Reply to Topic
I am talking about movies (not tv mini-series) or films that are episodic. (Jean de Florette and Manon of the Spring.) I would call a film long if it were over 2 hr and 10 minutes, although some would find 2 hr to be stretching it. I understand that there are physical issues that come into play if a movie is too long without an intermission, but since many of us are at home when we watch films, it seams that you can create your own intermission.
It seems to me that a good movie that runs for 2:10-2:30 seems much shorter than some movies In stead of taking an opportunity to name every film know of that I like that is over 2 hr and 10 min, I'll just start with one. I'll list the movie, the run time, and my opinion about what the writer, director, etc. did to make a longer film work. I'll say up front, that I enjoy films that develop their characters and take extra time to do so. That is a general factor on why I like longer movies.
The first film I would mention would be The Godfather pt 1 It was released in 1972 by Francis Ford Copola and it was 175 minutes (just shy of three hours). This is a good film to make my point about character development. The movie is set primarily in NY City between the late 1940's until the Senate hearings on the mafia, which was early on in Kennedy's administration. I was ready for the Godfather pt. II before the first movie was even over. i was also one of those who had high hopes for pt. III before it was apparent that Copola and Puzio were not going to put the same effort into the story for pt. 3. Even though I did not like pt 3, it was not its length that killed it but its tendency to make a cliche of he first two movies, and some of the casting decisions. They should have brought Robert Duval back, and not have cast Sofia Copola. Thus I would say that the first two Godfather films would be excellent examples of what a long film can do on the positive side, and pt. III is a good example of how much suffering a bad long film can inflict.
I have numerous films to mention, but i will see if anybody else wants to take a shot at some of my favorite long movies, before I list them all.
It seems to me that a good movie that runs for 2:10-2:30 seems much shorter than some movies In stead of taking an opportunity to name every film know of that I like that is over 2 hr and 10 min, I'll just start with one. I'll list the movie, the run time, and my opinion about what the writer, director, etc. did to make a longer film work. I'll say up front, that I enjoy films that develop their characters and take extra time to do so. That is a general factor on why I like longer movies.
The first film I would mention would be The Godfather pt 1 It was released in 1972 by Francis Ford Copola and it was 175 minutes (just shy of three hours). This is a good film to make my point about character development. The movie is set primarily in NY City between the late 1940's until the Senate hearings on the mafia, which was early on in Kennedy's administration. I was ready for the Godfather pt. II before the first movie was even over. i was also one of those who had high hopes for pt. III before it was apparent that Copola and Puzio were not going to put the same effort into the story for pt. 3. Even though I did not like pt 3, it was not its length that killed it but its tendency to make a cliche of he first two movies, and some of the casting decisions. They should have brought Robert Duval back, and not have cast Sofia Copola. Thus I would say that the first two Godfather films would be excellent examples of what a long film can do on the positive side, and pt. III is a good example of how much suffering a bad long film can inflict.
I have numerous films to mention, but i will see if anybody else wants to take a shot at some of my favorite long movies, before I list them all.
