comment: >
  
  Who eats pizza for an entire movie length??
context: It really depends on the script. If you have a small story to tell, 90 minutes is fine. If you want to tell 6 storylines in different places, like the last Star Wars trilogy, you'll end up with characters and plotlines that noone cares about. Because you don't have the time to get invested in them.
  I enjoy a film that takes the time to tell a story. It's fine when it's slow or when not a lot is happening. It really gives you the time to become part of that world.
  I probably sound like an old man (i'm in my 30's), but these days most mainstream movies are edited super fast. As if they are afraid to lose the audience when there is no action for 5 minutes. >
  
  I gotta agree, for average movies, yep, 90 minutes seems approachable. >
  
  It depends on the movie. A bad film can drag after as little as 45 minutes and be an absolute chore to finish even with a shorter runtime. But something like LOTR or JFK is gripping enough on its own to keep you invested throughout its 3 hour runtime, since every minute is essential. >
  
  I was once dragged by friends to see the 2nd LOTR film. I feel it could have done with a shorter edit for cinema release, I didn't find it that gripping as a casual viewer.  Then do an extended cut for fans on DVD and later cinema release >
  
  That depends on the subject. A comedy or rom com can be 90-100 minutes and that feels about right. 
  A complex period piece, or a multi part saga like Star Wars or Harry Potter or LOTR can easily go 2-2.5 hours. >
  
  Yesterday I watched the 2h black&white movie "It's a wonderful life" and at the end I was in tears. >
  
  Damn, even OP wouldn't cry about a film being two hours long >
  
  Hard agree. Fell asleep during Gangs in New York around the 1 hour mark out of sheer boredom and the movie's glacial pace. Slept a good 90 mins. Woke up. My wife smiled and turned to me and said you were out quite awhile... looked down at watch, still had another hour to go!!
  Never again. >
  
  2 hours maximumoigke >
  
  I gotta agree, for average movies, yep, 90 minutes seems approachable. If you are going to make a longer film, it’s going to have to be a great story and script to keep me in my seat. 
  90 minutes leaves me wanting more and feeling like I still have energy for something after the movie. 120 minutes, I know I gotta clear a whole evening for that film. >
  
  Wayyyy too short. 2h-2:30h is optimal. >
  
  They feel like they have 20 min of filler sprinkled in. Most of the time anyway. >
  
  I actually don't like movies in general due to their length. Even in three hours, I don't think they can tell a story as interesting as many TV shows, not to mention how generic they often are, with nothing but poor attempts at world building and then sudden escalation at the end.
  I'm not saying a movie can't have an interesting idea or give the audience something to think about, or be enjoyable overall, but story? Nah. >
  
  I agree, i don’t watch long movies. >
  
  I have to agree. I get bored towards the half an hour mark >
  
  hated this about the Batman. so much irrelevance in one movie. >
  
  Completly agree. Even though I enjoyed the acting in it and the villain it just felt so dragged out. >
  
  funnily enough i disliked these things lol. the acting imo was bland and i found paul dano very forced and unbelievable. >
  
  Considering many streamed TV series are structured like 6-12 hours movies these days, movies are inevitably going to keep getting longer to compete. Personally I love movies having more time to develop their characters but it's debatable which movies actually use the extra time well and others are just gratuitous and slow. >
  
  Um all the lord of the rings are 2+ hours I believe, shit fire >
  
  You watch movies as you eat a pizza. It's art ffs