Doesn't it just feel like movies are far too long at the moment? This is particularly aimed at blockbusters, of course: when Michael Bay is allowed to make a Transformers movie that runs dangerously close to 3 hours, something, somewhere is wrong. Is this necessary? Absolutely not. Do most audiences want this? Probably not. Would the film be infinitely easier to tolerate were it an hour shorter? Totally. Back in the 1930s, the average length of a movie was around 90 minutes, and today, it's just north of 120, with some particularly overstuffed blockbusters no doubt bloating that number out. It's fair to say that the longest films also tend to have the highest profiles, such as The Hobbit series, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Interstellar, because were these projects not particularly well known, few studios would trust the directors with such meaty run-times. Still, a film should get in and out telling its story in the most efficient way possible, and today, it doesn't feel like mainstream cinema is particularly good at this. When Judd Apatow is able to make comic dramas lasting close to two-and-a-half hours, things have gone too far. Can It Make A Comeback?: Doubtful. While it's unlikely that blockbuster run-times will begin regularly pushing the 3-hour mark any time soon, as long as these long movies keep printing money, studios won't feel the need to rein them in even a little bit. In short, you're never going to see a Captain America or Superman film running in at a sleek 100-110 minutes.
Stay at home dad who spends as much time teaching his kids the merits of Martin Scorsese as possible (against the missus' wishes).
General video game, TV and film nut. Occasional sports fan. Full time loon.
