Movies that are too #$@&ing LONG

cayman shen

cayman shen

Master Member
I'm not opposed to long films at all. Seven Samurai and The Good the Bad and the Ugly are two of my faves, and as far as I'm concerned every single frame is gold. There are plenty of great long movies: The Godfather flies by, as does Lawrence of Arabia. Schindler's List. Heck, even The Dark Knight.

But man oh man, I'm about an hour fifteen into 2001 A Space Odyssey, and I'm about to shoot myself in the face. I literally was no less entertained waiting for my macaroni to boil for dinner.

So far we've seen cavemen discover a monolith and tools. Then a guy flew to the moon in what I'm pretty sure was real time. Then he had a meeting, which was just as dull as real meetings, then they flew to the moon monolith, THEN, after taking like a year to reveal two pieces of information, they skip to "18 months later." Seriously, you can skip 18 months, but we have to watch the whole ****ing flight to the moon?!

This is actually more painful than the card playing scene in Inglourious Basterds. Is it just a classic because space was exciting back then and everyone oohed and ahhed over the eye-candy? I'm not some total philistine or ADHD case. I appreciate good cinema and I'm more than happy to be patient and savor the moment. But this is soul crushingly dull.
 
I think they filmed it that way to show and give a feeling of how lonely and boring a long trip into space would be. It does really well at showing the monotony of it all. I agree it does tend to drag in spots but I think it was intentional. I tend to like long movies if they're done right because if done right that 2 hours flies past way too fast for me and leaves me wanting more. Sadly few modern directors give me that feeling anymore.
 
I'm one of those who felt the LotR films weren't long enough (at least the extended editions were a step closer) but damned if Peter Jackson's King Kong wasn't an hour too long for me. Can't even remember much beyond it taking a flipping hour to get to the damn island.
 
Waterworld and The Postman would have been a heck of a lot better if they were each an hour shorter. (Maybe not great, but definitely better.)
 
Ah yeah, ditto. Extended LOTR is golden, KK kinda not so much. Watched it once. I liked Amadeus just fine, but oh dear god, could barely sit through the multiple false endings of Wild Things.
 
SmilingOtter said:
Waterworld and The Postman would have been a heck of a lot better if they were each an hour shorter. (Maybe not great, but definitely better.)
Click to expand...

It would have helped if Postman was anything like the novel and the novelization of Waterworld was 100 times better than the movie was.
 
DuneMuadDib said:
...but damned if Peter Jackson's King Kong wasn't an hour too long for me. Can't even remember much beyond it taking a flipping hour to get to the damn island.
Click to expand...
I think I'm the only person who thought the Skull Island sequence of Jacksons's King Kong was the least interesting part of the film, particularly the scenes of the crew running from the pseudo-brontosaurusususususus' (or whatever the hell they were supposed to be) and Kong battling the two T-Rex's, both of which went on far too long for my tastes. I found the New York scenes much more interesting.

Back to the topic, I completely agree about 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some interesting visuals, but it's one of the most boring films I've ever seen; I honestly don't see why so many people hold this film in such high regard.

I thought The Prestige (2006, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale) was too long by about 45 minutes, but you really couldn't remove any scenes without taking away from the story.

And then there's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. If you think the film's name is too long, try sitting through it. It's one of the most beautifully shot films I've ever seen--even the most inconsequential scenes are incredibly well photographed--and every performance is spot-on, but you're very aware of every second of it's two hour and forty minute run time (which feels much longer).

I'm sure there are others, but those are the films that came to mind.
 
Zombie_61 said:
I think I'm the only person who thought the Skull Island sequence of Jacksons's King Kong was the least interesting part of the film, particularly the scenes of the crew running from the pseudo-brontosaurusususususus' (or whatever the hell they were supposed to be) and Kong battling the two T-Rex's, both of which went on far too long for my tastes. I found the New York scenes much more interesting.
Click to expand...

I've got to agree there, too much time to get to the island, too much time on the island. Everything in the third act back in New York was okay, but take an hour out of the first two acts and it's golden. Just can't stand the pacing.
 
when i first watched it...blade runner.....but that was like 6 years ago...and I've been meaning to give it another run....

lots of people i know complain about Avatar's length, but I watched it for the first time as the extended version, and i didn't have one problem with it...at no point did I check to see how long it was till it was over....

also the new tron was about half an hour too long.....should have been 90-100 minutes tops....
 
Hot Fuzz for me (though I agree with most of above). I LOVED Shaun of the Dead, and Spaced. Hot Fuzz is good, but nowhere near as interesting as the previous projects. A great concept, just a bit too long and self indulgent.
 
cayman shen said:
I'm about an hour fifteen into 2001 A Space Odyssey, and I'm about to shoot myself in the face.
Click to expand...

:lol

I couldn't make it through 2001 until after I read the book. It made a bit more sense to me then but, yeah, it's still pretty freaking long and even the book doesn't explain that weird acid trip sequence toward the end of the movie. I still like it but it's definitely a slow paced film.

For me, pretty much any western that isn't Tombstone is about four times as long as it should be.

It took me two efforts to make it all the way through the Watchmen director's cut which clocks in right at 3 hours. I enjoyed it but with two kids running around and my wife giving me the evil eye for not doing something more productive, it's hard to make it through a sitcom these days, much less a 3 hour movie.

And ditto on Jackson's King Kong. Way too long.
 
It took me a long time to figure out 2001 but once you do it is better. The Bay transformers movies are longer than needed.
 
Satxer said:
You think that's bad, try sitting in the theater, in the front row, staring straight up at the screen for 3 hours. How my friend convinced me to sit there, I will never know, but never again!
Click to expand...

why would anyone WANT to sit in the front row? :eek I hope you guys are no longer movie buddies :lol
 
wyatt earp, they could easily trim 45 mins off that movie.

come to think about it. alot of costners movies are too long. waterworld and the postman have been mentioned earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rocketeer25
Halloween 2024! What are your must watch scary movies?
Replies
9
Views
559
anamorphicWayne
anamorphicWayne
Too Much Garlic
Movies that need a Director's Cut
2
Replies
27
Views
1,456
Too Much Garlic
Too Much Garlic
Sluis Van Shipyards
Movies that you stopped watching because of inaccuracies
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
6,142
Solo4114
Solo4114
Captain Dunsel
Cinemark: 1984 Movies On The Big Screen
Replies
11
Views
602
edge10
edge10
blewis17
VIDEO: How Bad Movies are Made / Rise of Skywalker
2
Replies
35
Views
2,859
pengbuzz
P
Back
Top