|
|
Post by Vits on May 22, 2018 11:16:18 GMT
... under 80 minutes long? I know some people who think that it's not worth the trip and paying for the ticket for something so short (not just with movies).
Me? I don't care about the running time as long as it's a movie that really interests me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 22, 2018 14:02:23 GMT
I have done so, and recently. The Party (2017, directed by Sally Potter) is 71 minutes long and very much worth seeing in the theater. It is in limited release in the U.S. so may not be available many places until a home video release. It has a dynamite mostly U.K. cast (Kristin Scott Thomas, Patricia Clarkson, Cherry Jones, Emily Mortimore, Timothy Spall, Bruno Ganz, and Cillian Murphy), it is dramatic and funny, and gives us a wild kicker of an ending. The image below opens the movie then the story flashes back until the scene catches up and the film ends in the same way it started. That is Kristin Scott Thomas about to shoot you. I am thinking of adding "The Party" to my Best Of The Decade list.  |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on May 22, 2018 16:08:55 GMT
Nope!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 22, 2018 16:15:45 GMT
Sure. Runtime isn’t usually a consideration of mine. Although I guess if it were something extremely long or short I’d have second thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 22, 2018 16:18:39 GMT
I've seen a ton of kids/family films in theaters, so yes.
I'd much more eagerly see something under 80 minutes than something much over two hours.
In a nutshell, I've never seen a film over two hours, even, that I thought needed to be that long, and the vast majority of the time, I've felt that they could have benefited by some tighter editing. In my view, somewhere between 80 and 100 minutes is the sweet spot, and I'd much rather see things err on the shorter side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 22, 2018 16:21:17 GMT
I can see merit in the "artists should make things as long (or short) as they need to in order to express the work" argument, but, really, I think that almost every single artist does better work when they have limitations. If you've got to figure out how to tell your story in 90 minutes, the final result is going to be better than if you would have otherwised blah-blah-blahed on and on for three hours. A time limit forces you to make difficult decisions that results in keeping the best stuff, keeping it tight/focused, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on May 22, 2018 23:06:18 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on May 23, 2018 0:23:11 GMT
Sure. On the flip side, I've passed on really long films.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on May 23, 2018 8:06:49 GMT
I voted YES because if a movie is good it's good. although it had better be at least a solid 1hr+ because I feel once you go under 1hr20min it starts to be borderline TV show length as I tend to think a legitimate movie as at least 1hr20min or so or longer, but generally around 1.5hours+.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on May 23, 2018 8:13:42 GMT
sure I don't see why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 23, 2018 8:54:32 GMT
Sure.
Quality over quantity.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2018 14:30:06 GMT
Of course, as long as it's a movie I want to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on May 23, 2018 15:33:34 GMT
Of course. Not sure why someone wouldnt.
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on May 23, 2018 15:36:17 GMT
Yes. There's an IMAX theater in my city which usually shows animal documentaries (that are under 80 minutes). I've been there a number of times.
|
|
