Long Movies

By Collin Kim

We need to talk about Christopher Nolan's crimes against bladders.

Somewhere around 2014, Hollywood directors collectively decided that movies should no longer be a reasonable length. Two hours? For cowards. 90 minutes? That's a TV episode. No, no—if your movie is under 2 hours and 45 minutes, did you even try?

Oppenheimer lasted for three hours. Watch Cillian Murphy mope in a hat for three hours. It was fantastic, don't get me wrong. But also, I needed to pee at the 90-minute mark and spent the entire Manhattan Project sequence trying to numb the sensation to pee in my seat like I was training for a marathon.

Killers of the Flower Moon? Three and a half hours. Scorsese looked at the runtime and said, "Not long enough. Add another scene of Leonardo DiCaprio looking confused."

The Batman movie was three hours long as well. Three hours of Robert Pattinson whispering and lurking. The Riddler's plan took less time to execute than it took to watch the movie about the Riddler's plan.

This is probably what happened: Filmmakers found that if a film is long enough, critics will mistake "exhausting" for "epic." It's similar to when your math teacher talks endlessly in class until everyone thinks you said something significant. Now, length equals prestige.

Even after 2 hours, Jaws still managed time well enough to blow up a shark. Alien was under two hours and scared the shit out of everyone. With a beginning, middle, end, and character development, Breakfast Club lasted 97 minutes in total.

But now? If your movie's under 2:45, did you even try?

The worst thing? Hollywood believes we want this because these films bring in billions of dollars. No! We've spent $18 on tickets and $34 on popcorn, and we're simply too nice to go!

Can we bring back the two-hour movie? Or at least intermissions like they had in 1962? Let me pee. Let me reconsider my choices.