I know some of you hate long movies, so I was wondering, what is your "cap" ,if you have one, for something you may be interested in seeing in the theater?

Or otherwise, you will wait until it hits home video for you to see it in a more comfortable environment.

Or do you not have a "cap" at all and will see it regardless of length?

No cap here; if i'm interested in a movie, the run time is fairly irrelevant to me whether long or short. I won't specifically avoid a movie just because it runs long.

I don't necessarily have a cap, if I'm really interested in something, I will see it regardless of length, but if I'm on the fence about something, an extra long runtime will probably push me toward not seeing it.

Exactly this.

Most commercial films don't surpass 3 hours. Chances are if its that long its either a bloated action movie or a character-driven drama.

Runtime is WAY down on my list that would determine which movie to see.

I saw Divergent a few months ago in theaters in IMAX and initially I was hesitant to see it because it was 139 minutes long. Normally IMO young adult dramas, especially adventure movies shouldn't be that long. But, I bit the bullet, paid the extra money to see it in IMAX and I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was really entertaining and briskly paced.

I think what also helps a movie with a really long running time is the editing and music to help move scenes forward. Some really long films I've seen have absolutely sluggish pacing. That's resolved with good editing.

Spiderman 3, from the original trilogy, is about 140 minutes long and felt like a 4 hour movie. It was just bloated beyond belief.

A film's runtime doesn't usually discourage me from seeing that particular film. However, most of my theater visits these days are in the afternoons. A long runtime might steer me away if I have other plans later in the day.

To quote the late, great Roger Ebert:

"No good movie is too long. No bad movie is too short."

No cap here either and that quote by the late Roger Ebert is one of my faves.

^ Came here to post that. I feel the same.

That's another point I should have brought up. I usually see afternoon matinees. If I see the new Transformers movie at say 2pm, by the time it finishes, it will be after 5pm and my day is almost over. I would really have to put errands and other plans aside to see it.

Actually, the second part of the quote is "No bad movie is short enough"

We're all talking about the theater environment right?

I'm not talking about renting a 2 1/2 to 3 hour movie from Redbox or downloading it on Directv On demand sitting in the comfort of your home on your recliner and being able to pause it at will. And being able to piss at your convenience without missing something.

Saw Sound of Music and other movies (older classics) that had intermissions in them, never bothered me.

Loved all of them, even though my sister had to drag me to them kicking and screaming.

I don't have a cap, but I do have a minimum. Every movie I see must be at least 2 hours long and rated R.

I won't see anything running past 150-180 minutes in a commercial theater. No such limits in my personal home theater.

I've had to go to the bathroom during some of the recent long movies I've seen in theaters, including GODZILLA, PACIFIC RIM, and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I managed to hold it in during THE WOLVERINE and DJANGO UNCHAINED because I really didn't want to miss anything. But if I go to the bathroom, it usually means I've reached a point where I don't care if I miss anything or not.

But since I see most movies during the evenings after work these days, the running time is a factor because I have to take the subway home afterwards and it's an hour-long ride and I have to go to work the next day.

I remember seeing TRESPASS and THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN, one right after the other, at two different Broadway theaters two blocks apart on a weeknight in winter 21 years ago. Both films were short enough to be able to do that and I had the stamina and energy for it. I can't imagine doing something like that today. I did go see two animated films in separate theaters on a Saturday afternoon in Manhattan last year, but I had all day to do it and the films were each under two hours.

Don't have a problem with long runtimes. I saw Wolf of Wall Street and the 180 min runtime didn't make me hesitate at all.

Same here.

I don't have any caps but I'd probably be less likely to see a movie that approaches 4 hours in the theaters.

I watched Gettysburg in Theaters. I obviously have no cap.

Me007gold won't see a movie over 2-hours long? That's pretty limiting. That would cut out a lot of great, classic movies.

I've argued about the implications of this phrase somewhere before. Forgive me if it was with you guys on this board and we went over this already, but I have a real problem with what Ebert says here. Many good movies are good because they're concise and cut down to the length they should be. Any longer and they wear out their welcome. Many bad movies are bad because they were cut down after studio interference and lost important scenes that might have made them better.

I think you're reading too much into the statement. He's not actually saying a good movie should be longer.

Does it surprise you that many of us don't have a "length cap" on movies we will see in the theater?

And even at home, barring an emergency, I never pause a movie. I don't like being taken out of the experience.