Last movie i saw in theathers was mission impossible caise my mama wanted to see it

That bitch was 3 hours long, for some reason it had an omage to 2001 space oddsey. It was a bloted piece of shit, with no coherent asthetic. Watching that hoe felt like getting yelled at for 3 hours. My entire body and spirit felt pumeled.

From watching a good amount of pre 50s movies ive come to the conclusion that the best movies are 80min in runtime or less. Modern movies are too long. I have autism i dont like loud sounds

Watch Duck Soup it doesnt waste your time, american jews made modern humor.

A good tight 90 minute blockbuster is always nice, but there are certain movies that really do need that extra length, like love exposure or lawrence of arabia

i dont see the point in watching anything modern when currently its more stagnant than a clogged shitter everything derivative no good acting the actors are all cgi perfection and its only every now and then that a good show or movie comes out i would just recommend waiting and after a couple years checking ratings and listening to the opinions of others on it except for normies who fall for the trick and consume the slop bunch of fucking pig feed animated movies are usually higher quality even if they can be quite sloppy its easier to tell right off the bat

Around 1h30m to 1h45m is ideal, and 2h to 2h30 if you're going for the whole "epic film" thing.
I'm tired of 3 hours becoming the norm. The few 3h movies I've seen that I thought were good still felt a little too long.
Under 1h30m, most movies end up a little too rushed, and you're leaving "feature length" territory at that point anyway.

Most 3h movies would be vastly improved if cut down to 2 hours - even better if they were cut down more, but if someone is making a 3h movie, I don't expect it to be tightly focused enough to survive being cut down further by that team.

>>4
Not sure, I quite enjoyed RRR. There are stories that need additional scree-time or, if not possible otherwise, parts.