Time is on our side
movies Great movies don't need to be long.
The new Transformers movie is well over 2 hours long, and feels it. Zodiac, despite being my second favorite movie of 2008, approached 3 hours in length. A Hollywood "epic" basically requires a 3 hour running time (LotR, King Kong, etc) and a biography, from Lawrence of Arabia to Ray, all run overlong.
But, this perception that quality and length go hand in hand is fabricated. A plethora of good movies exist that are under 2 hours, and many approach 90 minutes.
This was perhaps more common decades ago. Paths of Glory, the first Kubrick masterpiece and a filmmaker who had generally long movies, is only 87 minutes. If it was made today, the movie would probably be an extra 40 minutes long, complete with an extended court scene and more graphic battles.
The great Disney movies from yesteryear also were relatively short. Dumbo, Bambi, Snow White, Pinocchio, and several others did not exceed an hour and a half. Yet, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and even Cars near 2 hours.
Each part of the Godfather trilogy run for 3 hours, yet every part in the Three Colours Trilogy by Kieslowski is under 2 hours and very near 90 minutes. Perhaps this is because most foreign films are shorter, but let's not forget the incredible length of Seven Samurai and Black Book (though the director of Robocop can do whatever he pleases). Why is one movie about Jesus 2 hours long (The Gospel According to St. Matthew) while another is nearly four (The Greatest Story Ever Told)? Does a Gandhi movie really need to be over three hours?
Woody Allen once declared that most movies do not need to be more than 90 minutes, but all of his movies in the last 15 years have broken that rule. It's rare for a movie today to be close to 90 minutes, but it isn't impossible. Steve McQueen's Hunger is only 96 minutes.