'Best Picture' Oscar... go long or go home

[zombie no.one]

Just for the heck of it, I thought I'd research running times of all movies that have won the Oscar for 'Best Picture'.

As I kind of suspected, longer running time = better... apparently.

In fact since its inception in the 1920s, there has never been a sub 90-minute Best Picture winner

Only two 'Best Picture' winners have a running time in the 90 minute bracket: ANNIE HALL (93 mins) and DRIVING MISS DAISY (99 mins)

 over 2 hours seems the norm.

What is it about longer films, because I don't think anyone associated with the Oscars would ever try and argue that quantity = quality?

[zombie no.one]

oops, shoulda posted this in 'good movies'... (debatable I know)

[Alex]

I've found that with books people tend to praise longer ones just because of the effort it takes to get through them. Maybe you get the same thing with movies.

[M.10rda]

If I love something, I don't want it to end - so I tend to prefer longer Great films than short ones. That said, my favorite film of all time is only 93 (dense) minutes.

However no one wants to have a bad time for a long time. I've endured a lot of long and critically acclaimed movies I disliked and maybe if they were (considerably) shorter I'd have thought a bit more highly of some of them. Even ANDREI RUBLEV (in my top 10) could easily be 75 minutes long instead of 3 hours.  I always skip the first 105 minutes!

As a now middle- or post-middle aged theatergoer, I'm happier when I find out a play is 90 minutes or less - even if I paid a lot for the ticket, I don't want to sit there for 3 hours unless it's really good. The same is starting to go for watching movies in theaters, too. OBSESSION had serious issues that couldn't have merely been solved if it were just shorter - however sitting there for 109 minutes exacerbated the anger and discomfort I felt. I'd probably be less p**sed off at it had it wasted 30 minutes less of my life.

[bob]

it doesn't matter to me how long a movie is as long it is quality

90 minutes or 3 hours plus - as long as I feel the story was enjoyable

and you mentioned Annie Hall in the first post, so yes, you posted this in the correct spot in the bad movies section

[zombie no.one]

and you mentioned Annie Hall in the first post, so yes, you posted this in the correct spot in the bad movies section

never seen it... will take your word 

If I love something, I don't want it to end - so I tend to prefer longer Great films than short ones. That said, my favorite film of all time is only 93 (dense) minutes.

here's an interesting thing... it wasn't until DVDs arrived that I randomly found out the running time of one of my favourite movies ever, DAZED AND CONFUSED. I had seen that movie countless times by that stage (on a taped off blank VHS). I was stunned to see its running time is 1hr 42mins... I would've put money on it being at least 2 hours, and if someone had told me 2½ hrs then I'd have believed them!

(likewise USUAL SUSPECTS. was amazed when I found out it's only 1hr 46mins.)

they just feel like long movies to me, in a good way.

I've found that with books people tend to praise longer ones just because of the effort it takes to get through them. Maybe you get the same thing with movies.

interesting theory... 2 of my favourite books are pretty short (FEAR & LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, and STEPFORD WIVES)... can't think of many 'long' books I've read though tbh