That was the first film I thought of, too! 
I saw the most recent restoration of Abel Gance’s Napoleon in the theater (actually, a concert hall with full orchestra), which lasted 8 hours long. Subtract the 1 hour dinner break and 2 20-minute intermissions, and that’s still over 6 hours. Once in a lifetime experience, though.
Up there with the rest of these long films, ignoring the aberrational foreign überfilms people have listed, is the fairly-recent Gettysburg, clocking in at around 4 hours 21 minutes. A 1993 theatrical release.
When I heard “shortest film”, I immediately thought of Scary Movie 2, which I’d heard was barely an hour long. IMDB claims that it’s 83 minutes long, however. Can anyone verify whether it’s actually shorter?
Gettysburg was not a theatrical release. It was a made for TV show (miniseries ?). It was on TNT or USA.
I thought I did by saying in the OP, “Eliminating children’s films and documentaries, and only including major theatrical releases…”, but you’re right, I should have set up a time period. Embarrasing oversight, since I actually saw “The Great Train Robbery” in a film class. (As well as Warhol’s “Blowjob”, which wasn’t nearly as interesting as you might think)
My original intention was feature films with a wide release, in other words films the average joe (or jane) would see at their local theater, and only including films in the “modern” era, say after the Academy started handing out awards, which I believe was in the late 20’s.
Given those modified criteria, it looks like the Marx Brothers and W.C. Fields are the shortest winners so far, with “The Groove Tube” being the late-modern leader.
Not quite.
Gettysburg was intended to be a made-for-teevee movie, but it actually was released theatrically. I saw it in a cinema in Santa Monica months before it was broadcast on TNT.
cmburns:
But you didn’t, because you didn’t specify feature-length vs. short. The three Wallace & Gromit films are major theatrical releases, but are shorter than any feature. But I’m sure you weren’t thinking of them.
** Fiver **, aren’t the Wallace and Gromit films considered children’s films, no matter how many grownup fans they might have?
I already said you were right that I wasn’t specific enough in the OP. But if it makes you happy, I’ll say it again. You were right.
It was only 83 minutes, but it seemed MUCH longer. God, did that movie blow.
My favorite part of that movie was the look on Fred’s face when he was done sneezing. He just looks so satisfied.
I would be tempted to say that “Little Dorrit” was two separate films very closely linked. During its theatrical release, many theatres showed it in two different viewing times (and when I saw the full version I was charged two admissions.) Several people I know saw part A on one day and part B on another day. Both parts could be seen independently though you gain much by seeing them both.
The first screening of Erich von Stroheim’s “Greed” was 9 hours long. He was forced to cut it down to 2 hours before it was released to the public, though.
I see your point, but I disagree. The way they were presented is a consequence of the length and structure of the story. When I saw it, it was a single admission, although viewers were given two tickets (part A and B) and were permitted to delay seeing part B. The two parts were shown consecutively, with an hour intermission. I saw both in a single afternoon/evening (4pm to 11pm), and it was a mezmerizing experience.