Weekly Theme

Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. 

Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times.

Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. 

And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times.

So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking!

If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list.

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

mercurial:

I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. 

Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times.

Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. 

And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times.

So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking!

If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list.

I'm kind of the opposite than you Merc.  I tend to think shorter films are better.  If a filmmaker can fit an amazing film into somewhere between an hour and an hour and a half I think that's a great feat.  Of course there are many long films I love.

I actually just watched a 201 minute long movie, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles at the Gene Siskel Film Center about a week ago.  And let me tell you, the time did not fly by.  That three and a half hours felt more like three days.  But in actuality, that's how much time actually passes in the film, so I think that was sort of the anticipated effect.  Yet despite this, I picked up a the Gene Siskel Film Center publication and saw that in may they will be playing all three parts of Masaki Kobayashi's The Human Condition trilogy.  Part I is 208 minutes.  Part II is 183 minutes.  And Part III is 196 minutes.  I'm going to be spending about 10 hours at that place next month it appears.  After watching Kobayahi's stunning Harakiri recently, I'm really quite stoked for this!

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

mercurial:

I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. 

Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times.

Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. 

And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times.

So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking!

If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list.

WOW! Until seeing that list, I had just assumed that I don't really care for long movies. But I'm actually really surprised at some of the films on that list because I've never really thought of them long-winded or even the least bit taxing to watch. You already mentioned Magnolia, which I pretty much figured on a bit over two hours. Schindler's List is one of my all time favorite films, weighing in at 195 minutes....

But on the other hand, there are some on this list I definately think would have benefited from a bit of cutting room floor action. I really think La Dolce Vita could have used about a 20 minute trim or so. (don't kill me).

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

Risselada:

 

I'm kind of the opposite than you Merc.  I tend to think shorter films are better.  If a filmmaker can fit an amazing film into somewhere between an hour and an hour and a half I think that's a great feat.  Of course there are many long films I love.

I actually just watched a 201 minute long movie, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles at the Gene Siskel Film Center about a week ago.  And let me tell you, the time did not fly by.  That three and a half hours felt more like three days.  But in actuality, that's how much time actually passes in the film, so I think that was sort of the anticipated effect.  Yet despite this, I picked up a the Gene Siskel Film Center publication and saw that in may they will be playing all three parts of Masaki Kobayashi's The Human Condition trilogy.  Part I is 208 minutes.  Part II is 183 minutes.  And Part III is 196 minutes.  I'm going to be spending about 10 hours at that place next month it appears.  After watching Kobayahi's stunning Harakiri recently, I'm really quite stoked for this!

I was so sure you were gonna mention The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. But alas, according to this website, it only kills 179 minutes................... one short.

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

leeroy711:

I was so sure you were gonna mention The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. But alas, according to this website, it only kills 179 minutes................... one short.

Ha!  You are right.  I'm surprised I DIDN'T mention it!!!  And the version you are mentioning is actually the very recently released re-cut with new scenes added that were originally cut.  So the version most people are familiar with is actually only 161 minutes.

I'm also waiting until the next time Facets in Chicago here shows Sátántangó.  Béla Tarr's seven and a half hour long, black and white masterwork that I've been told is actually a breeze to sit through.

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

Has anyone seen Greed?

I know that a semi-restored version of the film running about four hours has played a couple times around the country at film festivals and such, but haven't heard from anyone that has actually seen it. I once got into a drunken debate with a guy who had reportedly seen the original ten hour film that was never released but I know it must have been the booze talking.

It must be the masochist in me because I've wanted to try and sit through some of those monstrosities of film like Greed, Hitler: A Film From Germany, Berlin Alexanderplatz and The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple. 

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

mercurial:

The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple. 

What is this?  I can't find any info on it.  Who directed it?  When was it released?  Spout gives no info on it.

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

Risselada:

mercurial:

The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple. 

What is this?  I can't find any info on it.  Who directed it?  When was it released?  Spout gives no info on it.

Yeah, I'd only heard about it briefly from a professor in college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_of_the_Red_Lotus_Temple

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

mercurial:

Risselada:

mercurial:

The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple. 

What is this?  I can't find any info on it.  Who directed it?  When was it released?  Spout gives no info on it.

Yeah, I'd only heard about it briefly from a professor in college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_of_the_Red_Lotus_Temple

Well Wikipedia says that it was a serial, meaning that it was never shown or intended to be shown all in one sitting.  I don't know if I would really put it in the same category as some of these other films.  It was kind of the precursor to the mini-series.

Re:Weekly Theme for April 27: 3+ Hours

I watched Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler this weekend.  I didn't realize how long it was until I got two discs from Netflix.  I think overall the movie is over 4 and a half hours.  But it's actually one of the most exciting silent films I've seen!  Highly recommended.  It really spans a lot of genres.  It may have even invented some.

It's a crime story, with the super criminal vs. the investigator.  It has elements of horror, supernatural, it's a thriller, a gambling movie, a prison movie, a love story, it has a shoot out, and more.  Check it out!