Last movie watched...

[NapalmKev]

The Addams Family.

A really fun/entertaining film. One of the few films I've seen that I consider to have the 'perfect cast'.


Cheers

[radiator]

Some of us say this a lot on this board, but I've lost count of the amount of films I've watched recently and said "That was good, but should have been 20/30mins shorter". If you're telling a grand saga or adapting a complex novel, I can appreciate why you might need to go over two hours, but for me, every minute longer than 100 is another nail in the coffin of me ever rewatching a film - and 90mins is still the perfect sweet spot that every film should aim for. Whatever happened to leaving the audience wanting more?

It's got to the point that my girlfriend specifically looks up running times of films before seeing them, and excitedly told me Inside Llewellyn Davis is "only 1hr 45m!".

[Colin YNWA]

Some of us say this a lot on this board, but I've lost count of the amount of films I've watched recently and said "That was good, but should have been 20/30mins shorter". If you're telling a grand saga or adapting a complex novel, I can appreciate why you might need to go over two hours, but for me, every minute longer than 100 is another nail in the coffin of me ever rewatching a film - and 90mins is still the perfect sweet spot that every film should aim for. Whatever happened to leaving the audience wanting more?

It's got to the point that my girlfriend specifically looks up running times of films before seeing them, and excitedly told me Inside Llewellyn Davis is "only 1hr 45m!".

I'm all over that sentiment. There seemed to be a shift, for whatever reason I place it when 'Braveheart' came out, have no idea if that's a valid assessment, anyway around that time when movies went from being between 1 1/2 and 2 hours long to over 2 hours and hitting 3 almost as a standard. Well if not a standard then a heck of a lot more frequently.

Now 'Braveheart' being a big sprawling historical epic was fine as a long film. Long films seemed in the past to largely be the preserve of that type of movie. It made them feel special and as if they deserved to be carrying the weight of the events they dealt with - however badly and however they stretch 'poetic license to breaking point.

So yeah surely a return to more movies of a 'proper' length has all sorts of advantages? Surely cheaper to make (though I guess minute for minute more expensive, but overall?). Most importantly 1 1/2 to 2 hours is a good length of time to be sat still for. I'm getting older, my blander ain't as strong as it was...

... not even start me on expanding children's books to trilogies... don't even start me...

[sheldipez]

I used to love long movies, but last few years my attention span has struggled to get through things that run on over two hours. The wife and I have been going through X Files again, we're both big fans to start but the show's template always made it feel like they were mini-43 minute movies with the mythology episodes being feature length two parters.

I can sit and read comics for three or four hours straight though.

[Link Prime]

Sorry for the bum steer, neebs.

No bum steer at all Sauchie, I loved every minute of this- almost three hours of genuine hilarious entertainment.
It's been a long time since I left the cinema feeling absolutely satisfied with what I'd just watched.

[Tiplodocus]

LARRY CROWNE
(1 hr 34 minutes - well done Tom)
Not massively rom or massively com but a sweet little piece.

I probably enjoyed this precisely because it didn't outstay it's welcome.  They could have dragged it up to two hours by sticking in some false emotional summits but who likes that stuff ("Oh no, a misunderstanding means they are going to break up!")?

There's nothing particularly new here but I just enjoy watching Tom Hanks do that thing he does. 

I was particularly impressed by the way he looks at the free-spirited pixie girl, beloved of so many authors writing of mid-life crisis (surely going through a mid-life crisis of their own) without a hint of romantic liasion - almost just bewildered and going with the flow. 

Julia Roberts character is a bit of a doormat though - she could have done with a bit more life. She shows a bit of spunk in ditching Bryan Cranston but why on earth was she putting up with him in the first place.

[sheldipez]

Relevant: there's A Four Hour Cut Of WOLF OF WALL STREET coming

[Recrewt]

Some of us say this a lot on this board, but I've lost count of the amount of films I've watched recently and said "That was good, but should have been 20/30mins shorter". If you're telling a grand saga or adapting a complex novel, I can appreciate why you might need to go over two hours, but for me, every minute longer than 100 is another nail in the coffin of me ever rewatching a film - and 90mins is still the perfect sweet spot that every film should aim for. Whatever happened to leaving the audience wanting more?

It's got to the point that my girlfriend specifically looks up running times of films before seeing them, and excitedly told me Inside Llewellyn Davis is "only 1hr 45m!".

I'm all over that sentiment. There seemed to be a shift, for whatever reason I place it when 'Braveheart' came out, have no idea if that's a valid assessment, anyway around that time when movies went from being between 1 1/2 and 2 hours long to over 2 hours and hitting 3 almost as a standard. Well if not a standard then a heck of a lot more frequently.

Now 'Braveheart' being a big sprawling historical epic was fine as a long film. Long films seemed in the past to largely be the preserve of that type of movie. It made them feel special and as if they deserved to be carrying the weight of the events they dealt with - however badly and however they stretch 'poetic license to breaking point.

So yeah surely a return to more movies of a 'proper' length has all sorts of advantages? Surely cheaper to make (though I guess minute for minute more expensive, but overall?). Most importantly 1 1/2 to 2 hours is a good length of time to be sat still for. I'm getting older, my blander ain't as strong as it was...

... not even start me on expanding children's books to trilogies... don't even start me...

I think some of this is definitely due to Hollywood's obsession with overly complex plots for movies.  Things like the Dark Knight films try to fit so much in that they end up being longer.

This also reminds me of the 'good old days' when cinemas used to stop the film half way through and the lights would go up to allow a comfort break (and them to sell some more sweets).  With some of these lengthy movies, it would really help if they brought this practice back.

[JOE SOAP]

Relevant: there's A Four Hour Cut Of WOLF OF WALL STREET coming

In the last decade Scorsese films have started making money (most of his notable films were losses) and since Wolf... is a moderate success they may as well capitalise by the usual multiple releases. This is purely a business decision as Scorsese has reiterated time and again that he doesn't like extended or alternate cuts of his films.

[Theblazeuk]

This also reminds me of the 'good old days' when cinemas used to stop the film half way through and the lights would go up to allow a comfort break (and them to sell some more sweets).  With some of these lengthy movies, it would really help if they brought this practice back.

They still do this in the tiny cinema of Hebden Bridge, in the valleys of Yorkshire. Lovely place.

[Mabs]

Pirates in an Adventure With Scientists

With much thanks to Mabs for netting it for milady we watched it - me for the first time - it was anachro-tastic and I loved the gleeful fannying-about with historical fact (of course in real life Darwin was PART of that grim "endangered species dining club" :S). The painting of Victoria as the villain is fantastically mad and the soundtrack (Tenpole Tudor and Flight of the Concords :O) is brilliant. The central cast of characters is strong but there's a lingering sense that some things hadn't been properly resolved - making you wonder where the books go and whether or not Aardman will go back to it (although with the huge gorgeous sets and long production time I could see why they wouldn't). Having just recently seen Were-Rabbit it's astonishing how much the animation has progressed as well - the sets were consistently extraordinary and I could happily live in those models forever. Also Hugh Grant sounded NOTHING LIKE HUGH GRANT here - very odd I'm normally quite good at spotting voices.

Overall - a grand and enjoyable romp that looks utterly breathtaking.

I agree, I was surprised to find Hugh Grant doing the voice of the Pirate Captain, and even more surprised because he managed to do a stellar job!

Glad to hear you enjoyed it, CrazyFox! 

[Frank]

I loved every minute of (Wolf Of Wall Street) - almost three hours of genuine hilarious entertainment. It's been a long time since I left the cinema feeling absolutely satisfied with what I'd just watched.

That's a relief; the only thing worse than wasting a trip to the pictures on a rotten film is when someone with whom you think you're in synch has recommended it to you as the best thing they've ever seen. Not only did you hate the film, but now you hate them a little too.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the comments above regarding two hours plus becoming the default length for every film, with one caveat - I don't mind it when I really enjoy the film. Obviously anyone wasting three years of their and other people's lives (and huge sums of their money) bringing a film to your local fleapit is hoping you'll really like it - and some people will love the same film that just gave you a sore bum - so it seems difficult to come up with a hard and fast rule.

Films such as Zodiac and Full Metal Jacket don't really pass Colin's test of epic scale and scope, yet I honestly can't remember checking my watch or pausing them to go for a slash when I saw them for the first time. The only (unsatisfactory and subjective) reason I can think of to explain the difference in my response to those films and the equally lengthy Man Of Steel (three toilet breaks, a snack, and some housework) is that I thought they were good and Superman wasn't really.

[Hawkmumbler]

Wolf of Wall Street. Great acting from all involved, great directing from Scorsese. I agree though that it could have been shaved by 45 minuets and we would have missed little. Still, highly enjoyable.

[Frank]

Relevant: there's A Four Hour Cut Of WOLF OF WALL STREET coming

In the last decade Scorsese films have started making money (most of his notable films were losses) and since Wolf... is a moderate success they may as well capitalise by the usual multiple releases. This is purely a business decision as Scorsese has reiterated time and again that he doesn't like extended or alternate cuts of his films.

The TV mini series version of Godfather parts 1 & 2 Coppola edited together in the nineties seems like a better model for monetising any odds and sods you have lying around the cutting room floor. When I heard the complaints regarding the length of Wolf of Wall Street I remember thinking that Scorsese might have been better off making it in the same episodic format to which he treated Boardwalk Empire, but I suppose that would rule out Academy Awards and Leonardo DiCaprio as the lead.

I get the criticism that three hours is too long for any or most films, but that does seem at variance with the frequent reports of couples who made their way through Breaking Bad by caning it in chunks of 3, 4, 5 or 6 episodes at a time, without leaving their couch.

[Ghost MacRoth]

Now 'Braveheart' being a big sprawling historical epic was fine as a long film.

Never a word that should be used in conjunction with that film.  It's about as historically accurate as those films that happened a long time ago....in a galaxy far away.