I’m not saying I’m never going back, but who knows what the future holds, but when I went to see movies, I would think about just to prepare. Won’t drink before a long one and will get whatever snack and a diet something or flavored water, but little sips occasionally.

So, no, I don’t care. I’ll see all of QT’s epics, Scorsese monsters, though I would have gave considerable thought to seeing The Irishman in theater. And no way I would have saw Snyder’s JL cut in theater, though it was made for tv. But, all the LotR movies (theatrical cuts), Endgame, those are without hesitation and have yet to be disappointed, not counting the prequel Hobbit movies.

I only care about the runtime of a movie on a per-movie basis. Some movies have that epic feel which is welcome to a long runtime (i.e. the Lord of the Rings films; Ben-Hur; The Good, The Bad and the Ugly). However, sometimes more is less.

A great example is It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. While I love the film, I grew up with it at its theatrical runtime of 161 minutes and at that length I love it. I know that's a long haul for a comedy but it felt right. But every restoration effort I've seen since, including the Criterion 197-minute cut is a real chore to work through. Don't think I would have made it through the original 210 minute cut, honestly.

I have absolutely no issue with the runtime of a movie when I'm watching it at home. I can pause for piss breaks, or a snack break, or if I just need to get up for one reason or another. But if a movie is going to run 2½ to 3+ hrs. in a movie theater, they need to schedule an intermission (like they did in the middle of 2001: A Space Odyssey) so people can use the bathroom or just stretch their legs for a minute. I probably wouldn't have an issue, but it would be nice just the same.

For a long movie? No, though, I think roughly 3 hours is the longest I’ve sat through a movie in the theater.

Now, I may choose to skip the theater if the movie runs short. I’m not sure I want to pay theater ticket prices for an 84 minute movie. I’ll wait until it’s available to rent at that length.

So far I’ve chosen to stay home for those long marathons of movies (Marvel, LotR, Star Wars, etc.) At a certain point they become endurance tests and are no longer fun.

I do have issue with the long runtime of current films, for several reasons. Most importantly, so much running time in films is wasted on fluff, making statements, lame emoting with characters, and other garbage. Not to mention most modern films are bloated with a full 10 minutes of credits, listing everything and every animal used in production, etc. No one's too "tiny" to be left out. So, to me a good movie runtine is between 90 to 100 minutes, as it was for decades from the 1950s to the 1990s. The "epic" films have to be an exception to my rule. Some of the epics of the 1960s were FAR too long and plodding, but, still, they had few "wasted" moments or fluff. There was mostly meat, and a lot of story to tell, which one got bogged down and often bored in following.

Further, a horror film can be easily told in 80-85 minutes, while a drama can and should run a little longer, to 100 minutes or so. NOT 120, 130, or 150 minutes as many 2000-2020 films have been needlessly padded to.

Considering the price of tickets, I want a movie I see in a theater to be a decent length (100 min +), but at the same time overlong movies (140+) can get tedious.

Longer movies definitely need to bring back intermissions. BladeRunner 2049 could have used one.

I care about runtimes in general. Once they get above 120 minutes, I expect a movie to justify needing all that time to tell its story. Most of them don't.

For example, if Scorsese had edited another 15 or 20 minutes out of Wolf of Wall Street, it still would have effectively portrayed wretched excess.

In my opinion there are movies which are unnecessary long, most Judd Apatow movies, but if a movie uses its time well, I don't mind a long runtime. The Longest I sad in a theater was back when Scream 3 was released and I watched the trilogy in one night and on election night 2004 I watched The Manchurian Canidate and Team America back to back.

I'm curious about runtimes but, ultimately, really doesn't matter.

I’m all for intermissions but unless the movie is over 3 hours (probably closer to 3 1/2 hours) I’d worry that an intermission would ruin the flow. I’m not sure I’d want to take a break right as the movie is ramping up.

I think the last movie I saw with an intermission was Malcolm X when I saw it on a school trip in Junior High. And to be honest, I’m not sure that was an intended intermission or something the school requested.

BR2049 was like 2:44, that’s close enough. And there’s a natural narrative break when

Mostly in terms of planning - dinner before or after, etc.
I would like if really long movies had an intermission, at an appropriate time, but usually if we have to take a break, you can sometimes tell when a good time is.
I never think to check it, but RunPee guides you to the 'best' times to well, run and pee.
A long movie can be surprisingly 'short', and a short movie can be surprisingly 'long', depending on how good and immersive they are. But in terms of an actual X-min good, Y-min bad, no.

I really only worry about runtimes if I'm going to a late movie. If my friend asks me to go to a movie at 10PM or later (as he often does) and gives me the choice between a 90 minute movie or a 150 minute movie, I'm going to choose the 90 minute movie 10 times out of 10.

Notes from my first viewing of THE HATEFUL EIGHT, 175 min. with a 12-minute intermission, at a theater in 2016:

And notes from my theatrical viewing of THE IRISHMAN (209 min.) in 2019:

I saw Blade Runner 2049 in the theater on it's opening Thursday night at 11pm after having dinner and 2 beers. Let's just say that doesn't work well with a really long 164 minute movie that late. I completely fell asleep for 3/4 of the movie and woke up in the last act.

I had to go back and see the movie again 2 weeks later.

I was dating a woman at the time when Titanic was released and she begged me to take her. Halfway through, I was like, hit the iceberg and be done with it! I had hurt my back at work earlier that day and I was in no mood to see a three hour and thirty minute film.

Something, something, rated R and 2 hours.

But seriously, I take note of runtime, but the only time it matters is I need the movie to fit into a specific window of time. On more than a couple of occasions, I have watched a movie simply because the start time/run time worked for my schedule.

Insert obligatory Roger Ebert quote here.

Judd Apatow hasn't been remotely interesting until he decided he wanted to become James L Brooks and assume the mantle of an "important comedy filmmaker"... and accordingly his films' runtimes have caterwauled into bloated excess. AND at the same time, become startlingly unfunny.

On the other film, an epic film that can sustain its 150-210 minute runtimes are objects of beauty.

In the end, as always, it depends on the film... or perhaps, the filmmakers.

Directors should get final cut but they need a producer and editor willing to tell them when a cut is too long.

I love long movies, but length has only become an issue as I've gotten older. I remember my wife and I squirming in our seats during the last 30 minutes of Endgame and then making a mad, stumbling dash to the bathroom after the last clang of the end credits. I've learned to manage my liquid intake better, but with covid now the pause button allows me to watch The Snyder Cut with ease.

Pacing for me is far more important, but I do think most films need to be tighter, especially "epics". I have no problem getting up in the middle of a film and going to the bathroom and as soon as those credits hit, I dip. But I've definitely taken a look at start times for a movie and thought "I don't want to be in the theater for that long".

I only care if I have to be at work or up early the next day. I've pretty much given up on theaters in my area anyway though.

In the before time, I would take into account the runtime of the movie to maximize my theater hopping.

For me, it depends on the movie and how much I'm willing to invest. For something I'm excited to see I couldn't care less about its length, but if it's something I'm ambivalent about I do consider run time. For instance, while I kind of wanted to see Aquaman, I couldn't get past the 2.5-hour duration. And given the quality of the DC flicks up until then it was even more difficult to swallow.