually the other way around. They just let scenes of people sitting round making jokes run and run without advancing anything.

[The Clint]

I agree with Mike if you're enjoying the movie who cares how long it runs.  Those American Pie movies (the original ones not those crap spin-off ones) weren't on long enough in my opinion. Well maybe not so much the Reunion one.

 

Those parody ones always seem to run short like the Naked Gun, Scary Movie and Hot Shots etc.

[Scott Malbranque]

Weekend at Bernies, Weird Science, Airplane 2 and Caddyshack were in the Goldilocks zone, for me. Just the right amount of time given for the subject to hand.
 

[Devon Malcolm]

I agree with Mike if you're enjoying the movie who cares how long it runs.

 

The point being made is that the extended running time of certain films is affecting how good or enjoyable they could or should have been.

[HarmonicGenerator]

When Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi were making What We Do In The Shadows, one of their priorities during editing was to make sure the final film came in at under 90 minutes, because they felt that was the optimum length for a comedy. They cut loads out to achieve that aim apparently, but it's not like it's a worse film for it. In fact it's a bloody funny film, so there might be something to the idea!

[LaGoosh]

 

No comedy should ever be over 90 minutes really. If they can't tell the plot in 90 minutes in a comedy movie then there's too much plot and not enough jokes.

It's usually the other way around. They just let scenes of people sitting round making jokes run and run without advancing anything.

That's true actually. I stand corrected. Today's comedies mostly seem to be people standing around ad libbing as opposed to the jokes coming out of plot and character. Hence why stuff like Edgar Wrights films are in a completely different league from Judd Apatows films.

[chokeout]

That's the exception rather than the rule though. There are certain genres where, generally, films are harmed by being too long and I think comedy and horror are the two most notable ones in that case.

 

The problem with Apatow's films is that they really don't need to be that long at all. There's so much unnecessary junk in Trainwreck that it could easily be eased down to at least an hour and 45 minutes and not suffer a jot. In fact, it would be a significantly better film.

 

But it's a general problem across cinema, I think. Films are so much longer these days. Look out how long these superhero films are these days. Wasn't the last Captain America one 2 hours and 20 minutes long? Watchmen was 3 hours long! Mainstream and Hollywood cinema has lost the art of telling a story in a compact running time.

 

There are exceptions, of course, but even the last Bond film clocked in about 2 and a quarter hours long and wasn't any the better for it. 

 

I think thats more a problem with there being no middle ground between Aptow and the studio, they let him do what he wants. Funny People was 2 1/2 hours long, that's only 25 minutes less the The Godfather for fucks sake. 

 

The superhero one is a different matter, They are chucking so many characters into them that the films are obviously going to be longer and are more comparable to ensemble films like The Wild Bunch (2h 35min) or The Departed (2h 31). Just to be clear, I'm not comparing the quality of the films or the writing but if you try and squeeze that many characters into a film and give them all x amounts of screen time then you're looking at a longer film. 

Saying that the individual Marvel films are all clocking in at the 2 hour mark.

Compare that to Superman and Batman Vs Superman and both of those are just poorly paced and bloated movies.

 

I'd be curious to see what films they used to form that graph because I can't see us being at the same level as the 60's for average film running time. The decade of the sprawling epic had so many 3h+ films. I can't actually remember the last cinema release I went to that was anywhere near that.

[WyattSheepMask]

The Dark Knight Rises at 2hrs 44mins?

[Scott Malbranque]

The Blues Brothers had a fair whack of a runtime, didn't it?
And although it's a great movie, it does feel about a half hour too long.

[The Clint]

The Blues Brothers had a fair whack of a runtime, didn't it?

And although it's a great movie, it does feel about a half hour too long.

 

If you've ever watched it on ITV4 it seems like it never ends.  I don't know how some people can still sit through a movie on a commercial channel these days.

[WWFChilli]

The Blues Brothers is the fucking business. It can be as long as it wants. It clocks in at 140 mins I think. There's actually an extra 20 minutes that vanished between screen testing and it's release. You can actually see bits never seen in the film in the trailer. Whole song numbers were filmed and vanished.

 

I love the Blues Brothers.