4 Movies That Are Just Far Too Long

Skids-And-Mudflap-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-27487358-640-467 With the prices of cinema tickets increasing exponentially, it's important that people are getting a good sense of value for their money when it comes to visiting their local multiplexes. I would certainly hate forking over £11.40 ($14 for those wonderful Stateside lovelies). for a ticket to see the latest film only for it to disappoint me. Or I would hate paying that were it not for the fact that I pay for an Unlimited Card. Though people complain to me often about cinema prices and I'm nothing if not a man of the people. It seems more and more though, we are equating length for value. If I'm paying over a tenner for a film that lasts 84 minutes, even if it was a fantastic piece of cinema, I still feel short changed. Whereas if I'm paying the same amount to see a film I despised but it runs for 183 minutes, I don't feel as if I've been ripped off. The point I'm dancing around is that nowadays films are getting longer and longer and it seems to have gotten us into the mentality that if we are seeing a lengthy film then we are at least getting what we pay for. But I respectfully disagree, films need to be shorter. If I need to sit through another padded self indulgent load of old codswallop, I'll happily hand back my cinema card and stick to playing Uncharted. I feel it's time to take a look at four films that don't justify their running time. Roger Corman once famously said, "Every film could stand to lose thirty minutes." Let's see if he's right.
 
Posted On: 
Contributor
Contributor

A simple chap who loves the magic of cinema despite the odd disappointment or two. Get in touch with Jay on Twitter@reellife32.