TopBilled

Films that seem too long

83 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:

Image result for rhett butler and mammy

Mammy and the Bachelor would have made for an interesting romance.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fedya said:

Mammy and the Bachelor would have made for an interesting romance.

Very progressive!

"Frankly, Mammy.  I don't give a damn."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Fedya said:

Mammy and the Bachelor would have made for an interesting romance.

What about a triangle that includes a bobby-soxer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hamradio said:

Most romance movies one's wife or girlfriend drags a guy to. yawn.gif

preview.jpg

 

Would had make a nice torture during the Spanish Inquisition. :unsure:

she kinda looks like Ivanka.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devil's Own (1997)

Normally, I like longer films. I enjoyed the last Avengers film. But, this one came to mind. Super predicable (No Hollywood film would allow a member of the IRA to win). But, what got me was it seemed that half the film was driving over bridges and roads. It works much better as a NYC travelogue than a dramatic film.

wQTfHG1.png

Its no accident that on the scenes on the back of the DVD box, a bridge is prominent.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Screen Shot 2019-05-28 at 6.30.56 AM.png

A Variety review for THE FORTUNE COOKIE (1966) says it's "generally amusing (often wildly so), but overlong." The Billy Wilder picture is 125 minutes. But I agree, it does drag on in spots...and probably could have been told in 100 minutes.

Some movies are meant to take a lot of time to play out on screen, in order to convey epic greatness. But I feel the appropriately titled THE LONGEST DAY is way too long.

What movies do you feel this way about?

George Stevens' GIANT (1956) is way too long at 201 minutes. I know the movie's fans like the character development, etc. but the story is just not very compelling - and less so now than presumably it was when it was released.

Otto Preminger's EXODUS (1960) also is too long at 208 minutes. I think it's an interesting story, with interesting characters and good performances - but that doesn't overcome poor pacing and editing. (It does provide the basis for an amusing tale: at the premiere, comedian Mort Sahl is said to have stood up after about two hours to shout: "Otto ... Let my people go!")

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernardo Bertolucci made two epics that were so long I couldn't wait to be over: 1900 and The Last Emperor.

Francis Ford Coppola's One From the Heart is another movie that feels too long.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arsan404 said:

Bernardo Bertolucci made two epics that were so long I couldn't wait to be over: 1900 and The Last Emperor.

Francis Ford Coppola's One From the Heart is another movie that feels too long.

1900 was so good it didn't matter to me. The movie holds its own for the long haul.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brrrcold said:

George Stevens' GIANT (1956) is way too long at 201 minutes. I know the movie's fans like the character development, etc. but the story is just not very compelling - and less so now than presumably it was when it was released.

Otto Preminger's EXODUS (1960) also is too long at 208 minutes. I think it's an interesting story, with interesting characters and good performances - but that doesn't overcome poor pacing and editing. (It does provide the basis for an amusing tale: at the premiere, comedian Mort Sahl is said to have stood up after about two hours to shout: "Otto ... Let my people go!")

Amen, brother. At the time, the joke about Giant was that they sold different-priced tickets for those over 18, those under 18, and those who turned 18 during the movie.

And I will add The Leopard, The Godfather, The Godfather II, and virtually every action movie made in the last ten years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.....

I said during. :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything by Bela Tarr and I usually love the Krasznahorkai books that influence his films. 

MV5BMTMyNzg1MzM2Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzQ5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brrrcold said:

Otto Preminger's EXODUS (1960) also is too long at 208 minutes.

I've started Exodus, I think, three different times and never finished it. So I don't know if it truly counts as a movie I've "seen". I've always bailed out or fallen asleep a little past the two-hour mark. So, maybe I've seen 130 or 135 of its 208 minutes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit is not insanely long, I guess, at 153 minutes, but boy, is it meandering. Once we've set up the basic scenario, we go into a very long WWII flashback. And major subplots keep getting introduced much later than one would expect in a more conventional movie, subplots about Frederic March and his daughter and subplots about the butler contending for possession of Gregory Peck's grandmother's house.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kingrat said:

At the time, the joke about Giant was that they sold different-priced tickets for those over 18, those under 18, and those who turned 18 during the movie.

Those who turned 18 during the film should have gotten in for free. I mean c'mon ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit is not insanely long, I guess, at 153 minutes, but boy, is it meandering. Once we've set up the basic scenario, we go into a very long WWII flashback. And major subplots keep getting introduced much later than one would expect in a more conventional movie, subplots about Frederic March and his daughter and subplots about the butler contending for possession of Gregory Peck's grandmother's house.

This is a film that manages to be very good, despite its glacial pace. But it could have been even better if they had tightened the story and hadn't been afraid to edit a few of those longer scenes. It's not quite the masterpiece it should have been.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:

she kinda looks like Ivanka. 

:lol:

She doesn't look a bit like Ivanka ... but I guess that's the point ....

:unsure:maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I misconstrued the title of the thread at first ... I thought it possible that the reference was to movies of average length but that seemed too long because they were so bad, lol. Silly me. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say comedies suffer the most from going on too long... Being There is one that leaps immediately to mind; it's a mildly amusing one-joke sketch that runs for over 2 hours, without much variance in mood or tempo. Which comedy films actually stay fresh and funny for that long? I can't think of any, actually, that couldn't have been better had they been shorter. The Secret of Santa Vittoria is another one that drags on way too long and has too many subplots. It could have been such a fun little movie, had it been a little littler...

I've seen a few really silly, zany movies that sorta died entirely for this reason. It can happen quick with those, they are very fragile, I think. Ken Russell's film Valentino may be one that can't get short enough for some, but I was kind of enjoying it, (in a wrong-headed, hypnotized sort of way,) for maybe an hour... but, oooh, that second hour, and it was still going. :unsure: A couple others that I felt, uh, lost the vibe before they finished were Zazie dans le Metro and King of Hearts; neither of those movies are even exceptionally long, but they set out with such a manic pace (especially the former) that they just couldn't maintain that energy for all that time. Might just be me, but I thought that the movies wore out before I did. I could probably think of more like this, it seems to happen a lot, unfortunately.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, laffite said:

I think I misconstrued the title of the thread at first ... I thought it possible that the reference was to movies of average length but that seemed too long because they were so bad, lol. Silly me. :lol:

I think these would be fine to include, as well. If you have some examples, I'd like to see them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kay said:

Zazie dans le Metro

Yes, oh my gosh, I watched this on TCM. Perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another epic of the Old South:  "Raintree County"......at a meandering and stultifying 182 minutes, not quite GWTW in substance, quality or length.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TopBilled said:

This is a film that manages to be very good, despite its glacial pace. But it could have been even better if they had tightened the story and hadn't been afraid to edit a few of those longer scenes. It's not quite the masterpiece it should have been.

I agree with this. It's an interesting plot but not an epic plot - and I think in that period of epic filmmaking the studios, producers, and directors had difficulty calibrating the distinction. THE LONGEST DAY (1962), the main example that started this thread, surely is an epic plot - and I like it for that reason. I can endure the length because I grasp the scope of the story. THE MAN IN THE GRAY FLANNEL SUIT is mainly an interior drama, about a man and his reaction to the world and its conventions. Interesting, but not epic.

But the details of the production matter too. I recently watched IN HARM'S WAY (1965), which is a more conventional 165 minutes, and loaded with interesting plot points, lots of stars, etc. It may have seemed to be an epic plot - but it's not. It's another interior drama in a setting that may be seen as having epic potential. For comparison - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, 1953. Similar in setting, substance, tone, etc - and much more compelling at 118 minutes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dargo said:

Heavens to Betsy, but wasn't Heaven's Gate excruciatingly long!

I remember once trying to get through the original four hour long version on my TV, and within 30 minutes into it I almost started yelling at the screen, "Hey Cimino! Here's yet another scene you've dragged out twice as long as you needed to in order to make the plot point you're attempting to make with it here!"

(...sure, beautiful cinematography, but GEESH, use the damn visuals to tell the damn story here)

 

Many would say it was 219 minutes too long!  ;)

But for a  "too long" movie, my vote goes to another Cimino "classic"

THE DEER HUNTER

He could have cut a WHOLE HOUR of wasted, boring scenes out of it and STILL had a good movie.  That scene where the car keeps taking off on that guy just as he reaches the door got old the THIRD time the car took off. and....

Did we HAVE to see almost the ENTIRE wedding reception?  :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I enjoy this film, I think it's also too long. It really should have been split up into two parts, with the second half saved as a sequel. The first part should have been their return and some early struggles of readjustment. Then in the second film we see them overcome some of these challenges and get more into a conventional melodrama. I would have saved the part with Homer's metal hooks frightening the children for the sequel. Where it seems like the men have totally moved on and the war is a distant memory. But then something like those hooks reminds everyone that the after-effects of the war will continue for a long time.

screen-shot-2019-05-27-at-4.34.23-pm.jpe

THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brrrcold said:

I recently watched IN HARM'S WAY (1965), which is a more conventional 165 minutes, and loaded with interesting plot points, lots of stars, etc. It may have seemed to be an epic plot - but it's not. It's another interior drama in a setting that may be seen as having epic potential. For comparison - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, 1953. Similar in setting, substance, tone, etc - and much more compelling at 118 minutes.

In Harm's Way is strong to quite strong for a good chunk of its running time, but ironically for a war movie, when we get to the battle stuff in the final act, in my opinion, it runs out of steam. Part of it may just be my personal tastes. I'm more into "interior dramas" than battle scenes. From Here to Eternity is all interior drama until the very end and, I agree, is more compelling overall. 

Personally, I like Heaven's Gate and have tried to defend its storytelling on several threads, but I've always been met with such hostility and scorn, I don't have the strength for it anymore. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us