This Movie Is Too Freaking Long

Fantastic Four is just 1 hour and 55 minutes. James Gunn’s version of Superman is clocking in at 2 hours and 10 minutes.

These runtimes would’ve raised no eyebrows a decade ago. But today? They feel oddly short for superhero spectacles or even genuine storytelling. But, the audience is not making much fuss about it.

And that’s... a little concerning.

Shorter runtimes don’t always mean poor or average storytelling. Sometimes, it is also doing something to movies that I hate to see. That is to make movies safer. Fewer experiments are being done on screen.

So while the runtime sounds efficient, it’s worth asking, what are we sacrificing to save those 25 minutes?

On the flip side, though…

Let’s admit something.

We’ve all yawned in a movie theatre.

Even during movies we paid full price to see. Even in IMAX. Even when the trailer made us scream in excitement three months before we came to the theatre.

And no, it’s not because we hate cinema. (If we did, I would not be writing it, and you would not be reading it)

It’s because the film didn’t earn our attention span.

Somewhere around the third repetitive dialogue scene or the fifth unnecessary subplot, we reach for our phones, or worse, we look at the exit sign and wonder if popcorn refills are still worth it.

The point is: movies feel long not because they are long. They feel long when they’re poorly paced.

And that does not mean that one needs to shorten the movies. It only means to execute it well enough so that you do not get bored.

And that’s becoming a bigger issue than we like to admit.

Take it with a pinch of salt for now.

But here’s something else that’s worth pausing for:

While average runtimes across all films haven’t changed drastically, the most popular movies, the ones that dominate box offices… are getting longer.

Data analyst Randal Olson once tracked this from 1931 to 2013. He found that while the overall average runtime of films hovered around 85–90 minutes, the 25 most popular movies per year told a different story. In 1940, they averaged 102 minutes. By 1985, it had gone up to 110. And in 2013? Around 123 minutes.

It didn’t stop there.

By 2021, a new study by Chartr showed the 10 highest-grossing films had an average runtime of 131 minutes. That’s over two hours, comfortably.

So yes, the most-watched movies have quietly added 20–30 minutes over the decades.

And here’s where it gets tricky…

Our attention spans are going the other way.

A Microsoft study found that the average human attention span dropped from 12 seconds in 2000 to just 8.25 seconds in 2015—less than a goldfish. 

In 2024, platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts have taught audiences to digest narratives in 15 seconds or less. Not ideal when your film opens with 40 minutes of setup before “things finally get interesting.”

The modern viewer has evolved. And filmmakers need to catch up—not by cutting down runtimes blindly, but by respecting attention in smarter ways.

Because…

Short ≠ Snappy. And Long ≠ Boring.

It’s never about the number.

Take these:

Mad Max: Fury Road – 2 hours, felt like 90 minutes.

Oppenheimer – 3 hours, but every frame had tension. 

12 Angry Men – 96 minutes, and it’s still a masterclass in storytelling.

Then there’s the other side:

A 100-minute action film that felt like a boring show for 3 hours.

An OTT rom-com with a 90-minute runtime but 0 chemistry, and the runtime felt like an eternity.

So clearly, the clock isn’t the villain or the hero here.

It’s the pacing, the structure, and the editing choices.

So why do movies feel longer now? (Despite some mainstream films being chopped down the run time)

Because we’re more aware.

Smartphones have rewired our engagement radar. If we sense a dip in energy, we feel it intensely and take the phone pit instantly. 

Also, the pressure to “deliver value” often makes films try to do too much. Multiple subplots. Obligatory sequel setups. Extended action set-pieces. A dance number. A cameo. Another twist. 

It’s exhausting.

At the same time, streaming-era films have become leaner, but not necessarily tighter. Some studios trim stories to 90 minutes—not because that’s all the story needs, but because it’s optimal for watch-time algorithms.

Which brings us to a curious paradox…

Audiences want both. And that’s okay.

They’ll sit through a three-hour RRR or The Batman if it delivers. But they’ll also love a crisp 88-minute Barbarian or a Past Lives.

There’s no formula here.

Viewers don’t mind length.

What they hate is wasting time.

If what you have created is good, the audience will be invested in it.

So runtime debates are really engagement debates. (that too for the sake of it)

And maybe the question isn't, "How long is this movie?"

But rather, "Did this movie respect my time?"

Final thoughts (that won’t take long, promise):

This debate isn't going anywhere.

Some of us will still complain when a movie crosses the 2.5-hour mark. Others will groan when a film wraps up too soon.

But maybe that’s the point.

Good cinema isn’t about time. It’s about timing.

And if a filmmaker gets that right, no one’s checking their watch.

So the next time you hear someone say, "This movie is too freaking long", just ask them:

“Was it really?

Or did it just feel that way?”

So, as we wrap up today’s discussion… (I know, Sunday night), I have this one question for you.

I hope you are having a great Sunday. Also, just throwing it out there, what was the last film that made you say, “phew, this was too long”?

Vipul Agarwal | Leeds1888