smirnoffski

For films you have not seen, does the duration of the film affect your perception about its overall quality?

Discuss.




Weekly Poll (2/22/04): BEST film directed by David Lean?

Weekly Poll (2/15/04): BEST Western film?

wmansir

Being honest with myself I went with options 1+2, even though they are worded a bit too strong to really represent my opinion. Of course, all films are individual and these preconceptions are thrown out once I actually see it.

I generally give longer films more weight, but there are several reasons for this. One is that telling a good story takes time. It takes time to flesh out characters and not rely on clichés. Also, it is well known that studios, distributors and theaters all want shorter films. So if the director is able to keep a film very long then I expect he had to fight for it, which means it was important to him (or her).

Short films I judge more harshly than I give credit to long films. There aren't any real reasons for this other than the fact that most short films (90 minutes or less) are bad. Of course there are exceptions to this, but they are rare. The only one I can think of, just of the top of my head, is Lola Rennt, which is around 80 minutes I think. It only comes to mind because I was surprised how short it was after viewing it.

I'm sure others can list many excellent short movies, but the vast amount of garbage that clocks in at 90 minutes or less is overwhelming.

Jackskeleton

I would consider most films under the 90 mark as good popcorn fun. I wont say they are all stinkers. It all depends on the story telling.

fumanstan

Not at all. Most animated movies are 90 minutes, give or take, and they do a great job of telling a story in that time. On the other hand, all three LOTR movies were too long, and i at the theater for each movie i saw myself looking at my watch.

I have no reason to consider the length of a movie to determine it's quality... the only reason i look at running time is to make other plans before or after a movie. A short movie can drag as much as a long one, and a long movie can seem to end quickly.

jaeufraser

Run time really has no bearing on quality. There are some great stories that take 90 minutes to tell, some that take 3 hours to tell. It's all in the telling, and it can go anyway. I've seen some 90 minute movies that felt like 10 hours, and some 3 hour movies that just flew by.

mdc3000

Film length does not influence quality at all in my opinion. I've seen some fantastic short films and some great long ones... but then I've seen some films that were 2 hours and pretty good, but easily could have been 90 minutes and would have been masterpieces.

I think it's just a case by case thing... I'm never 'afraid' of a shorter film...

MATT

Groucho

Runtime doesn't matter to me. My judgement towards a film is based entirely on it's rating. The more blood and tits, the better the film. And if somebody gets shot point blank in the head it's a masterpiece.

Jray

The runtime doesn't affect my opinion too much. But 3 hour movies tend to sway me from watching them, especially in the case of DVDs. If I want to watch something and I'm staring at my DVDs I'll think "Do I really want to spend 3 hours on one movie?" And I find myself reaching for something shorter and more easily digested. For this reason some of my favorite movies don't get rewatched very often, like Scarface. It's much easier to justify sitting on my butt for 2 hours than 3.

Josh H

No impact.

A crappy hour and a half film can feel like it's never going to end, and a great 3+ hour film can be over before I know it and leave me wanting more.

Groucho

Interesting...I'm just the opposite. I tend to wait on seeing longer movies until they are on DVD. That way I can break it up across two evenings if I have to.

ArchibaldTuttle

oh crap I forgot to read the post entirely, it depends on the genre of the film, for instance I would never want to see a romantic comedy longer than 2 hours 90 minutes is enough

Josh H

I think he meant more when he's just walking to his shelf to pick a movie, he's less likely to pick a 3+ hour one as it's hard to find the time. Rather than saying he prefers to watch longer ones at the theater.

I agree with you on preferring to watch longer movies at home, as you can split it up, and/or take bathroom breaks without missing anything.

Patman

This could easily be a topic in the Mature Forum...

Simpson Purist

Absolutely not. Can you imagine if Phone Booth lasted more than 2 hours, it just would not work? The 81-minute runtime was perfect and managed to keep the suspense high.

moocher

I can't imagine why anybody would say that runtime affects their perception of the "quality" of a film even slightly. Maybe I'm not understanding the question or something but it seems there is only one answer.

I would have thought Josh Hinkle's post would speak for just about everybody but then I look at the poll results and .

Then I look at the question in the post itself that specifies "for a film you haven't seen" and am even more perplexed by the results and the poll itself. How can you tell anything about the quality of a film you haven't seen by looking at the runtime???

Am I missing something here??

sataniko

If a film is long, I won't think it's good or bad until I watch it, but it's too short like 70-80 minutes then I'll have my doubts on the quality.

Jray

Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying.

The idea of watching a movie over multiple nights seems appealing, but I have a hard time doing it. Sometimes I'm forced to, if I start dozing off.

smirnoffski

Bump

jfrost

For me... Films duration only SLIGHTLY affects my judgement of a film's quality.

Kinyo

ditto.

eedoon

I missed this poll when it comes out.

For me, I tend to prefer shorter films, but that's because of my time limitation. A short film can be either good or bad, and so does longer movies.

And oh, good idea, smirnoffski.

Dr. DVD

It doesn't affect me. I will say that I used to think 3 hours meant the film had something of importance to say or they wouldn't have made it so long. A viewing of Pearl Harbor did more than prove me wrong.

mookiemeister

The length of the movie doesn't affect the quality of the movies. A good movie is good not because it's of certain length.

Giantrobo

No effect.

In fact, over the last few years we've been getting more 3 hour + movies.

For what we pay at the Theater and for DVDs I -PREFER- long movies.

matome

I never take into account the runtime when watching a movie. However if the movie is more than 2 1/2 hours, it had better be damn good to keep me in the seat that long.