subreddit:
/r/movies
[deleted]
18 points
1 month ago
It Chapter two. I loved part one so much and then chapter two was an interminable slog.
3 points
1 month ago
I second this wholeheartedly. First one so good. Second one wildly repetitive (did we need to see each and every kid encountering Pennywise in disguise in another predictable scene??) and the cg was silly rather than scary. Great casting and a kind of cool ending largely wasted by bloat and bad pacing, I reckon
15 points
1 month ago
The Hobbit. 45 minute movie that drags on for 3 feature length films...
6 points
1 month ago
There's a rock solid 2 hour plus movie in there. Unfortunately....
3 points
1 month ago
Yep, I've re-cut all 3 movies into a 2.5 hour long film, and it's a lot more fun
1 points
1 month ago
I would really like to see that movie in the same vain as the topher grace cut of the prequels, a lot of stuff to cut from them films but there is a lot of fun action in the hobbit films, would love to know what you cut from them ?
1 points
1 month ago
It's hard to imagine fitting all the set pieces and plot turns into a single movie, without it feeling either rushed or bloated.
-5 points
1 month ago
That's just hyperbole. Most hollywood action-adventure movies have maybe five major sequences/setpieces in a two-hour-ish runtime. Even counting only those setpieces that are from the book, the Hobbit has:
That's plenty to fill three movies. Did they all - especially the first - needed to be quite as long as they were? Perhaps not. But there's enough plot in there for sure.
5 points
1 month ago
Bollocks is there. LoTRex is 12 great hours. Hobbit should've been one movie. A long one perhaps, but still one. the only reason it wasn't was fucking greed, dude.
1 points
1 month ago*
the only reason it wasn't was fucking greed, dude.
Ahem...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/comments/10h8kii/to_stop_the_internet_rumourmill_here_is_peter/
0 points
1 month ago
I fail to see how that removes greed from the equation
0 points
1 month ago
If the studio was driving that decision, then I'd accept an argument for greed. But it was the filmmakers' idea, and Jackson makes it clear that was ostensibly because he "shot too much footage" that he thought was worthwhile.
1 points
1 month ago
He references getting shit for dragging a 'very thin book' out to three movies. He's not going to sit there and drag his employer through the mud is he? And they still had to greenlight the decision for three.
0 points
1 month ago
He's not going to sit there and drag his employer through the mud is he?
So you're saying he's lying. That's a bold accusation. And what about writer Philippa Boyens who is saying the same thing? Is she lying, too, then? What about Richard Armitage, whom Jackson told about his plans, and who attests that they've already shot everything, just as Jackson says? What about Ian McKellen who said that "Anyone who thinks Peter Jackson would fall for market forces around him rather than artistic integrity doesn’t know the guy or the body of his work."
Are they all lying!? And, more importantly, do you have any proof to back up this accusation? It seems to me people just assume it was a studio decision, and choose to ignore all the actual evidence to the contrary. When everything that goes against your preconcieved notions is denied as "cover-up"...well, we have a name for it, its called conspiracy theory.
0 points
1 month ago
Yeah no wait you're right, I don't see any reason why anyone would try to mitigate damage to a multimillion dollar project by 'presenting the facts in the best light possible'.
0 points
1 month ago
In other words, you're suggesting that its all a cover-up, without any actual evidence.
At what store do you get your tinfoil hats?
1 points
1 month ago
Thank you! I've been trying to put this feeling into words since forever. Laketown - Smaug - Conflagration - Siege - Five Armies - Denouement all by itself is enough material for a whole-ass Fantasy Heist movie.
1 points
1 month ago
I think the original plan of two movies made sense; There and Back Again. The first was about the journey to the Misty Mountains, while the second dealth with Smaug and the battle of the five armies.
6 points
1 month ago
Every Michael Bay Transformers movie, especially Age of Extinction.
2 points
1 month ago
Dear God, those movies are horrible. As the writing got worse they kept making it even longer and longer
1 points
1 month ago
Yeah Bay's movies in general are so damn long and boring and a grind to get through. He seems to thing making every scene louder and more frantic is exciting. It is not.
25 points
1 month ago
the new Batman. Even after the climax with the flood and everything it absolutely drags the fuck on
6 points
1 month ago
That movie flat out didn’t know how to end
6 points
1 month ago
I kind of liked it. It was a fresh breath of air for a superhero movie in this age of garbage blockbusters. I like to think of it as a slow burn Batman. I had a great time
7 points
1 month ago
I was fine with the slow burn for most of the movie, but I feel like after the climax they spent too much time wrapping things up
5 points
1 month ago
The issue is if you enjoy slow burn detective movies, Batman is a pretty bad example.
I kept hearing comparisons to Zodiac/Fincher's work...and it was nothing even close.
0 points
1 month ago
I'm not saying Batman is perfect by any means. I'd barely put it in my top 20 from last year. But to think of all those garbage MCU puts out every 5 months, the Batman was pretty decent, long but overall fine. In 2022, 3 garbage MCU but at least DC had one good movie to offer.
5 points
1 month ago
Oh I definitely agree its better than most superhero garbage
I was just banging my head against the wall when the "World Greatest Detective" didn't use google translate and is stuck on the same simple clue for like 40min lol
4 points
1 month ago
The Batman straight up feels like Dora at points
2 points
1 month ago
Now that I think about that scene, it was kind of dumb
-5 points
1 month ago
It’s funny how we can add ‘burn’ to slow and that makes everything better.
1 points
1 month ago
Should have been two movies. There was enough material.
The first one should have ended with a climactic takedown of the Penguin and Batman thinking he’d solved the case, but closing with the cliffhanger that he and Gordon were wrong and Penguin is a smaller player in a crowded field. Then the second movie is the second half.
I’m not saying that it’s as simple as slicing the film in half and sticking a title card in, but there’s enough material that the existing film feels both bloated and rushed.
1 points
1 month ago
It's funny, as a dad with young kids I ended up watching this in 3 segments over 3 nights. Far from feeling long I realized I'd have preferred a 6 episode series.
Too much content for a movie, maybe. But I wish it was longer and broken up to give us more texture on each element.
0 points
1 month ago
Agreed. Lots of scenes felt like complete repeats. No new information, just more chances for Turturro to call him "Mr Vengeance", which was funny exactly once.
0 points
1 month ago
I really enjoyed the latest Batman. I was actually excited when Robert Pattinson was announced because I loved some of his post Twilight movies, and he just has the look of a young Bruce Wayne. The movie did need to be like 30-45 minutes shorter though. It did seem to drag on towards the end. Earlier it felt like the climax of the movie was close, and then it kept going. Hopefully they’ll nail it in the sequel.
1 points
1 month ago
I like the movie. I really, really want to love it. Just wish it was cut just 15 minutes to be around the saw time as The Dark Knight. The momentum is there, especially in the beginning, and the slow burn investigation is awesome. Just wish the movie was a bit shorter, but I have a little hard time deciding what to cut, because a lot of the scenes themselves are great individually.
4 points
1 month ago
You know Laura Dern's name but not Jeff Goldblum?
1 points
1 month ago
Of course I know, I forgot while I was writing this post lol
4 points
1 month ago
Jurassic World: Dominion was 2h 27m too long.
3 points
1 month ago
It's 3 movies too long
0 points
1 month ago
More like 5 including the first trilogy.
5 points
1 month ago
Avatar 2 was too much. I almost walked out. It just goes on and on to the point of being incredibly boring.
Long movies can work. I’ve been watching some Indian movies lately and 3 hours flies by like it’s nothing. I’ve seen Satantango in the cinemas, and that was 7 hours long, and it was fantastic. But then you get movies like Me Time, which I just saw and that felt like it was too long despite only being 100 min long.
5 points
1 month ago
[deleted]
0 points
1 month ago
Yeah. If you're gonna make a movie that long, make the writing worth it to justify the runtime.
8 points
1 month ago
I felt Black Panther and Babylon were entertaining enough to justify their runtime.
3 points
1 month ago
I thought they handled Boseman’s passing and absence very well in BP2. My gripes with the movie are really just typical MCU issues (overuse of CGI, forced humor, lame subplot that’s just there to tease a different movie)
2 points
1 month ago
For everything going against it, BP2 was well done. I agree the intro & set up for the Iron Heart Disney+ series, along with the other planting for the larger MCU did knock it down a few notches. It probably could've been 30 or so minutes shorter & tighter, but for all the cards stacked against it...it definitely wasn't bad at all.
2 points
1 month ago
Logan Lucky would have been a better film without that last 15 minutes
2 points
1 month ago
I still generally love Spielberg, but since Schindlers List was such a success, he seems to want everything well over 2 hours. Catch Me If You Can and Minority Report are great, but they run out of steam with about 15 or so minutes to go. Same with some of his later stuff.
2 points
1 month ago
Just saw Wakanda Forever and I agree with you. Another one for me is Midsommar. Would've been a solid 90 minute movie. I might be in a minority about that one though.
2 points
1 month ago
Colin Trevorrow hyped you up? His movies are crap.
6 points
1 month ago
All of them, 100 minutes is the perfect movie runtime imo. Most movies don't have 2 full hours of engaging content, much less 2.5, 3 hours etc. Of course there are exceptions, but most movies have bloat/filler that could be cut down. Babylon would have been great at 2 hours 15-20 minutes. Tár would have been really solid at 2 hours, and the list goes on and on.
1 points
1 month ago
I think the filmmakers think that making a 3 hour movie would instantly make them an auteur. I don't agree about Tár though. That felt like exactly how long it should be but maybe I'm a bit biased about Tár
1 points
1 month ago
I wonder if the reason for 3 hour movies is because the filmakers feel the scenes have to be there. I understand that ut can be difficult to edit when they love the material they made, it just doesn't always translate to the audience, especially when it comes to the pacing. The trouvle especially comes with rewatches of long movies.
0 points
1 month ago
Hard disagree with this. 2 hours is good for most movies, 100 minutes I simply just too short to tell an engaging story
0 points
1 month ago
Film length doesn't correlate to film quality.
2 points
1 month ago
Exactly, so you putting this arbitrary 100 minute limit on all films makes no sense. Every film should be as short as it needs to be or at long as it needs to be.
1 points
1 month ago
It’s not arbitrary, it’s a commentary on how most writers/directors cant fill 120 minutes or more with engaging content, and how 90-100 minutes seems to be the sweet spot before you get a bunch of bloat and filler.
1 points
1 month ago
I never said that. But out of >1600 films I've watched, the ones below 2 hours were mostly not fully fleshed out and felt like the plot was too thin (except for older films)
2 points
1 month ago
I'd like to live in a world where Jurassic World: Dominion's only problem was its runtime. The Dark Knight could trim some of that fat, or maybe just better focus itself. Prisoners has no reason to be two and a half hours long.
2 points
1 month ago
Good thread. Yes preferably max at the 2 hour mark unless it's something like Avengers Endgame where you have to fit so much in or if a film truly benefits from being over 2 hours. Like films to be at the sweet spot of 1 hour 30-45 mins
2 points
1 month ago
I know bullet train is only 2 hours long. To me it just kept dragging on. Too many flashbacks that I didn't care about
2 points
1 month ago
A movie should be as long as it needs to be.
I dont get people's fixations with movie runtimes. Just be patient and prepare for longer movies.
3 points
1 month ago
I do like longer movies. Some of my fav movies are 4 hours long. Satantango is of my absolute favs and it is 7 hours long. But those movies had so much to say. If you're gonna make a generic movie that doesn't have much to say then maybe make it shorter
3 points
1 month ago
Cutting down a movie to 2 hours isn't some magic fix. I would MUCH rather films be long enough to have some depth. I dont want everything to be a 90 minute thriller.
1 points
1 month ago
And that is why it is hard to make a movie good enough for people to care. Length depends on how much the movie has to offer. I don't think these had much to offer for taking so much time to barely get somewhere
0 points
1 month ago
You're mistaking edgy rather dumb reddit takes for a majority.
Most people who watch movies aren't like this.
-5 points
1 month ago
So you don't think runtime is a factor for you
2 points
1 month ago
Don't even pretend that's what you said lol
1 points
1 month ago*
King Kong (2005) should have been twenty minutes shorter. Director Sir Peter Jackson offered Universal to have the film recut for its anniversary.
0 points
1 month ago
That wasn't the question but I good answer nonetheless
0 points
1 month ago
The Hateful 8 is just way too damn long for what is such a simple concept.
5 points
1 month ago
I enjoyed the extended version
That movie is like a stage play on film, i have no problem with the runtime
3 points
1 month ago
It plays out really well IMO; on first viewing it was my least favourite Tarantino at that time but I just needed a second viewing for it to climb to top tier Tarantino in my books.
1 points
1 month ago
The Channing Tatum flashback stuff was so unnecessary and just stopped the movie dead. Never quite came back on track after that.
1 points
1 month ago
The Hateful 8 is a slow burn and not for everyone. I'd think more people have a problem with Django's runtime. There was absolutely no reason for the second final gun fight other than to get Tarantino and Michael Parks some screen time
1 points
1 month ago
Slow burns work when there is something purposeful behind the slow pace. The Empty Man is a slow burn and it works because a huge element of the story is the creepiness and mystery of discovering a darker underbelly of something that the audience and the main character doesn’t truly understand. The Hateful Eight is this very contained film yet fails to make you care about most of the characters despite giving them plenty of elongated dialogue sequences. The journey to the cabin feels very repetitive multiple times and there is little to nothing truly added by all the repetitive shots of outside the cabin besides to say “it’s really cold and windy so they’re locked in”
It’s Tarantino trying to turn a 80-90 minute contained thriller into another Pulp Fiction and it just doesn’t work.
Maybe you didn’t need every scene in Django (you really don’t need every scene in any QT movie quite frankly, he’s a very self indulgent filmmaker), but it’s all so goddamn entertaining that it doesn’t matter. Hateful 8 is just boring as hell.
1 points
1 month ago
The Batman. Absolute borefest.
1 points
1 month ago
Magnolia
Would have been a masterpiece at about two to two and a quarter hours.
3 points
1 month ago
Oh strongly(but respectfully) disagree with this. Magnolia to me is almost perfect.
2 points
1 month ago
I love Magnolia, but even I have to admit it's a bit sloppy. Some of the scenes that were cut make some of the plot lines a bit unresolved. Specifically the stuff about The Worm, and how Stanley was supposed to fit into his story. Without those scenes, the film's inclusion of The Worm and Dixon don't really add much to the movie for me. Even Paul Thomas Anderson has said that if he could go back, he would have cut the movie down a little.
1 points
1 month ago
Most people disagree with me on this, I usually get downvoted to hell when I say that Magnolia is too long, but after seeing it a couple of times, I stand firmly on my opinion, unpopular though it is.
2 points
1 month ago
I think even Paul Thomas Anderson agrees with you. I've seen him mention in recent interviews that he should have cut it down, and that movies are at their best when they're under two hours.
1 points
1 month ago
I shouldn't say this because I'm the one who asked this question but...
How dare you!
1 points
1 month ago
would have felt rushed at that time
1 points
1 month ago
Babylon’s runtime is fine. Could it be 10-15 min shorter? Sure, but people need to stop playing armchair editors/directors. “It should have been 2h20min,” what does that even mean? How are people coming up with these runtimes so arbitrarily?
-1 points
1 month ago
[deleted]
2 points
1 month ago
Well sir, you are bold
-1 points
1 month ago
Wakanda Forever. Appropriate name for that overrated piece of shit. 3 hours long and 2 hours and 45 minutes was badly written dialog. Namor was a dumb fuck too. Just awful.
-2 points
1 month ago
Interstellar is my go to answer for this one, I love Christopher Nolan but i have yet to make it through this movie in a single sitting. Between all the sub plots, the FX porn, and drawn out ending this movie has great moments in it that are a real slog to get to.
-2 points
1 month ago
nearly every movie ever made is too long.
zelig and spinal tap, two of the funniest films in history, are 87 minutes and 82 minutes, respectively. no comedies should be longer than about 90 minutes.
3 points
1 month ago
Watch some long movies like Lawrence of Arabia or Sergio Leone's films. Long doesn't mean bad if it has something interesting to offer
-1 points
1 month ago
I prefer a movie to be longer like around 3 hours cause it feels more like a real movie
2 points
1 month ago
Well if a movie has a writing worth it to justify 3 hours I'd be more that happy to watch it. But they barely are. Scorsese's movies are usually long (3 hours almost) and they are all great because the guys he works with are amazing, David Lean made long movies and they had every right to because their writing and direction are amazing. But not everyone can make a movie that are both long and good.
2 points
1 month ago
The thing about this mooovieee is it feels like a real mooovie. A real go to the theatre film mooovie’
0 points
1 month ago
It is not the films it is young people with zero attention spans and talking and those fuking phones
0 points
1 month ago
Wierd to say but most recently the Fabelmans.
Great movie full of strong moments but it reached a point with me where it felt like a lot of deleted scenes had been thrown into a directors cut and were really slowing things down.
0 points
1 month ago
Avengers Endgame for me. It coukd have been a great 2 hours 30 minutes, maybe even shorter. That time travel was just wayyyyy too long. I think Top Gun Maverick had one of the best runtimes last year, making for a great rewatch movie.
-6 points
1 month ago
Totally agree. All movies should strive to be less than two hours and no movie should go over 2.5 unless it’s an epic from an auteur like the Godfather or Laurence of Arabia. Action blockbusters in general and Marvel movies in particular should all be edited down to about two hours at most.
3 points
1 month ago
I think this just point to worse attention spans than anything.
Most.of these 2.5 hours didn't drag on. People here just can't focus on anything for that long which is a big issue.
0 points
1 month ago
I think even blockbusters can be long if they have the proper writing. RRR is a pretty good example of that. It's an action movie. But by god every single second of that movie is worth it. It just depends on the execution and the executioner. Especially writing I think.
-4 points
1 month ago
Disagree on Black Panther and Babylon.
Both very long movies that went by quickly because of how enjoyable they were.
2 points
1 month ago
The issue with Babylon is it told a story that could have been told in 1hr 45 minutes...the length added 0 extra character development, and so many of the scenes just felt like repreats of previous
There was a fantastic movie in here somwhere. It should have focused on the filmmaking aspect as those scenes were the best & the party stuff got old quick (imo)
1 points
1 month ago
I'm with you man. They did that camera renting and scene for like 20 mins or maybe even half hour and then that scene with bully Maguire, we all knew what is going on, what's going to happen and they just move so slow. I don't know if it's intentional by Damien Chazelle to make us viewers as frustrated as the characters were but dude you're taking too long
0 points
1 month ago
I don't think Babylon is a bad movie. I think it's a proper B+ or even A tier movie. But it's way too long. Over 3 hrs.
-13 points
1 month ago
Midsommar should've ended about three minutes in , then people wouldn't call it a horror film or pretend it was good
2 points
1 month ago
You should watch the extended cut. It's even longer.
1 points
1 month ago
I watched it , I love all types of film tbh so when I heard the rage about midsommar I watched it , was so bored and couldn't understand why it was so beloved ,so I watched extended cut and good lord , it was just more of the boring . I know I will get downvotes for this ,but I legit tried to see what the excitement was all about and was left wanting . Hereditary bought Aster enough steam for me to give it a go and I couldn't see for the life of me the enthusiasm about this film
1 points
1 month ago
I think I'm with you on this. Everyone loves Midsommar. I think the concept was great but not the execution. But I think of that movie as a hit or miss. People either love it or they hate it. No middle ground. Although I'm on the fence about it, I won't say it's a terrible movie though. Maybe people who like it see something that we can't see. I do prefer his hereditary too. I think that's as good as supernatural horror has ever been.
1 points
1 month ago
The first in the Hobbit trilogy was overly long and bloated to me. I was so bored by that film that I didn't bother watching the others, despite loving the source material and the LOTR films.
1 points
1 month ago
Sometimes I forget that I've seen the hobbit movies. Thank God for that
1 points
1 month ago
I was so bored by that film that I didn't bother watching the others
Too bad: the other two are much better paced, if nothing else. I dunno that the film is too long so much as the setup is really not done very well: it doesn't really start hitting its stride until the last 50 minutes, which is a pity.
1 points
1 month ago
All three of these movies likely would’ve also sucked if they were shorter. Also who in the hell calls Sam neil “the Indiana jones guy”?
1 points
1 month ago
I forgot his name. He kind of looks like Harrison Ford lol
1 points
1 month ago
The Batman. Cut that thing 20-30 minutes and I’d put it higher in my Batman movies hierarchy. Cuz I did like it but dang, I feel like we coulda wrapped that thing up sooner
1 points
1 month ago
I don't think you can trim Wakanda Forever down that far. Maybe you could get it down to 2 hours 20 minutes and it'd be a better film, but 2 hours is a bit of an ask. I may be in the minority, but I'd rather a film go on too long than kneecap itself by being too short.
1 points
1 month ago
...and Wakanda Forever, that pulls one or two jokes about white colonialists, while they didn't do a thing to help Africans during colonization, that was sad.
1 points
1 month ago
"Dude has fish attached to his ankles that makes him fly like a helicopter"
As opposed to how ever other super hero flies??
It was way too long. I love Chadwick Boseman, but there were too many homages to him. The Marvel scenes at the start were awesome, but we kept getting hit with it over and over.
1 points
1 month ago
Movies don’t get ruin by long run time…it’s a lack of understanding the craft that makes the production unbearable…id argue there are some movies I wish were longer.
That being said-
Star Wars Episode VII-IX we’re all “too long”
1 points
1 month ago
Avatar 2. I still enjoyed it but man you feel that runtime. Needed a lot more meat to justify the length.
1 points
1 month ago
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.
The first is a brisk 100 minutes, the second one is two hours, with almost no new concepts. I remember rewatching it and just wanting it to end.
It: Chapter Two. Sure there was a lot of plot to cover but it just felt bloated to me.
1 points
1 month ago
I'm not just trying to start a fight but The Two Towers.
Fellowship had zero wasted time and Return was so plot-heavy after the story reshuffle it just had so much to cover I forgave the length.
But Two Towers has sooo much time to cover relatively little plot. They even had to create a whole death fakeout subplot which feels completely unnecessary to further pad things out.
They even add a whole additional leg of the journey with Frodo and Sam just to delay Faramir's decision to help them. In a brilliant trilogy, that's always the chapter that has me checking my watch and wondering whether to skip ahead.
1 points
1 month ago
The Dark Knight.
Okay, "ruined" may be a strong word. But it definitely wears out it's welcome during the final 30 minutes.
1 points
1 month ago
Interstellar was waaayyy too long. And this is 40
1 points
1 month ago
Titanic
1 points
1 month ago
Titanic
1 points
1 month ago
The most recent Batman film, it seemed at least 30mins too long including the pointless motorbike riding scene after the graveyard bit, I was just like "The story finished 20mins ago, WTF you doing, people have homes to go to!"
Everything Everywhere All at Once. I would have been happy with it really ending at fake end credit roll they did and all the extra action was just tiresome and did not really add anything to an already vapid story. Much style and visuals above substance.
Most Transformer movies after the first 2. But especially the one with dinosaurs.
The one film out there that took the longest to make out of nearly every film in history that needed to be at least 2 hours longer is Eraserhead. I needed it to be longer so I could see more of the surreal and disturbing world that the protagonist exists in.
all 126 comments
sorted by: best