Would you prefer a 3 hour or a 90 min. movie?

well, depends on the movie, for me. if i really ike the movie, the story, the music, i wud want it to go on for more than 3 hours. but if is was an average one, then i guess i wudnt mind it finishing in 90 mins. u know there are some movies that u just cant get enough of. ever experience that?

it depends on whether the movie is good or not

To me the lengty doesn't matter as long as the plot abd the acting are good. I have tried to see a 90 minute movie that seemed 3hours long because the plot wasn't good. And I have also sem a movie that was almost 3 hours long that was so well written and acted it seemed like it was 90 minutes long.

I prefer shorter than larger movies, no doubts about it! The last movie I watched was "Public Enemies", directed by Michael Mann and starred by Johnny Depp. I don´t enjoy it so much and one of the reasons was its duration. More than two hours for a movie is too much. I think all large movies I watched in my life had a lot of padding and a lot of boring parts. One of my favourite directors is M. Night Shyamalan. He always manages to tell an amazing story in no more than 100 minutes. There is no need of dragging out a plot when it is powerful enough.

It totally depends on the movie. If it's just a lighthearted comedy or something, 90 minutes is fine. On the other hand, movies like The Green Mile, Saving Private Ryan, Shawshank Redemption and other epic movies need more time for character development and to tell the whole story. I would hate to see them cut out valuable scenes from movies of this type just to pair it down to a shorter format. I like to watch the "directors" cut of a lot of movies which is usually a longer, more detailed telling of the story. I find them more enjoyable with the extra scenes added in. I watched a mini series once called "Shogun" after reading the book. It was originally shown in multiple parts on TV for a total of about 12 or 13 hours. While they did a tremendous job of telling this story, they STILL didn't get the level of detail you get in the book, so that shows you how much of the story they have to cut out to get it down to 2 or 3 hours. For this type of story, 90 minutes just wouldn't cut it. I'd rather have a longer movie and experience more of the story.

Well it depends on the story line. If it's a short plot of course I don't want a three hour movie. And if a three hour movie gets shortened to one and a half hours, it's definitely not as good. I prefer longer movies because they tend to have more meat to them and more of a story. They also tell things in greater detail and allow the watchers to fully understand the characters and read their personalities and motives. These movies usually require one to think a lot and analyze, and I have fun doing these things.

The feather is never long for a peacock.It is always remain great as long as it has the quality and beauty.

hi rksbigblue, previously movies are very long,in my child hood days i have a seen movie that is Raj Kapoors's "Sangam" for that cinema there are two intervals,in olden days movies are too long,now the cinemas become very short nearly 2 hrs or 2hrs and 30 minutes,but English movies are less than 2 hrs,have a nice day

I think that I would prefer a 90 min. movie. Three hours is just too long for a movie, it's just too long to sit still. Besides I'm usually in the bathroom by the end of the movie. It's kind of hard to sit that long with a full bladder. I usually can't remember the start of the movie by the end if it's three hours too.

Hi rkbigblue I prefer longer movie! I watch movie for fun and as a place and way to have leisure time with my friend or boyfriend, so the longer the better for me. I only watch if there's interesting movie and both me and my friend have finished all our job, so we can watch without think about our unfinished task I think longer movie can explain its story more complete and thus I can understand it more, and maybe like the plot and the character from that movie. Maybe it can touch my heart.. I prefer longer movie

Only an exceptionally good movie can carry it for more than 2 hrs. Anything beyond that for a mediocre movie would be just boring. Epics like the Ten commandments, Ben Hur or even Gone with the Wind or musicals such as Sound of Music etc. are in a class of its own and no one gets bored with such movies, Titanic included. Apart from that after 1 hr 30 minutes you start looking at the clock and wonder when it will end. So all in all I think a 90 mnt. movie would be best. cheers rksbigblue.

It all depends. As you rightly put it, some movies run into 120 minutes or so. Those are normally classics. A regular film should be about 100 minutes or so. As such, editing is very important to sustain interest of the audience. The longer the show, the risk of being boring goes up.

These days there are lots of movies coming out with just the 90 minutes run length.Sometimes I go do not favor these movies when I go out out to movie theaters ,the movie ends so soon,when you wait and wait around 2.5 hour for a movie's climax it also is a lengthy process and we would feel the essence of the movies getting lost. The true stories and well depicted movies,with action,drama,romance,comedy all would take time to be convinced to the audience,good movies can also do this by 90 min too. I would prefer both the kind of timed movies,if the story goes out well and with the good tough of acting by all..That's hard at times to find.

When i am watching a good movie i prefer for it to be a 3hour movie and if is bad then i prefer a 90min movie,also if i am at the movie show i would like to make my money be worth so it will be a 3 hour movie,and if is a movie i am watching at home it will be a 90 min movie.

If the movie is interesting I could probably watch a 3 hour long movie. I like watching movies that are maybe an hour or hour and a half. I don't really like watching movies that are really long unless they make me interested the whole time. I just don't like sitting for that long.

I do like the shorter movies as I have a hard time sitting still for three hours....but if the story line is good and captures your attention the time can just fly by!

I prefer a movie that is not longer then 90 minutes. I fine that after 90 minutes I start to get tried and can not wait for the movie to end. I know there are some that last 2 or 3 hours because of the storyline but I think the writers could still shorten them and they would still be good.

I really like those long epic movies that are around 3 hours long. You feel as though you are part of the film and I feel that you experience the movie more on an emotional level! Of course it is harder to find the time to watch those kinds of films so most of the time I find myself watching the shorter films of around 90 - 120 minutes in length!

You know I believe it depends upon the movie. I myself liked Lord of the Rings,but I liked Lonesome Dove too. I believe that Lonesome Dove got a little Lonesome after about two hours. when I have to get up and put in a second part, I have to think is it worth it. I love watching movies tooo. I wish some were longer and some could just tack on 15 minutes and have a much better ending. So with all this babbling I am doing I think my answer is it depends on the movie.

Well, it would depend on the movie. If it was anything like Titanic, then I would say I would prefer the three hours, but if not, then no. It all depends on the movie.