Movies: The best English language films are not longer

[Elvis P]

The best English language films are not longer. Ever since the 3h 14m 1997 Titanic made $2.2B at the box office, Hollywood has decided that films should be longer. This has not improved the quality of film. @kihei I wish you'd seen these films.

1931 - City Lights - Charlie Chaplin, 1h 21m
1940 - His Girl Friday - Howard Hawks, 1h 32m
1941 - The Maltese Falcon - John Houston, 1h 41m
1941 - Citizen Kane - Orson Welles, 1h 59m
1948 - The Red Shoes - Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, shot by Jack Cardiff, 2h 13m, Scorsese's favorite film
1952 - Singin' in the Rain - Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen, 1h 43m
1956 - The Searchers - John Ford, 1h 59m
1958 - Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock, 2h 9m
1959 - North by Northwest - Alfred Hitchcock, 2h 16m
1968 - 2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick, 2h 19m
1972 - The Godfather, The Godfather 2 - Francis Ford Coppola, both 3h
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark - Steven Spielberg, 1h 45m
1989 - Do the Right Thing - Spike Lee, 2 hours
1990 - Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese, 2h 26m
2001 - Mulholland Drive - David Lynch, 2h 27m
2007 - There Will Be Blood - Paul Thomas Anderson, 2h 38m
2008 - The Dark Knight - Christopher Nolan, 2h 32m

Click to read more...

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

I'm a bit confused by your thread. I thought you would be focusing more on the trend of movies all going past the 2 hour mark or very close to it which is something I don't like.

3 hours movies are still a rare occurrence. Although we're getting a plethora of series which would be best served as single movies.

 

[HolyGhost]

David Lean's movies are all pretty long and nearly all are great--same with Richard Attenburough

here is a list of my likes

Once Upon a Time in America
Gone with the wind
Ben Hur
Apocolpys now
Lord of the rings
Godfather part 2 is 200 minutes
Sparticus
Schnidler's List
The Right Stuff (very underrarted movie)
The Green Mile
Cleopatra
Magnolia
Deer Hunter
Wolf of Wallstreet

I could go on

 

[Elvis P]

I like my list better. As to the first poster my point is that in the last 25 years films have gotten longer, but not better.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I mean, most of the movies you listed are longer than the typical movie. You kind of proved your premise wrong

 

[Jumptheshark]

I'm on my phone, but my sources say 175-177 minutes. I like my list better. As to the first poster my point is that in the last 25 years films have gotten longer, but not better.

how long does the godfather part 2 run - Search (bing.com)

Godfather 1 is 2h 55--but FFC tweeked it and added some fotage a few years ago

 

[Jumptheshark]

I have godfather 2 on prime at it is over 3 hours

 

[Elvis P]

I mean, most of the movies you listed are longer than the typical movie. You kind of proved your premise wrong

I put them in chronological order so it's easier for you to see, but I think your post is embarrassing for you. The Godfathers are epics which are a separate category, but I included them to be objective.

1931 - City Lights - Charlie Chaplin, 1h 21m
1940 - His Girl Friday - Howard Hawks, 1h 32m
1941 - The Maltese Falcon - John Houston, 1h 41m
1941 - Citizen Kane - Orson Welles, 1h 59m
1948 - The Red Shoes - Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, shot by Jack Cardiff, 2h 13m, Scorsese's favorite film
1952 - Singin' in the Rain - Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen, 1h 43m
1956 - The Searchers - John Ford, 1h 59m
1958 - Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock, 2h 9m
1959 - North by Northwest - Alfred Hitchcock, 2h 16m
1968 - 2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick, 2h 19m
1972 - The Godfather, The Godfather 2 - Francis Ford Coppola, both 3h
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark - Steven Spielberg, 1h 45m
1989 - Do the Right Thing - Spike Lee, 2 hours
1990 - Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese, 2h 26m
2001 - Mulholland Drive - David Lynch, 2h 27m
2007 - There Will Be Blood - Paul Thomas Anderson, 2h 38m
2008 - The Dark Knight - Christopher Nolan, 2h 32m

 

[Fantomas]

I'm a bit confused by your thread.

You're not the only one.

 

[EXTRAS]

The age of film is over. Mini-series and tv shows are where it's at now.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

The age of film is over. Mini-series and tv shows are where it's at now.

You're right but at the same time, I refuse.

Also it's not the same thing. The TV format still relies on episode story wraps and cliff-hangers and shit.

 

[EXTRAS]

You're right but at the same time, I refuse.

Also it's not the same thing. The TV format still relies on episode story wraps and cliff-hangers and shit.

Yeah but the point is tv now have big budgets and better technology so that they can do better story telling while keeping quality high. Movies were great but the majority of non-super hero movies and original ideas have disappeared for movies. And after watching the amazing shows popping up the past 15 years, movies now feel more like shorts, just telling a synopsis of the great novels of the past. I realized how much most of them were lacking. Still fun to watch great movie performances tho...

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

but I think your post is embarrassing for you

Oh is that so?

 

[Osprey]

I think that the modern tipping point is considered to be Dances With Wolves in 1990, not Titanic. In the last half of the 1980s, Hollywood didn't make any films over 3 hours long. Dances With Wolves was risky, but paid off spectacularly and likely encouraged the longer run times of the 90s films to follow, like JFK, Schindler's List, Braveheart, Hamlet (4 hours!), The Postman, The English Patient, Titanic and Saving Private Ryan. It continued into the 2000s, of course, with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

In the last 20 years, Hollywood films haven't gotten "longer," but I would agree that today's longer films aren't as good. I think that it's because Hollywood doesn't make as many serious, historical dramas (which often justify generous lengths) or big budget and long length films that aren't based on proven IPs. The few that they do make are usually disappointing to me. It's unfortunate. I used to love when new films were really long (I even went to see that 4-hour Hamlet in the theater) because of the odds that I was going to watch something terrific. Nowadays, though, it feels like the longer films are more bloated, not better, and I find that I tend to prefer the shorter films.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Uh...what?

 

[Mickey Marner]

Could be an issue with editing.

I've noticed an increase in the number of 2+ hour comedies, which is a ridiculous runtime for that genre.

 

[alko]

I had in my memory, that movies back in the 90s were usually 90 minutes long (+/-). Then dont know when exactly, is was 120 minutes.

 

[Shareefruck]

I am so confused. What is that list of movies meant to demonstrate?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

There are physical/technical issues at play too that factor into length historically. A lot of movies had to be shorter historically because there were fewer theaters and fewer showtimes ... longer movies meant fewer showtimes which meant less money. So there was financial disincentive to go real long unless you really really earned it.

By the 80s you started having physical media. The product actually had to fit on a video cassette. It was potentially prohibitive to go longer because it would cost more to make the VHS. Advances in digital eliminated that.

Streaming has just given reason to drop the guard rails even more. Look at TV too where for the longest time episodes were pretty standard 22 minutes, 42 minutes or up to an hour. Now there's not hard lines.

My lame answer to the big issue is the length should be what it should be and I hope creators have the discipline (and leeway) to make those calls. The problem is with far fewer natural restrictions, creators are far less likely to "kill their darlings" as the saying goes. Lean entertainment definitely feels less common. Lots of things feel fatty -- not necessarily bad, but I personally feel like I say "that could've been shorter" a lot more than "I wish that were longer."

As someone who grew up in the VHS era, I look at the run times of things like Avengers Endgame and No Time to Die and marvel (no pun intended) at the though that these movies would probably be double-VHS packages back in the day, a status reserved only for classic, big "epic" films.

In summation: 1 hour 45 minutes is a great run time. I wish more movies hit it.

 

[Satans Hockey]

I know a lot of people don't like doing this but I watch a lot of 2+ hour movies in two sittings and even bream up episodes of TV shows too sometimes. I've heard the argument they are meant to be watched in 1 viewing etc etc but if I had to watch everything in 1 viewing I wouldn't watch anywhere the amount of movies or TV shows that I do.

 

[kihei]

I can honestly say that movie length is an issue that just doesn't show up on my radar. Movie length may be a contributing factor to the success or failure of a given film, but I don't generalize beyond that. If I were to make any generalization on the issue at all, it would be something like this: All great movies are the length they should be.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A couple of points of reference.

I find it interesting that movies in general have been flatline for 20 years, high-grossing movies have become slightly longer, and Oscar nominees have become a lot shorter.