90 minutes preferably.
Anyone else feel this way? I hate seeing the runtime of a comedy be 2 hours 20 minutes because I just know it’s going to take some shitty sentimental or maudlin turn towards the end.
The Blues Brothers had a running time of two hours 13 minutes and every minute was awesome. But I agree that as a general rule, 90-100 minutes is probably the sweet spot.
I like this rule, but of course It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is an excellent exception to it.
Blues Brothers as just mentioned is another good exception.
One more excellent exception, I forgot, Dogma is actually 130 minutes.
Then there are ones that are part comedy and part drama or whatever.
Gump, A League of Their Own,
A lot of that was some pretty kick-ass music however.
I saw a special screening of the super extendo directors cut with Q n A with the kevin Smith and other actors. Before it started, he said that it’s not better, it’s just longer. And he was absolutely right. I forget how long it actually was, but I felt every minute drag by. To the point that I never need to see the real version again (not that I was a huge fan of it to begin with, but it was something the girlfriend wanted to do)
I could not disagree more. Roger Ebert said it best: “No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.”
This. I often see these silly complaints about the lengths of movies. If you can’t be bothered to watch something for more than 90 minutes I suggest you find another way to spend your time than movies. If the movie is good, I’d like to get as much entertainment for my dollar as possible. If watching the movie feels like a chore that should be over quickly, then I’m left to ask…isn’t 5 minutes too long?
I’m reminded of a guy I once knew who insisted books should not be allowed to have more than 300 pages.
I loved the movie “Bridesmaids”. I’m skeptical that it would have been improved by cutting 45 minutes out of it.
I’ve also heard Ebert comment that some folks talk about a 3 hour movie as if they’re talking about a visit to the dentist.
It’s entertainment fer crissakes.
(or it’s not)
mmm
As a general rule aren’t they already under 2 hours, along with most movies in most categories?
Is the OP’s statement akin to, as a general rule, vanilla ice cream should be served cold?
But, no comedy movie over two hours long is a good movie.
(Not strictly true: there are exceptions. But Roger Ebert’s claim does not necessarily contradict the OP’s.)
Note that we’re not talking about movies in general, but about comedy movies in particular. And I think we’re mainly talking about “pure” comedies, whose purpose is to get you to laugh. You can’t laugh at the same intensity indefinitely; there comes a point of diminishing returns.
Some things work best at a specific length, and more is not necessarily better. Bugs Bunny cartoons, Three Stooges shorts, fireworks displays, trips down a water slide, orgasms… I can think of lots of things that I enjoy but that would wear out their welcome if they lasted more than 2 hours.
Hot Fuzz, though.
You can’t be scared or sad or moved or confused at the same intensity indefinitely either. Few good movies have one gear and one note played the whole time.
You are contradicting yourself.
I take it you’re familiar with [Mel] Brooks’ Law: The ideal length for a comedy is 100 minutes because that’s when the audience runs of Raisinets.
I’m not sure if this rule translates well to those who binge-watch sitcoms for 8 hours straight. Could be the different plotlines per episode?
Well pretty much everything uses a 3 act structure. In a 20 to 40 minute TV show you generally get a much shorter 3rd act where everything is resolved generally in an unfunny way before moving on to the next episode.
Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.
Oh, Bravo!