I recently heard that Stanley Kubrick stretched out his film Barry Lyndon so long to the point were we would have to call it an epic or a masterpiece. Why do people think that the longer a film is it seems more brilliant? Well the more time you spend watching it the film grows on you. The 200 minute long JFK was a fantastic film in its own rights and like Lyndon it is one of the greatest examples of masterful filmmaking. But JFK was flawed and so was Lyndon. I dont think that the longer a film is makes it epic by some sort of definition. Debra Granik's 100 minute long film Winter's Bone stuck with me more than the two i previously listed.

And i have actually followed that whole "The longer the better thing" without knowing it. Because i talked to a woman preparing to see the Harry Potter finale and to prepare she sat down and watched the whole series in one sitting, ONE! I inevitably asked her if the length got on her nerves, made her anxious, or if she became sore. No, she said, because they're all great and i was constantly fascinated by them. Now here is me, no matter how great and entertaining your movie is (The Dark Knight, Deathly Hallows 2) my a$$ will still get sore. Hell i might even yawn. That isnt meant to show signs of boredom but sitting in one place for a certain amount of time will send messages to my body that it is time to relax and sleep.

I have seen Lawrence of Arabia, the entire Man With No Name trilogy in a 15 hour period, Gone With The Wind, La Dolce Vita, Watchmen, JFK, Schindler's List, Fanny & Alexander, and more films with large length. Should i be commended for doing so? No. Should the filmmakers, maybe. Because some directors have pulled that trick before. Most notably Oliver Stone with A LOT of his films. It really only matters to me if your movie is good and can hold my concentration and interest for over a 3 hour period.

If somebody cant sit through 2001 and say it was too long and love The Dark Knight, what the hell? It is about peoples taste's. The entire earth gave praise to Nolan's 155 minute long masterpiece and saw 2001 and Haneke's The White Ribbon (both at same length) and said they were too long. The point is those people's A$$E$ still get sore eventually. When i watched Gone With The Wind i had to grab a heating pad my bottom was hurting so. That isnt a biological problem. When your in theaters you're not encouraged to lie down on your side, just sit in one position and relax. HELL NO MAN. All of the theaters i have been to in my life have rough exterior seats which makes it a pain to watch the third Pirates movie if you ask me.

And many documentaries are of notable length, some needing to be divided into parts. Nope. Critics watched Shoah in festival theaters all at once. Whether they were granted an intermission or not is beyond my knowledge.

I am impressed by those who dont fidget during films, how do their butts feel? This is partly me asking you if your butt hurts after long lengths, well, anywhere. Church, park benches, movie theaters. You dont have to pay to sit on a bench or go to church, but you do have to pay to see a film in theaters or rent it. Both ways you feel you have to finish it. That says to me that you havent developed a good relationship with the film you've been watching for 2 hours and are 1 3rd of the way through. If you dont like it, dont finish it if you have rented it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head (in the Bahama's i was forced to watch Adam Sandler's 8 Crazy Nights or they would kill me, you decide whether that is true or not) if you are watching it on VHS or DVD. But when your in theaters you spend your hard earned cash on this film so you might as well finish it.

What do you think? How are you affected by length of films? If you finish a 5 hour long film do you feel obligated to like it?