Decent Movies "Hurt" by Long Run Times

Yes, been toying with this idea as it comes up quite often. There ought to be a list.

One that comes to mind since it was recently discussed was Devil's Advocate (1997) which was a good movie, but could have been a great movie if it didn't have a run time of 2 hr. 24 min. Shave about a half hour off this movie and it would have been so much better.

Another was King Kong (2005) - this remake was very loyal to the original & was pretty good, but WAY TOO LONG at a whopping 3 hr. 7 min.!!! The movie took a painfully long time with exposition and covering backstories of characters who were killed off by the middle of the film. (Why?) Exceptional special effects that were butt hurt by people's butts literally hurting from sitting over 3 hours (and well over an hour before you even saw any giant gorillas or dinosaurs!)

Totally agree about King Kong, though I was not as bothered by the running time as I was by the fact that Kong didn't appear until NINETY minutes into the movie.


On the same subject, two directors whose films have always been hurt by overlength:

Spike Lee

Taylor Hackford

Can't agree with Devil's Advocate, I feel the movie it's perfect the way it is!

I think THE HOBBIT trilogy was hurtet by its long duration, sometimes it fells like they just want to match its length with TLotR.

I agree with Spike Lee.

The first hour of King Kong was the best, IMO. I'd like to seen that expanded to 2 hours, and then not be about King Kong. Don't get me wrong King Kong is a great story, but the original is all I need.

I haven't seen it yet, but I've been told that Avengers: Endgame is way too long, and the story is dragged out, and it could have been told in about half the time.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

The Deer Hunter (1978) 3hr 3min.

I was going to say the The Deer Hunter as well. There is a good movie around 105 minutes in there maybe, and they needs to have off 75 minutes at least.

I actually like King Kong and for some reason the exposition doesn't bother me. I think they wanted us to care about the killed off characters more? But if Apocalypse Now is allowed to have exposition for supporting characters, than why not a movie like King Kong?

I actually felt the setup of depression era NYC and the steamer worked very well but as with the Hobbit films Jackson became a bit excessive with the action. We didn't need stuff like the dino stampede or Ann being chased by various beasties, the T-rex fight and the spider pit is enough.

That probably wouldn't be much difference in runtime, maybe only 5-10 mins less but the problem for me was more the action became a bit deadening.

Latter years Marty is a pretty common offender for me, Casino, Gangs of NY, the Aviator and the Departed could all have done with a good amount of cutting.

I didn't feel the length of Marty, or Casino, but I totally agree regarding The Gangs of New York and I can see an argument for The Aviator.

Casino perhaps less so than the others as it was generally interesting but I think 20-30 mins shorter could have made for a more focused film.

The problem with a lot of his latter films for me is that they seem to be trapped between being snappier genre pictures and the kind of extended bio epics of his earlier years.

I think @MoreOrLess was referring to Martin Scorsese (when they said "Marty") and not the classic 1955 movie starring Ernest Borgnine titled "Marty" (which, btw, had a modest run time of 1 hr., 30 min.)

Thanks for clarufying because I didn't remember Marty being that long...as for Scorsese, the only other film besides Gangs of his that I really "feel" the length is New York New York

Django Unchained

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

The main problem for me is that it becomes a simpler revenge film with a pretty bland hero when Waltz is killed, prior to that it didn't feel over long to me.

I finally thought of one....Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). That's a film that needs an 'Editor's Cut'....cut say 20 minutes from it and it would be a much tighter film.


Sorry Captain

Am I the only one not bothered by the long runtime of King Kong (2005)? I feel that the first hour of the movie is to develop the characters more, kind of like how in Titanic (1997), they wanted to develop the characters before the ship sank. Why is it that people were not bothered by having to develop the characters first in Titanic, compared to King Kong.

To say why spend time on characters who are just going to die anyway, it's the same thing with Titanic, isn't?

I find the extended 2OO1 style sequences the main reason to watch the film though, its weakess is IMHO more that its rather characterless compared to the series and the sequels and arguably would have been better off as a non Trek sci fi film.

In this case, you are right (I mean KING KONG). But there are films that are worth watching for 3 hours.

I never felt bored in this movie which is a good indication to me that it isn't to long

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

The Devil's Advocate, Casino, The Aviator and The Departed didn't feel too long at all for me. All of them had me hooked throughout. Casino I couldn't even tell was 3 hours long since it moved at such a no-nonsense pace, not a single scene ever came close to being boring.

One movie I feel was pushing the running time was Andrei Rublev. It was the first time watching a Tarkovsky movie where I struggled to stay engaged at times. Although I do like it, I think it could have been better if it was edited together more compactly.