Is bigger really always better? I love watching movies and spent the summer catching up on Hollywood’s latest films. Yet I’ve noticed that many popular movies are racking up formidable running times. I’m left wondering: What happened to the 90-minute movie?
When it comes to movies, “less is more” is often more appropriate. With less time comes tighter lines, less lag time and a plot that clips along rather than drags. For example, this summer’s blockbuster “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” clocked in at a whopping 154 minutes. Without delving into a full movie review, some fat definitely could have been trimmed from the film. The extended action sequences felt self-indulgent, especially when watching the third high-speed chase in two hours.
You can still have a satisfying, adventurous thriller without feeling tempted to check your phone. The first installment of the Indiana Jones franchise, “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” has a 105-minute run time yet still manages to balance drama, romance and plenty of nail-biting action.
I can’t mention long movies without bringing up one of the summer’s most controversial films: Christoper Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” which runs for a staggering 180 minutes. My biggest obstacle to seeing “Oppenheimer” was finding the time to carve out almost four hours, including commuting to the movie theater and arriving a little early (because who wants to miss previews?). While I enjoyed the movie, it could have been tighter without compromising the heftiness of the subject.
In addition to taking copious amounts of time, a long movie is a taxing mental investment. I downloaded “Babylon,” Damien Chazelle’s three-hour ode to classic Hollywood, to watch on an airplane but stopped after a few minutes because it seemed too intimidating. If I couldn’t even bring myself to watch it while captive on a flight, it’s unlikely that I’ll be carving out that same time in the near future.
I was surprised to discover that there is already a lively online discourse about the 90-minute movie. A 2009 Esquire article raises a thoughtful point: When was the last time you walked out of a movie and thought, “Well, that was too short”? A shorter movie might also be better received by audiences who don’t feel like their time is being wasted.
A Variety article titled “Why are movies so long now?” gives some insight into the increasing length of movies. The article explains how streaming studios have fewer restrictions than traditional movie theaters, granting big-name directors like Nolan and Steven Spielberg final-cut privileges over their films. The rise of big-budget action movies with A-list casts and heavy-handed computer-generated imagery also tends to result in longer films.
I want to recognize that there were some wonderful shorter movies released this year. One of my favorites was the A24 comedy-drama “You Hurt My Feelings,” which clocked in at a tight 93 minutes. The film featured a simple and funny premise, and it never felt too lean or lacking in dramatic impact.
This is not, however, a blanket attack on all long movies.“The Sound of Music,” which is nearly three hours long, was one of my first introductions to the beautiful world of cinema. 194-minute “Titanic” is a rightful classic as well, but I want to reconsider the widespread shift beyond the two-hour mark.
What’s problematic is the association between long movies and prestige; a longer movie isn’t necessarily better. If it weren’t three hours long, “Oppenheimer” still could have been a great movie. Shorter movies are more accessible and digestible.
Some of my favorite movies — “When Harry Met Sally,” “The Breakfast Club” and “Lady Bird” — all run under 100 minutes. It’s no surprise that I return to these movies every year. I’d rather spend an hour and a half with a great, succinct film that I’ve seen before than risk spending three hours on a bloated, overdone dud.
Charlie Keohane ’24 (she/her) is an Editor at Large. She previously served as the SGA Correspondent and a Senior Writer.
She is an environmental writing major and a psychology minor from Northern California. Outside of academics, Charlie is a Senior Admissions Fellow at the Middlebury Admissions Office. She also is involved with the women’s track team and hosts Witching Hour, a radio show on 91.1 WRMC. In Spring 2023, she studied abroad in Copenhagen, Denmark. In her free time, she enjoys hiking, watching Greta Gerwig movies, polar plunging, sending snail mail, and FaceTiming her rescue dog, Poppy.
