Unfiltered: Best of the Beasts
I watched Spartacus last weekend.
All 3 hours and 16 minutes of it.
Which is pretty challenging when you’re trying to watch it during the day while also taking care of a baby. I sometimes feel guilty watching things on TV while babysitting, because my son will get exposed to TV plenty fast without our help. However, I feel a lot more guilty when my wife is around. Fortunately, she was out for most of the morning/early afternoon on Saturday, so I had plenty of time to finish the whole thing, especially making use of his hour-long nap. It got me thinking about really long movies in general, how they almost have to be really good for us to be willing to sit through the whole thing. Spartacus was no exception.
And that made me wonder which really long movies I like most, a potential topic for my Unfiltered series on the Flickchart blog. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m considering “really long movies” — or “beasts,” for short — to be movies at least three hours in length.
Because it takes a certain type of movie to get the studio’s blessing on a 3+ hour running time, I figure it will take awhile for me to even get a top 20 (ten to be discussed, ten just to be referenced). I mean, I may have only seen 20-30 movies that are even that long.
But given my thesis that 3+ hour movies are usually good, I’m interested in expanding my usual focus today beyond a top 20. In fact, since it’s easy to quickly determine which movies even have a chance of being that long, meaning I can make rather quick work of this, I think I’ll go through my whole list. After all, isn’t it almost more interesting to figure out which three-hour movie I found to be the most tedious, rather than the best? On which movie did I spend the most time for the least return?
As you may know if you’ve been following this series, the rules for this exercise are that I don’t know what movies will come up as I roll on down through my Flickchart rankings. I just choose the topic and go, hoping I don’t embarrass myself along the way.
One note: Spartacus itself will be conspicuously absent from this list. I have the following personal Flickchart policy: I don’t add a movie into my Flickchart until it’s been a month since I’ve seen it. That allows me some time to step back and have some perspective on the film before I decide what’s better than it, and what’s worse.
Here we go…
1. Seven Samurai (1954, Akira Kurosawa)
Running time: 204 minutes
I saw Kurosawa’s greatest masterpiece for the first time in film class in high school. I believe it took the whole week’s worth of classes, and possibly then some. My second viewing was of the more traditional variety, though it was still in an academic setting — it was shown as entertainment in a classroom on a Saturday night in college. This was my freshman year, possibly before I discovered beer. Flickchart: #38
2. Schindler’s List (1993, Steven Spielberg)
Running time: 200 minutes
My only screening of Schindler’s List was of the normal, theatrical variety. Except there was nothing normal about what I was seeing on screen. Don’t remember it feeling like 3 hours and 20 minutes, and never had to leave to go to the bathroom. (If I had, it wouldn’t have been until the end, and only if I’d needed a Kleenex.) Flickchart: #54
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002, Peter Jackson)
Running time: 179 minutes
And here, at #3, I already get caught cheating. The second (and best) Lord of the Rings is one minute shy of three hours. Oh well. This is my list and I can make whatever exceptions I want. I had not been a huge fan of the original movie, but The Two Towers brought me fully on board to the LOTR phenomenon — as well as making me go back and appreciate the first. Flickchart: #70
4. Dances With Wolves (1990, Kevin Costner)
Running time: 181 minutes
The first beast on this list I watched entirely in a home setting. I remember getting so emotionally invested in this story (and what a payoff at the end), in the basement of my childhood home, that I doubt I noticed the passage of three hours. And this after I’d spent the entire Oscars scoffing over the fact that Costner’s movie was picking up all the awards, over two sentimental favorites (Ghost and Awakenings) and one certified masterpiece (GoodFellas). Flickchart: #84
5. Titanic (1997, James Cameron)
Running time: 195 minutes
Yes indeed, Titanic is in my top 100 overall. But if Flickchart had existed in 1997, it probably would have been #1. I was simply in love with this movie when it first came out, and I refuse to throw it under the bus now. Still one of the great spectacles ever filmed, with a degree of difficulty that’s off the charts. One of the phenomena about Titanic, if you loved it like I did, was that you specifically did not notice 3 hours and 15 minutes passing you by. If you didn’t love it, it probably seemed interminable. Flickchart: #98
6. Malcolm X (1992, Spike Lee)
Running time: 205 minutes
Another movie that blew me away. I do, however, remember the full passage of 3 hours and 25 minutes — I just didn’t care. Still, I remember my friend Susan and I emerging from the theater feeling exhausted. What part of that was the length of the movie and what part of that was the vividness and brilliance of Lee’s filmmaking, it’s hard to say. Flickchart: #162
7. Short Cuts (1993, Robert Altman)
Running time: 184 minutes
Fresh of a high from The Player, I dove into the theaters to see Altman’s Short Cuts and was not disappointed. (I’m kind of amazed how many of these really long movies I had the stamina for seeing in the theaters back in the early 1990s — or it could just be that they don’t make ’em that long anymore.) The length of Altman’s adaptation of Raymond Carver’s short stories may have been blunted by the fact that there were so many different storylines to follow. Flickchart: #201
8. Lawrence of Arabia (1962, David Lean)
Running time: 202 minutes
My one condition for eventually seeing Lawrence of Arabia, which finally happened about six years ago, was for me to be able to appreciate its massive scope on a big screen. I finally got that opportunity when the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) played it one night, and my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I went. I believe there was an intermission and I believe we stumbled out afterward, exhausted but amazed. Flickchart: #216
9. Gone With the Wind (1939, Victor Fleming)
Running time: 222 minutes
I went to college in Maine, and chose to stay on campus for the snowy first week of a two-week spring break my sophomore year. Being basically snowed in really helped in my first (and so far, only) screening of Gone With the Wind, which occurred in one sitting at a friend’s house, which I remember as feeling like five hours long. Not to say it wasn’t an amazing feat of cinema, just that I could feel it eating the life out of me bit by bit. Of course, that’s still good enough to be Flickchart: #314
10. JFK (1991, Oliver Stone)
Running time: 189 minutes
The first beast on this list where I have no memory of the circumstances of my viewing. I know I didn’t see it in the theater, but the rest is hazy. I guess that’s an appropriate way to wrap up the discussion portion of my top ten films over three hours long. Flickchart: #323
And now numbers 11-20:
11. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003, Peter Jackson). Running time: 200 minutes. Flickchart: #349
12. The Godfather Part II (1974, Francis Ford Coppola). Running time: 200 minutes. Flickchart: #425
13. The Deer Hunter (1978, Michael Cimino). Running time: 183 minutes. Flickchart: #483
14. Ben-Hur (1959, William Wyler). Running time: 212 minutes. Flickchart: #554
15. Magnolia (2000, Paul Thomas Anderson). Running time: 188 minutes. Flickchart: #682
16. Gettysburg (1993, Ronald F. Maxwell). Running time: 248 minutes. Flickchart: #747
17. Nixon (1995, Oliver Stone). Running time: 190 minutes. Flickchart: #754
18. Grindhouse (2007, Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino). Running time: 192 minutes. Flickchart: #772
19. Hamlet (1996, Kenneth Branagh). Running time: 242 minutes. Flickchart: #852
20. King Kong (2005, Peter Jackson). Running time: 187 minutes. Flickchart: #1012
And because there are so few more in total:
21. Fanny and Alexander (1982, Ingmar Bergman). Running time: 188 minutes. Flickchart: #1144
22. Inland Empire (2006, David Lynch). Running time: 179 minutes*. (See variance allowed for The Two Towers). Flickchart: #1759
23. The Great Ziegfeld (1936, Robert Z. Leonard). Running time: 179 minutes.* Flickchart: #1847
24. Wyatt Earp (1994, Lawrence Kasdan). Running time: 189 minutes. Flickchart: #1916
25. Pearl Harbor (2001, Michael Bay). Running time: 183 minutes. Flickchart: #1959
26. Cleopatra (1963, Joseph L. Mankiewicz). Running time: 246 minutes. Flickchart: #2263
27. The Thin Red Line (1998, Terrence Malick). Running time: 180 minutes. Flickchart: #2453
So I’ve only seen 27 films that cross the three-hour mark, of the 3,271 titles I currently have ranked in Flickchart. That’s an extremely small number, which shows you just how rare three-hour movies really are. In fact, it’s really only 24, since there are three movies on this list that I rounded up to three hours from 2:59. Though that goes back up to 25 if you include Spartacus.
For the most part, it seems like I considered the extended pressure on my butt cheeks to be worthwhile. My top five three-hour movies are all in my top 100, and my top 20 three-hour movies are all in the top third of my rankings. Only two three-hour movies — Cleopatra and The Thin Red Line — are in my bottom third. And that assessment of Thin Red Line may be too harsh. Let’s just say I really disliked Malick’s return to cinema when I first saw it, and only grudgingly respect it more now that I’ve seen it a second time.
Funny, even writing up this list exhausted me a little bit.
Tune in next week for more Unfiltered nuttiness.
I haven’t ranked many of the three-hour plus films that I’ve seen because I’ve been meaning to rewatch them. Probably the most epic movie I’ve endured was Berlin Alexanderplatz, which ran over 12 hours (though it’s technically a TV mini-series). That had me up until the last chapter, which was really a chore to sit through.
I liked Cleopatra, from what I recall. I do agree that The Thin Red Line is not everyone’s cup of tea. Like mine, for instance. I’ve seen Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line by Malick. Badlands I liked. Days of Heaven was pretty, but I hated the narration. The Thin Red Line was pretty, too, but I REALLY hated the narration in that. I couldn’t bring myself to care about a single character in that movie. It just rambled on and on.
I watched David Lean’s Ryan’s Daughter, which runs over three hours, a couple of years ago. That movie is pretty and moderately entertaining, aside from the village idiot character who completely ruins the movie. For some reason, I’ve never watched Lawrence of Arabia. I’ll have to put that on my “to do” list.
Chad,
It’s always interesting to decide what we consider to qualify as a movie, despite its origins elsewhere. Somewhat arbitrarily, I rank two Stephen King miniseries, The Stand and It, in Flickchart, despite the fact that I know they are not really “movies” in the way I like to define them (“feature-length productions that debuted either in theaters or on video” is my personal definition, which rules out movies on HBO). The one you mention sounds like a winner … until the end, anyway.
Yeah, that was my problem with The Thin Red Line as well. Too abstract, too much voiceover, not enough people to care about (despite having one of the larger casts of recognizable faces ever assembled). Malick was smart to focus on fewer characters in his next two films, while keeping his other trademark elements, which are often done well.
Thanks for the comment!
I’ve seen Ryan’s Daughter thrice, I believe. I found the dynamics of the relationships of the characters intriguing, but visually it’s a rather bleak movie. The colors are pretty muted, and that becomes fatiguing after a while. I’ve always felt that it’s an intellectual story rather than an emotional one, though; I never really felt invested in Rosy. It’s hard to really sell a story based around emotional experiences that doesn’t engage one emotionally. That’s particularly surprising given how well Lean put romantic stories on the screen in earlier films like Brief Encounter and Summertime.
Still, I do like Ryan’s Daughter though it’s certainly not in the same league as Lean’s big three: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago.
For what it’s worth, The Two Towers Extended Edition is 223 minutes, Fellowship’s is 208 minutes, and Return of the King’s is 250 minutes. Any of those would certainly apply, if they were the versions you’ve seen…
I have yet to see any of the extended films, but Rings fans seem to dig ’em.
Nathan, I actually did watch the extended Two Towers, so I guess that’s a good excuse to have included it despite its theatrical running time of 179 minutes (and maybe that was in my head subconsciously). I haven’t watched the extended versions of any others. Is it really worth it, or did they make the right editing choices the first time around?
My favorite movie is nearly 12 hours long: The full, extended Lord of the Rings. The theatrical versions are, of course, great, too. After Fellowship in the theater, I couldn’t believe nearly 3 hours had already passed; I was ravenous for more. Saw it a dozen more times at home before Two Towers hit theaters a year later. (This was obviously before I had kids…)
And there’s no reason to apologize for Titanic. While not an all-time favorite of mine, it is a good movie. Haters be damned.
Interesting interpretation of a “movie.” Does that mean I can run all the James Bond movies together and consider it one 45-hour movie? ;-)
Thanks for the defense of Titanic. All those who loved it then but hate it now need to look at themselves in the mirror. It’s the same movie — don’t hate it just because you think it eats into your credibility as a film fan.
Thanks for the comment!
The argument is that Tolkien did not see his story as a trilogy, but rather a singular story presented in three volumes. Similarly, Peter Jackson shot all three films together so there’s a cohesion to the production that’s rather unique.
Conversely, Ian Fleming’s Bond novels were always a series of individual stories. Even the “Blofeld Trilogy” of Thunderball, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and You Only Live Twice are distinctly individual stories.
Personally, I think LOTR fans make a mistake by arguing it’s one movie when they really ought to instead simply argue it’s one *story*. It’s a much cleaner argument to make, and one that doesn’t make one sound like a rabid fanboy, like those Star Wars fans who refer to the original movies as “The Holy Trilogy.”
The Three Lord of the Rings movies and Lawrence of Arabia are the only 3+ hour movies I’ve seen that I enjoyed enough to ever want to see again.
I’ve heard Amadeus is great, even though I’ve never seen it (director’s cut is exactly 3 hours).
The only other one I think I’ve seen that hasn’t been mentioned would be Apocalypse Now: Redux which I really really didn’t like.
Lawrence of Arabia is one of my all-time favorites; it’s held the #1 spot on my Flickchart longer than any other, I believe. It’s currently #2 after running into The Wizard of Oz. I’ve never seen it on a big screen, so color me jealous of your experience!
Also, I’m thrilled to see someone else share my appreciation for The Two Towers. I will never understand why so many mistakenly believe that The Fellowship of the Ring is the best of the three; it’s just the first act, people! Return of the King is triumphant, but that meandering series of endings really detracted from the movie for me. The Two Towers, however, was both full of great content *and* focused.
Titanic is a movie I was excited to see when I first heard about it, the actual shipwreck being something of a pet topic of mine in my youth. Then I got the impression it was about the love story and my interest waned. The night it opened, I and my friends went instead to see Tomorrow Never Dies. Later, I did see Titanic and while I’m still not terribly in love with the first half about Jack and Rose, the second half featuring the actual sinking is absolutely amazing.
I was surprised to discover that Braveheart falls three minutes shy of the three-hour mark. I would argue we ought to round it up to “beast” status if only so we can go ahead and admit that it appears to be the last truly great American-made epic. There have been other “beasts” since, but they’ve relied on CGI to create their scale and they feel artificial to me.
The other “beast” on my list not on yours is Doctor Zhivago. I’ll never forget the first time I saw it was in middle school. For reasons never made clear to me, we spent an entire day with every class watching it. They paused it when each class ended, we went to our next class, then they resumed it. This went on throughout the whole day until we finally finished it.
Naturally, most of my classmates were indifferent and used the time with the lights out to pass notes, chat quietly and whatnot. I, on the other hand, was captivated by it. Komarovsky says to Lara, “You, my dear, are a slut,” then he throws her on the bed. Moments later, he coldly says, “Don’t kid yourself. This was rape.” I was stunned. I couldn’t believe I was the only one paying attention. How did that ever get into our chaste classroom? As the film unfolded, I was caught up in Yuri’s and Lara’s story. The absolute power of the revolution; the heartbreak of separation and Siberia; the beauty of the ice palace…and, of course, Maurice Jarre’s iconic score. I’ve seen it half a dozen times over the years, and each time I find myself taken in just as thoroughly as I did watching it in 50 minute intervals on a small TV across a classroom.