I was asking people around me what was good about Oppenheimer, nobody knew. Personally I didn’t like it, (there is a thing if you don’t like it you’re weird). Seriously if anyone told me what was good about it, I’m all ears.
I think the worst part about long movies to me is the lack of an intermission. With tv shows i can stop it and be like "wow that was a crazy episode, i can't believe he kicked his best friend off of his boat and left him in the ocean" but with movies there's always a point of progress that hasn't been made that they'rs focusing on, and it's difficult to find a hopping off point to reflect on what's happened thus far.
Exactly! I think it's a lot easier to reflect on a story when you have time to think about it in between episodes. With movies you're forced to experience the entire story at once and it can become a jumbled mess. Of course, it's all about how the story is told too.
Here in India intermission is compulsory for all the films, if it's a foreign film they'll cut it randomly near the halfway point so it's a little annoying but convenient at the same time
@@ryan-jamisonhow can you expect someone to take you seriously in an critique-like essayed video, when all your retrospective about a (long) movie boils down to 'all i remember is that guy in a pool talking about teletubbies & bla bla bla' without dissecting any of the movie's story, writing, characters, thematic processes & themes in a form as a subject matter etc.
@@ryan-jamison& couple that with shallow & superficial false equivalence, in correspondence of the comparison to movies that are similar, & how the other excels it because it's (implicitly) practically the same & it's shorter... therefore it excels the former. also, the 'getting to the point' can be about the long-lasting journey or run time of a 'long movie' that's part of its progression itself, & not the 'i wish it'll just progress to the point so it can fill that progression'... thats why the comparison with movies & shows aren't exact, even if they're within the essence of the medium that they work in, which is essentially the same but both can exemplify different sorts of ways, that both can navigate towards to itself, by its subdivision of the same medium that movies & TV shows are in.
It's beyond cliché to blame all of cinema's problems on Marvel. However, I can't help but notice Hollywood really began to drag out it's films after Avengers: Endgame. You see this problem in a lot of franchise films like Way of Water or John Wick 4 in which the cast of characters the film gives time to and that you're expected to care about is so bloated that you end up not remembering any of them. That's why I quite like the Irishman, it's tighter cast means I have infinitely more to say about Frank Sheeran then for example anyone but Keanu Reeves in John Wick 4 or any of the blue people who's name no one remembers in the new Avatar. It feels like some franchise films are more interested in setting up reusable characters for the next sequel then to actually tell a digestible story. But that's probably only a small part of the problem.
I definitely think Marvel movies have had some impact on runtimes now. I’m not sure whether it’s a way to resist formulaic studio films (like Scorsese) or because studio execs believe people will sit through them for franchises they like (John Wick), but I do see the impact here. I can understand why you like The Irishman though, because it feels like it has more soul than something like Thor: Love and Thunder. And maybe I was too harsh on it in this vid. To be honest, 9 times out of 10 I’d choose a film like Killers Of The Flower Moon over some of the stuff Marvel has put out recently. But I still feel films like The Irishman or KOTFM could’ve benefited from being a limited series instead.
so if a movie was great but the only issue you had with it was that some scenes were unnecessary and extended what was already a long run time does that mean your concern is invalid?
@@fletchercottle32 you can always appreciate many good films with few scenes you really don't like. And what directors cook is necessary. Myb not fir you and me but definitely for them. Cuz you know it's their vision to tell stories.
@@emidio6031In absoluto terms, You get the point but in relative ones, you don't 'cause if you establish yourself (or to someone else) make a good film, *you* *can't* add (or rest) anything irrelevant to what you're filmmaking.
Honestly, I don't see the issue with "long movies", as long as they're well written and well directed, and I think that's definitely the case with Killers of the Flower Moon. Furthermore, I don't really think you have to remember every single scene or plot point of something to get enjoyment out of it or for it to make an impact on you, I think understanding the themes of a film is way more important. Once Upon a Time in America, The Godfather Part II, Malcolm X, The Hatefuk Eight are all over three hours and are all incredible films. My favourite film of all time, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, is nearly three hours long and it's still one of the best pieces of media I've ever had the chance to experience. It's not about the length, it's about how you use it to convey a story and a theme, and I believe Scorsese succeeded with Killers of the Flower Moon. On the other hand, Avatar 2 definitely didn't need to be this long, it feels empty, and the story is so simple and bland that I don't see any reason for it to be longer than 1h and 30m. And Zack Snyder's Justice League is plain and simple garbage, I wouldn't like it if it was ten minutes long, forget FOUR HOURS, I can barely call it a movie honestly, feels more similiar to testicular cancer.
some of my fav movies are really long, like the first two Godfathers, Casino, Apocalypse Now, and a few others. But you're definitely right about how a lot of shorter movies are more artistic and show more, movies like Memento or A Fistful of Dollars are movies I love where I feel really connected and enthralled by every moment. Also, some long movies suffer from really poor dialogue, like the avatars, which leads to me being bored and caring very little
I do enjoy some of the long movies such as Oppenheimer, Schindler's List, Titanic, Killers of the Flower Moon, Apocalypse Now Redux Version, Wolf of Wall Street, etc.
One of my favorite movies of the last decade, Top Gun Maverick was a masterful example of good pacing. I'd love to see a breakdown of that movie on your channel. You're killin it.
I find it interesting that you mentioned Endgame "can't be too long" (more or less) but Killers of the Flower Moon was. I find the exact opposite is true. Sitting through a comic book movie or an Avatar becomes tedious because it's just CGI "slop" eventually, but a more well created meaningful movie, while a little long, at least feels like a decent investment. Specifically comic book movies in general tend to almost always be two and a half hours long. Why? Make a two hour one. Hell, show us you can make a 90‐100 minute one. That would be impressive and entertaining.
There’s nothing wrong with not enjoying long movies. However, that’s not to say that long movies haven’t existed or are growing in number now . Not all, but many of the all time greats have lengthy runtimes from ben-hur, godfather 1+2, lawrence of arabia, seven samurai, even more recent examples like titanic, and LOTR. I’m not saying long movies will ALWAYS be better than shorter movies, but if a movie is great, why not spend a long time in its world?. There are MANY movies 100 minutes or two hours that I feel drag… it’s less about the runtime and more about the craft of the movie: pacing, editing, etc. If it does all these right, it doesn’t matter if a film is two hours, 3, or 80 minutes. Will I watch every 3 hour film? Will I enjoy every single one immediately just because they’re long? NOPE. But, long films will always have their place.
If the movie is good, no issue. Good movies also tend to have good pacing so that helps massively with longer films. If the movie sucks and or lulls throughout the runtime, then probably not so good. Long movies do seem to make up nearly all of the greatest movies (via ratings) and highest box office. I think it's as simple as long movies can fit a lot more of everything. More characters, more dialogue, more action set pieces, more drama, more of everything. None of that means a movie will be good but when done well (Lord of the Rings), it becomes clear certain types of movies could never be 1 hour 45 minutes.
Film needs its version of the Ramones. They made fast punchy songs rarely over 2 1/2 minutes. They knew when to end their songs. There are long songs that I like, November Rain for instance, that song was as long as it was because Axl Rose needed it to be that long. A lot of modern movies are more like In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida which was 17 minutes long because it could be.
I think this long video its more an example of a decay in attention span than of the quality of long movies. Also, i dont belive "long movie" is a cattegory in his own right. There is some some short movies that sucks, others are grate, the are AMAZING "long movies", and there are trashy long ass movies. If the run time per se is for you a indication of the quality or engagement a movie has, well, thats a you problem i guess.
I don't know man, I have to say that long movies fo have an impact sometimes. Take The Godfather II. I don't know how they did it but, even without Marlon Brando, they made a compelling, 3 hour long gangster film. Perhaps its the dact they showed 2 stories at once that helped. Or take Seven Samurai. A three hour long epic in every way. Theu explore the need for ronin samurai, the greed among ronin for money, and the hypocrisy of the samurai, all in three hours. These are great films and I didnt even know were three hours long until I paused and looked at the runtime. Even then, when it was over, I still wanted to see more. I see where youre coming from, but personally, I dont think long movies are "overrated".
I haven’t seen Killers of The Flower moon yet, and I’ve been hesitant too for exactly the reasons you pointed out in this video. After watching the Irishman I became way more cautious with longer films, even from established directors.
Avatar: The Way Of Water doesn’t have enough story to justify its 3 hr runtime. My issue with the runtime is not that it’s 3 hrs but that it doesn’t justify its runtime it was the most boring movie I’ve ever seen in theaters. James Cameron is a true visionary filmmaker but I feel like the Avatar franchise would’ve been better as a book series if James Cameron wasn’t a filmmaker but rather an author I could see the Avatar series being bestsellers and with The Way Of Water he could make the book as long as he wants and the reader could take as long as they wanted to read it. I have nothing against James Cameron or the cast and crew of the Avatar series this is just my opinion
I respect your opinion, but when I finished the Irishman I thought about it more and more, so I’ve watched it again. I think this is what great cinema looks like. at the start you may don’t like it, heck I’ve hate it, but it sticks with you. I thought the same thing about a lot of other Scorsese movies like raging bull, goodfellas, the age of innocent all great movies that you realy need to think about. (BTW I thing killers of the flower moon is over heated but it’s still can be like two hours, so I see the point) (Sorry for bad English)
Agree with most your points but I actually prefer longer movies it lets moments set in more, even silence & scenery is impactful it lets moments linger longer
A movie is too long as soon as the viewer starts thinking about how long it is instead of being fully engaged with the film. The numerical runtime doesn't matter: a 90 minute movie can be just as too long as a three-and-a-half-hour movie. The reverse is true as well: a film that keeps you nailed to your seat can make hour after hour vanish into thin air. Films like Inception, TENET, and Dune 2 range from 2.5 hours to nearly 3, but you don't notice because they keep you engaged. Inception and TENET do it by being very tightly-written films, where nearly every scene is pulling double or triple duty with some combination of action/exposition, characterization, and/or spectacle. Dune 2 does it by being set up in an almost 'serial' format: it's a chain of smaller three-or-four act narratives going from one goal to the next (while setting up the next goal), within the frame of a larger multi-act structure and overarching narrative - rather like what you said about TV shows and miniseries. Apocalypse Now (3:22 for the director's cut) does it by simply hammering the viewer almost continuously with scenes that are each either bombastic or disturb the viewer in their own special way. The film just does not let up. Even its 'downtime' moments have an edge to them given the context they're placed in. There's one more problem with long-running films that you almost touched on: being allowed to make a 2.5+ hour film is often the sign of a director who has so much pull or 'Hollywood cred' that they're unrestrained in other ways as well, and even the greatest directors are prone to self-indulgence when they've got so much clout that nobody can tell them "no", which has a risk of leading to films that meander and include a lot of stuff that could have been written out or cut without harming the film, making it feel too long. 1980's Heaven's Gate (3.5 hours) is probably the classic example here, and its flop is part of what led to Hollywood putting its directors on much tighter leashes for several decades, especially in terms of runtime. We're seeing the pendulum swing back from that, and it will probably swing again.
Any movie over 1.5 hours is a long film. Like for me I can't get a drink during a 2h+ film otherwise I have to leak half way through. And if that is posible without missing part of the film it is not worth paying as much.
When rewatching Zack Snyders JUSTICE LEAGUE, a 4h 20m movie, I only lost interest within the last 20 minutes, feeling they should´ve cut only 20 minutes of the gigantic runtime. At the same time, however, while watching Petite Maman, a 1h 13m 2021 french film, I was bored throughout, feeling like the film lacked any meaningful conflict and was kind of just meandering about. At the end of 1h 13m nothing had happened. To me the length of the runtime of a film inherently does not matter nearly as much as what is done with that runtime!
This is my second video I've watched on your channel and as it's 8months old, you probably won't see this comment but I believe this is the first time when I feel that sincerity in "thanks for watching". Maybe it's because I fell in love with these kind of videos, with your videos. So, thanks for creating some content
I was a huge fan of the first Avatar movie. I'd watched it countless times, played the videogames, read the books, been to the amusement park etc. So in my heavily biased opinion, Way of Water's runtime was barely worth the years of waiting for it 😂
Worse when they stretch it with unnecessary boring scenes like some lame chit chat scenes that has little to no effect on overall movie. In fact much of favourite movies are of relatively long duration.
Scorsese makes movies of multiple lengths.Forgot Taxi driver?It depends on the story. You can't just miss out important elements. Story build-up is important.And I thought you understood this as you did in your Invincible/Boys video.
It depends a movie is to long when scenes dont move the story forward or further character development, but if it does that it can be 4 hours and a masterpiece. Theres a mix of lack of attetnion too.. and today many say movies are long when in fact not every movie needs to have fast pacing and still tell a very good story.. the only time amovie is too long is with scenes that arent needed and are just filler to fill the length out. But if someone has lack of attention then its not the movies fault its theirs.
I blame franchise movies. Its like they go in with the idea of longer=better. It's like a sense of entitlement of "this is gonna be an epic movie, so it needs to be long." Instead of just making a really fun 98-minute movie. It's just self-masturbating at that point.
My personal opinion is that long films are not a bad thing or unenjoyable, they are a challenge to the studio. Great moviemakers can do longer movies if they can retain the tention/flow through this longer run time. There is a reason that longer true story movies (like oppenheimer) aren't noted for their long run time, because the tention is easier to hold (true events and that). I will say, I don't know what voodoo was used in the creation of the Seven Samurai. That uses black magic to hold your attention.
I saw Killers of the Flower Moons twice in cinema and have watched it since a third. It's entirely fantastic. Its atmosphere is amazing and its plot very engaging.
You can tell a great story in 2h lenght. Some great story needs to have 3 or 3,5h lenght. Yes, Irishman is not good movie (same goes for Avatar 2 or John Wick 4) but Killers of the Flower Moon is fcking masterpiece in every sense. Every story have ideal lenght.
Long movies are overrated? If anything they are underrated. Most people on the internet always say that movies should be shorter for some reason. And I'm sorry, but I don't like this video. It just sounds like you didn't like The Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon and you put every long movie in the same bag If you don't like a long movie, the issue isn't the runtime, it's something else about the making of the story. No good movie is short enough, and no bad movie is long enough.
They are long movies that are great and short movies that are great. Godfather 1 and 2, eternity and a day, once upon a time in america, the good the bad and the ugly, lawrence of arabia, ben hur, underground.
You are approching movies wrong. A movie that is too long is a movie where it just stops doing new things. It doesn't add conflict. It just meanders with no point to it. Holding shots too long, making characters who serve the same purpose, or simply having no coherence. The actual critique in a movie being too long is entirely separated from the actual runtime. I have seen 80 minute movie that were too long and I have seen 4 hour movies I was dreading the end credits. If you go into a movie that is long and looking to justify its runtime you will lose. There is no justification. There is no reason any movie needs a single minute. No reason other than artistic intent. If you are Marty Scorcese and you make Killers of the Flowermoon to be a breezy fun blockbuster then yeah it is too long. But if you want the audience to feel bad for the Osage tribe and think about all the other people who are being opressed by the entire community they live in? Then you nailed it.
If I like your characters I always want to spend more time with them not less. And if I don't like them then I'm not gonna care what your deeper artistic "point" is. This obsession with Efficiency is purely a product of Capitalism. Film Schools spend generation drumming into film makers brains the value of being as quick and to the point as possible so they get shorter runtimes and thus more showings per screen to maximize profits. Now Streaming is making it easier to make more longer films but reactionaries keep treating it as a bad thing.
I think longer movies are always better!!! Ive never seen a single 3 hour movie that was bad.....ever !!!!! Except for Avatar & Marvel universe movies but those don't count because they are all 🗑️ anyway & complete make believe !!!! If u have a short attention span then just take short break otherwise go get a bigger brain!!!! 😂
Oppenheimers runtime flew by like nothing
Oppenheimer 100% gets a pass for being a bit long. Nolan used every second of screen time really well.
See with Nolan he’s very very big of time in his films, if there’s a bomb that goes off in 5 minutes, he’ll actually used 5 minutes of screen time.
LoTR's as well
I was asking people around me what was good about Oppenheimer, nobody knew.
Personally I didn’t like it, (there is a thing if you don’t like it you’re weird). Seriously if anyone told me what was good about it, I’m all ears.
@@Mysteryz-li2pwcan't say the same for John Wick 4(stair way fight reference)
I think the worst part about long movies to me is the lack of an intermission. With tv shows i can stop it and be like "wow that was a crazy episode, i can't believe he kicked his best friend off of his boat and left him in the ocean" but with movies there's always a point of progress that hasn't been made that they'rs focusing on, and it's difficult to find a hopping off point to reflect on what's happened thus far.
Exactly! I think it's a lot easier to reflect on a story when you have time to think about it in between episodes. With movies you're forced to experience the entire story at once and it can become a jumbled mess. Of course, it's all about how the story is told too.
Back in the day we had intermissions for anything 3 hours or longer
Here in India intermission is compulsory for all the films, if it's a foreign film they'll cut it randomly near the halfway point so it's a little annoying but convenient at the same time
@@ryan-jamisonhow can you expect someone to take you seriously in an critique-like essayed video, when all your retrospective about a (long) movie boils down to 'all i remember is that guy in a pool talking about teletubbies & bla bla bla' without dissecting any of the movie's story, writing, characters, thematic processes & themes in a form as a subject matter etc.
@@ryan-jamison& couple that with shallow & superficial false equivalence, in correspondence of the comparison to movies that are similar, & how the other excels it because it's (implicitly) practically the same & it's shorter... therefore it excels the former.
also, the 'getting to the point' can be about the long-lasting journey or run time of a 'long movie' that's part of its progression itself, & not the 'i wish it'll just progress to the point so it can fill that progression'...
thats why the comparison with movies & shows aren't exact, even if they're within the essence of the medium that they work in, which is essentially the same but both can exemplify different sorts of ways, that both can navigate towards to itself, by its subdivision of the same medium that movies & TV shows are in.
Then there's movies that are 5 or 6 hours plus, but they're split into 2 movies. They cheatin.
It's beyond cliché to blame all of cinema's problems on Marvel. However, I can't help but notice Hollywood really began to drag out it's films after Avengers: Endgame. You see this problem in a lot of franchise films like Way of Water or John Wick 4 in which the cast of characters the film gives time to and that you're expected to care about is so bloated that you end up not remembering any of them. That's why I quite like the Irishman, it's tighter cast means I have infinitely more to say about Frank Sheeran then for example anyone but Keanu Reeves in John Wick 4 or any of the blue people who's name no one remembers in the new Avatar. It feels like some franchise films are more interested in setting up reusable characters for the next sequel then to actually tell a digestible story. But that's probably only a small part of the problem.
I definitely think Marvel movies have had some impact on runtimes now. I’m not sure whether it’s a way to resist formulaic studio films (like Scorsese) or because studio execs believe people will sit through them for franchises they like (John Wick), but I do see the impact here. I can understand why you like The Irishman though, because it feels like it has more soul than something like Thor: Love and Thunder. And maybe I was too harsh on it in this vid. To be honest, 9 times out of 10 I’d choose a film like Killers Of The Flower Moon over some of the stuff Marvel has put out recently. But I still feel films like The Irishman or KOTFM could’ve benefited from being a limited series instead.
Alright John wick 4 was great but I agree with anyone else
Marvel makes ONE 3 hr long movie and you blame them for long runtimes in Hollywood 😂😂😂😂😂 You just want to blame them for anything
2001: A Space Odyssey running at two and a half hours had an intermission
They should definitely bring back the intermission for movies like that
@@luisn642 yes Oppenheimer and The Batman
1000% disagree. No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough. enough said.
so if a movie was great but the only issue you had with it was that some scenes were unnecessary and extended what was already a long run time does that mean your concern is invalid?
@@fletchercottle32there's no such thing as "unnecessary" in cinema, nothing is really necessary, art has no reason to have a purpose
@@fletchercottle32 you can always appreciate many good films with few scenes you really don't like. And what directors cook is necessary. Myb not fir you and me but definitely for them. Cuz you know it's their vision to tell stories.
@@emidio6031In absoluto terms, You get the point but in relative ones, you don't 'cause if you establish yourself (or to someone else) make a good film, *you* *can't* add (or rest) anything irrelevant to what you're filmmaking.
@@whysoserious652 nice take
Honestly, I don't see the issue with "long movies", as long as they're well written and well directed, and I think that's definitely the case with Killers of the Flower Moon. Furthermore, I don't really think you have to remember every single scene or plot point of something to get enjoyment out of it or for it to make an impact on you, I think understanding the themes of a film is way more important. Once Upon a Time in America, The Godfather Part II, Malcolm X, The Hatefuk Eight are all over three hours and are all incredible films. My favourite film of all time, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, is nearly three hours long and it's still one of the best pieces of media I've ever had the chance to experience. It's not about the length, it's about how you use it to convey a story and a theme, and I believe Scorsese succeeded with Killers of the Flower Moon. On the other hand, Avatar 2 definitely didn't need to be this long, it feels empty, and the story is so simple and bland that I don't see any reason for it to be longer than 1h and 30m. And Zack Snyder's Justice League is plain and simple garbage, I wouldn't like it if it was ten minutes long, forget FOUR HOURS, I can barely call it a movie honestly, feels more similiar to testicular cancer.
some of my fav movies are really long, like the first two Godfathers, Casino, Apocalypse Now, and a few others. But you're definitely right about how a lot of shorter movies are more artistic and show more, movies like Memento or A Fistful of Dollars are movies I love where I feel really connected and enthralled by every moment. Also, some long movies suffer from really poor dialogue, like the avatars, which leads to me being bored and caring very little
Fantastic video man. Lots of great points made
your video essays are so good and deserve SO much more recognition. I love them. Keep doing what you’re doing
You are too underrated. You are speaking the truth not gonna lie. Nice job man. You have earned my sub
Thank you, man. I appreciate it 🙏🏻
I do enjoy some of the long movies such as Oppenheimer, Schindler's List, Titanic, Killers of the Flower Moon, Apocalypse Now Redux Version, Wolf of Wall Street, etc.
One of my favorite movies of the last decade, Top Gun Maverick was a masterful example of good pacing. I'd love to see a breakdown of that movie on your channel. You're killin it.
I find it interesting that you mentioned Endgame "can't be too long" (more or less) but Killers of the Flower Moon was. I find the exact opposite is true. Sitting through a comic book movie or an Avatar becomes tedious because it's just CGI "slop" eventually, but a more well created meaningful movie, while a little long, at least feels like a decent investment. Specifically comic book movies in general tend to almost always be two and a half hours long. Why? Make a two hour one. Hell, show us you can make a 90‐100 minute one. That would be impressive and entertaining.
Hmm what about Gone with the Wind?
yeah you are definitely not the target audience for film at all. prefering short movies because of your bad attention span should be a crime
15 years of repetitive Marvel is longer than a 2hrs original movie made by real artist.
There’s nothing wrong with not enjoying long movies. However, that’s not to say that long movies haven’t existed or are growing in number now . Not all, but many of the all time greats have lengthy runtimes from ben-hur, godfather 1+2, lawrence of arabia, seven samurai, even more recent examples like titanic, and LOTR. I’m not saying long movies will ALWAYS be better than shorter movies, but if a movie is great, why not spend a long time in its world?. There are MANY movies 100 minutes or two hours that I feel drag… it’s less about the runtime and more about the craft of the movie: pacing, editing, etc. If it does all these right, it doesn’t matter if a film is two hours, 3, or 80 minutes. Will I watch every 3 hour film? Will I enjoy every single one immediately just because they’re long? NOPE. But, long films will always have their place.
This video is too long, I'm not watching that
6 words, Once Upon a Time In America
Underrated comment
You are such a underrated TH-camr keep up the amazing content keep up the good work! ❤
If the movie is good, no issue. Good movies also tend to have good pacing so that helps massively with longer films. If the movie sucks and or lulls throughout the runtime, then probably not so good. Long movies do seem to make up nearly all of the greatest movies (via ratings) and highest box office. I think it's as simple as long movies can fit a lot more of everything. More characters, more dialogue, more action set pieces, more drama, more of everything. None of that means a movie will be good but when done well (Lord of the Rings), it becomes clear certain types of movies could never be 1 hour 45 minutes.
Film needs its version of the Ramones. They made fast punchy songs rarely over 2 1/2 minutes. They knew when to end their songs. There are long songs that I like, November Rain for instance, that song was as long as it was because Axl Rose needed it to be that long. A lot of modern movies are more like In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida which was 17 minutes long because it could be.
I think this long video its more an example of a decay in attention span than of the quality of long movies. Also, i dont belive "long movie" is a cattegory in his own right. There is some some short movies that sucks, others are grate, the are AMAZING "long movies", and there are trashy long ass movies. If the run time per se is for you a indication of the quality or engagement a movie has, well, thats a you problem i guess.
Thumbnail on point, Avatar-2 & Martin Scorsese which i believe is for his latest "Killers of the flower moon", i slept in theatre during both movies.
I watched ''More" because of this and loved it
I don't know man, I have to say that long movies fo have an impact sometimes. Take The Godfather II. I don't know how they did it but, even without Marlon Brando, they made a compelling, 3 hour long gangster film. Perhaps its the dact they showed 2 stories at once that helped. Or take Seven Samurai. A three hour long epic in every way. Theu explore the need for ronin samurai, the greed among ronin for money, and the hypocrisy of the samurai, all in three hours. These are great films and I didnt even know were three hours long until I paused and looked at the runtime. Even then, when it was over, I still wanted to see more. I see where youre coming from, but personally, I dont think long movies are "overrated".
1900 with DeNiro is 5 hours
I haven’t seen Killers of The Flower moon yet, and I’ve been hesitant too for exactly the reasons you pointed out in this video.
After watching the Irishman I became way more cautious with longer films, even from established directors.
Avatar: The Way Of Water doesn’t have enough story to justify its 3 hr runtime. My issue with the runtime is not that it’s 3 hrs but that it doesn’t justify its runtime it was the most boring movie I’ve ever seen in theaters. James Cameron is a true visionary filmmaker but I feel like the Avatar franchise would’ve been better as a book series if James Cameron wasn’t a filmmaker but rather an author I could see the Avatar series being bestsellers and with The Way Of Water he could make the book as long as he wants and the reader could take as long as they wanted to read it. I have nothing against James Cameron or the cast and crew of the Avatar series this is just my opinion
Bro, long movies are fine. You just have adhd
I respect your opinion, but when I finished the Irishman I thought about it more and more, so I’ve watched it again.
I think this is what great cinema looks like.
at the start you may don’t like it, heck I’ve hate it, but it sticks with you.
I thought the same thing about a lot of other Scorsese movies like raging bull, goodfellas, the age of innocent all great movies that you realy need to think about.
(BTW I thing killers of the flower moon is over heated but it’s still can be like two hours, so I see the point)
(Sorry for bad English)
Agree with most your points but I actually prefer longer movies it lets moments set in more, even silence & scenery is impactful it lets moments linger longer
A movie is too long as soon as the viewer starts thinking about how long it is instead of being fully engaged with the film. The numerical runtime doesn't matter: a 90 minute movie can be just as too long as a three-and-a-half-hour movie. The reverse is true as well: a film that keeps you nailed to your seat can make hour after hour vanish into thin air.
Films like Inception, TENET, and Dune 2 range from 2.5 hours to nearly 3, but you don't notice because they keep you engaged. Inception and TENET do it by being very tightly-written films, where nearly every scene is pulling double or triple duty with some combination of action/exposition, characterization, and/or spectacle. Dune 2 does it by being set up in an almost 'serial' format: it's a chain of smaller three-or-four act narratives going from one goal to the next (while setting up the next goal), within the frame of a larger multi-act structure and overarching narrative - rather like what you said about TV shows and miniseries.
Apocalypse Now (3:22 for the director's cut) does it by simply hammering the viewer almost continuously with scenes that are each either bombastic or disturb the viewer in their own special way. The film just does not let up. Even its 'downtime' moments have an edge to them given the context they're placed in.
There's one more problem with long-running films that you almost touched on: being allowed to make a 2.5+ hour film is often the sign of a director who has so much pull or 'Hollywood cred' that they're unrestrained in other ways as well, and even the greatest directors are prone to self-indulgence when they've got so much clout that nobody can tell them "no", which has a risk of leading to films that meander and include a lot of stuff that could have been written out or cut without harming the film, making it feel too long. 1980's Heaven's Gate (3.5 hours) is probably the classic example here, and its flop is part of what led to Hollywood putting its directors on much tighter leashes for several decades, especially in terms of runtime. We're seeing the pendulum swing back from that, and it will probably swing again.
great video i hope you do more of this
in India animal and kabeer sing.. long run time but movie engaged audiance and super hit
Any movie over 1.5 hours is a long film. Like for me I can't get a drink during a 2h+ film otherwise I have to leak half way through. And if that is posible without missing part of the film it is not worth paying as much.
When rewatching Zack Snyders JUSTICE LEAGUE, a 4h 20m movie, I only lost interest within the last 20 minutes, feeling they should´ve cut only 20 minutes of the gigantic runtime. At the same time, however, while watching Petite Maman, a 1h 13m 2021 french film, I was bored throughout, feeling like the film lacked any meaningful conflict and was kind of just meandering about. At the end of 1h 13m nothing had happened. To me the length of the runtime of a film inherently does not matter nearly as much as what is done with that runtime!
Tiktok brainrot got to him
Yup. But is a partial answer 'cause there's really which doesn't need to be a long movie as _Avatar_ or Snydercut JL
Yes True.
@@thomascuriel7611 Lawrence of Arabia is over 3 hours and is still one of the greatest films ever made
I feel like if long movies are done right you can tell, but typically aren’t
Not all long movies are bad
This is my second video I've watched on your channel and as it's 8months old, you probably won't see this comment but I believe this is the first time when I feel that sincerity in "thanks for watching". Maybe it's because I fell in love with these kind of videos, with your videos. So, thanks for creating some content
I was a huge fan of the first Avatar movie. I'd watched it countless times, played the videogames, read the books, been to the amusement park etc. So in my heavily biased opinion, Way of Water's runtime was barely worth the years of waiting for it 😂
Worse when they stretch it with unnecessary boring scenes like some lame chit chat scenes that has little to no effect on overall movie. In fact much of favourite movies are of relatively long duration.
This coming from a time where people binge watch series in a day
Bullshit
Scorsese makes movies of multiple lengths.Forgot Taxi driver?It depends on the story. You can't just miss out important elements. Story build-up is important.And I thought you understood this as you did in your Invincible/Boys video.
It depends a movie is to long when scenes dont move the story forward or further character development, but if it does that it can be 4 hours and a masterpiece. Theres a mix of lack of attetnion too.. and today many say movies are long when in fact not every movie needs to have fast pacing and still tell a very good story.. the only time amovie is too long is with scenes that arent needed and are just filler to fill the length out. But if someone has lack of attention then its not the movies fault its theirs.
great video, instant subscribe and I dont subscribe to many channels
Thank you, sir. I will not take it lightly.
hey man if you do not like a movie keep it to yourself or make a movie by yourself on the same story of Killers of the Flower Moon
I blame franchise movies. Its like they go in with the idea of longer=better.
It's like a sense of entitlement of "this is gonna be an epic movie, so it needs to be long." Instead of just making a really fun 98-minute movie.
It's just self-masturbating at that point.
Isn't masterbaiting already self masterbaiting
@@eliasrodriguez1419 Now we're asking the right questions friend....
My personal opinion is that long films are not a bad thing or unenjoyable, they are a challenge to the studio.
Great moviemakers can do longer movies if they can retain the tention/flow through this longer run time. There is a reason that longer true story movies (like oppenheimer) aren't noted for their long run time, because the tention is easier to hold (true events and that).
I will say, I don't know what voodoo was used in the creation of the Seven Samurai. That uses black magic to hold your attention.
And here's me disappointed if a YT video isn't at least 7 hours long.
I saw Killers of the Flower Moons twice in cinema and have watched it since a third. It's entirely fantastic. Its atmosphere is amazing and its plot very engaging.
Beautifully said!
8:13 I was not ready for that
Its shame that this generation has the attention span of a guppy
who else says 'the way of the water' instead of the correct way 1:16. I definitely do
Why are you hitting on my big name? Directors right here you hater, you’re just jealous. Because you can’t make a longer movie than them
You can tell a great story in 2h lenght.
Some great story needs to have 3 or 3,5h lenght.
Yes, Irishman is not good movie (same goes for Avatar 2 or John Wick 4) but Killers of the Flower Moon is fcking masterpiece in every sense.
Every story have ideal lenght.
I really loved it that the Harry Potter movies were over 2 hours long
What's your profession?
Long movies are overrated? If anything they are underrated. Most people on the internet always say that movies should be shorter for some reason.
And I'm sorry, but I don't like this video. It just sounds like you didn't like The Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon and you put every long movie in the same bag
If you don't like a long movie, the issue isn't the runtime, it's something else about the making of the story.
No good movie is short enough, and no bad movie is long enough.
They are long movies that are great and short movies that are great. Godfather 1 and 2, eternity and a day, once upon a time in america, the good the bad and the ugly, lawrence of arabia, ben hur, underground.
You are approching movies wrong. A movie that is too long is a movie where it just stops doing new things. It doesn't add conflict. It just meanders with no point to it. Holding shots too long, making characters who serve the same purpose, or simply having no coherence.
The actual critique in a movie being too long is entirely separated from the actual runtime. I have seen 80 minute movie that were too long and I have seen 4 hour movies I was dreading the end credits.
If you go into a movie that is long and looking to justify its runtime you will lose. There is no justification. There is no reason any movie needs a single minute. No reason other than artistic intent. If you are Marty Scorcese and you make Killers of the Flowermoon to be a breezy fun blockbuster then yeah it is too long. But if you want the audience to feel bad for the Osage tribe and think about all the other people who are being opressed by the entire community they live in? Then you nailed it.
Long movies are not overrated hateful eight one of my favorite movies and it’s close to 3 hours
imo 2-3h is the sweetspot
Christopher nolan is the best at long movies
Not!
W VIDEO
Satantango is 7 hours long
Nah long movies are the best. So many of the greatest films of all time are over 3 hours or so
If I like your characters I always want to spend more time with them not less. And if I don't like them then I'm not gonna care what your deeper artistic "point" is.
This obsession with Efficiency is purely a product of Capitalism. Film Schools spend generation drumming into film makers brains the value of being as quick and to the point as possible so they get shorter runtimes and thus more showings per screen to maximize profits.
Now Streaming is making it easier to make more longer films but reactionaries keep treating it as a bad thing.
i have no respect for your opinion
Boooooooooo Booooo!!
big up Wind River
Yo, I return💀
Yo yo, I’ve been awaiting your return.
Your video is too long Ryan.
Shut up... I love love love the Irishman.
Afterhours >>>
Beautiful video although it could have been shorter. Jk
Hi l still like 20m videos
You need some lav diaz in your life
Not!
Nah I love long epics
Skill issue.
I think longer movies are always better!!! Ive never seen a single 3 hour movie that was bad.....ever !!!!!
Except for Avatar & Marvel universe movies but those don't count because they are all 🗑️ anyway & complete make believe !!!!
If u have a short attention span then just take short break otherwise go get a bigger brain!!!! 😂