10 Movies Too Bloated For Their Own Good

So stuffed it's a surprise they didn't burst.

kingsman golden circle
20th Century Fox

Blockbuster movies just seem to be getting longer and longer, with many of them frequently testing the patience of audiences around the world. Its all well and good to have your movie run for over two hours if the story is good enough to keep people invested, but far too many big-budget studio projects these days feel like they drag on for an eternity.

The franchise model of filmmaking seems to have made it an unwritten rule that popcorn flicks need to set up sequels and drop hints about what the future holds several times over their duration, but that doesn't have to be the case. Not everything has to be mapped out several years in advance, with casting announcements and release dates for sequels frequently revealed before a project has even been released that remove any real stakes or dramatic tension from the narrative.

Some movies end up trying to incorporate so much into the space of one movie that it ultimately harms the final product, providing a lesser experience for the viewer as a result. There are few things more frustrating for a paying customer than spending money on something that is all setup and no payoff, or a movie so packed with content it becomes virtually impossible to follow, something which Hollywood has become increasingly guilty of in recent years.

10. King Kong

kingsman golden circle
Universal Pictures

It may have been necessary when it came to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but Peter Jackson's subsequent filmography has shown that the Academy Award-winning director likes his films to be long. Really long.

While The Lovely Bones and the Hobbit trilogy would have benefited hugely from a more judicious edit to trim some of the excess fat from their narratives, Jackson's remake of King Kong is by far the most serious offender. A very, very extended love letter to the 1933 classic that is almost twice as long as the original, clocking in at a butt-numbing and completely unnecessary 187 minutes.

But why?

It hits almost the exact same plot beats as before, but takes its sweet time in doing so. Epic in both the best and worst sense, the first act drags like hell before the story finally reaches Skull Island. From there, the action scenes are strong but the character moments are frequently slow and ponderous and it seems as though the director is only indulging his own love for the original movie. 2005's King Kong could easily lose 40 minutes and be a much better film as a result.


I don't do social media, so like or follow me in person but please maintain a safe distance or the authorities will be notified. Don't snap me though, I'll probably break. I was once labelled a misogynist on this very site in a twenty paragraph-long rant for daring to speak ill of the Twilight franchise. I stand by what I said, it's crap.