By The Numbers: The Length Of Feature Films

zz5e72f2e3

How Long is the average Hollywood movie? It all started when a friend of mine asked me this exact question. My first answer was just over an hour and a half, because most movies I see hit multiplexes seem to have a running length of around 90 or 100 minutes. But the real answer was much harder to come by.

In my research, I came across the IMDb Film-Length Project, which doesn’t provide the definitive answer I was looking for, but is still interesting. The project averages the top 50 rated films from each decade (500 titles in total), which gives us a good idea of the average length of the popular films from the last century. But the results are also likely skewed towards longer movies (not many of the throw away 90 minute popcorn films rank in the top 50 of any given decade). The graph above shows how movies have grown in length over the last 100 years. Click to enlarge.

I wanted to come to a better conclusion, so I  spent a few minutes tabulating the average running time of the top 50 movies of 2008. While not perfect, I think this gives a much better indication of the now, as opposed to the wow. And that number is 110 minutes.

I’ve always found it strange that everyone I know outside of my film geek circle tends to complain about the length of longer films, especially since the highest grossing films of all time are long. Below is a chart showing the running times of the top 14 grossing lie action films of all time. As you can see, all of the movies run over two hours, with some even running longer than three. The average run time is 159 minutes, or 2 hours and 39 minutes.

zz7426f253

  • And the movie that's sold the most tickets in the US (Gone with the Wind) was almost 4 hours long.
  • evilnik
    interesting..............
    what about movies which were really long, that tanked without leaving a trace . i remember good shepherd being long and draggy.
  • I think this is very inaccurate. You said it yourself, it's skewed towards longer movies since those are generally the higher ranked films. If I had done this, I would have done a second chart showing the top 50 (maybe even top 100) films of a decade by either number of tickets sold or by sheer money made. Then you could have a more accurate average length of a movie and, if you wanted, you could add in your other numbers.
  • The highest grossing films of all time might be long, but take a look at the imdb rating for those movies. Highest gross does not mean they were deemed to be good, they just had successfull marketing campaigns and brand recognition. I doubt many people even consider the running time before they decide to go and see a movie, but many may have complained about it after seeing the films in that list.

    90 - 120mins is perfect for me and I find the shorter the movie, the more rewatchable it usually is.
  • StephenKing
    Don't take the Imbd score like the bible.
  • a lot of silent 1920s films, along with talkie films and 1930s films, are actually quite short, clocking in at least an hour and 15 minutes. TCM is one of my favourite channels and I'm always amazed by how short and fast these old movies were back then.
  • More commonly, every B-movie of the 40's-70's had incredibly short run times (they rarely topped 70 minutes) as they were leading off the double feature. Since they were the low grade fare, studios and theatres wanted them to be quick and easily digestible before audiences settled in for the main feature. With the elimination of the double feature, run times have increased in order to balance out the showtimes.

    And there is a far quicker way to find out if movies are longer now then they were even 10 years ago, just ask a projectionist. You know, like me. ;)

    Average length of a movie was generally ~5 reels (1 reel = ~20 minutes) even as soon as 10 years ago. This year alone I could probably count the number of 5 reel films I've handled on one hand. 6 reels is pretty standard, and 7+ are becoming increasingly common.

    Another thing that has helped proliferate this issue, is the increasing number of multiplexes with 10+ screens. This allows for the theatre to show multiple prints of the same movie, helping aleviate the problem of a limited number of showtimes for the longer running features. A 2.5 hour movie can't be shown more then 3x a day on a single screen, while a 2 hour movie can be shown 4x. That is a big disadvantage for the longer running film, but having multiple prints helps eliminate that disadvantage. So instead of a 16 screen multiplex showing 16 different movies, you get maybe 6 or 7 movies.
  • As for people who complain about movies that are too long-- let me guess, they're not movie buffs, fanboys, or comic book fans.

    A lot of long, epic films are usually adapted from classic texts, comic books, historical events, or epic novels, that already have a huge, built-in fan base and will guarantee a large audience turn-out.

    but of course, Watchmen was a huge flop.
  • I don't really mind when movies based on novels or classic texts are long (2.5-3 hours, more than one part, etc.), but original stories often are too long. Kind of like "say what you mean and mean what you say," I believe that there's just too much filler in today's films. You have to be 2-2.25 hours (at least) if you want to be a "serious" film. Many movies these days are not as tightly cut as they could be or should be. Not exactly "get to the point," but yeah.
  • altroute
    I wouldn't exactly say Watchmen was a huge flop. It made its budget plus 50 million back and what with the dvd sales alone the movie made money. Now was it a gargantuan success? Absolutely not. But it was hardly a flop.
  • SS
    2 hours give or take 20 mins is the perfect amount of time for me - but it really does depend on the movie
  • Andrew
    Longer the better for me. I enjoy every second of the experience in the movie theatre. I never want the films to end. Bring on the EPICS !
  • Kevin
    feel the same way, unless the movie blows hard
  • plagueoftruth
    Like TF2
  • I had a class last year with Leonard Maltin at USC, and he complained about the length of modern movies, and he gave an example of one: 3:10 to Yuma. Go to IMDB and check the running times for the original and the remake: 92 minutes to 122 minutes. An extra 30 minutes. Leonard asked the question, how could a remake be longer than the original? It didn't make the movie any better, it made it worse. He argued that modern filmmakers suck at pacing and showing a lot with a little. I agree wholeheartedly.

    I mean, really, does Transformers 2 really have to be 2 1/2 hours long? Really?
  • yeah, I kept thinking to myself that Transformers 2 was way too damned long.
  • For me I usually like if a movies longer. In fact if I'm having a hard time choosing between 2 or 3 movies I look at the running time and go for the one offering more movie for the same amount of time.
    Personally I enjoy getting more time for my money. Of course sometimes, I'm looking at you Pirates of the Caribbean 3, a longer running time is just more torture to endure.
  • Plan 9
    I know it sounds geeky, but the stats analysis articles on this blog are my favorite. Tons of ways to interpret the data and no mention of Megan Fox. This is the shit.
  • plagueoftruth
    If you can't be geeky at slashfilm, then where?
  • vadmspartan
    I don't mind long movies, Lawrence of Arabia and Zodiac are some of my favorite films. What I do mind are long movies that have no reason to be that long. There's no reason whatsoever for Transformers to be 2 1/2 hours long. The longest that movie should have been was 100 minutes. The same can be said of many of the recent blockbusters. Too many of them are loaded with filler.
  • plagueoftruth
    Keep bringing the stats, Peter.
    Numbers geeks like me can't get enough of them.
    You know you love your charts.
  • I find the gap between the 50s and 60s most interesting. The variance between the 60s and now is much less significant (only a few minutes). Apparently, in the 60's we hit 2 hour plus movie lengths and never looked back.
  • conchobhar
    Dear /Film:

    Please stop using these 3D bar graphs. All they do is distort the data and look dumb.
  • Highest grossing films of all time? I don't think so. Where's "Gone Wit the Wind?" Don't you know that you MUST go based on inflation and not straight up numbers?
  • zamarov
    90 or 100 minutes? It's been one of the most obvious trends in the last few years that films are getting longer and longer to their detriment. movies are dreadfully far too long these days, especially blockbusters like Harry Potter and Transformers
    So many of them would easily benefit with at least 20 minutes kncoked off them.
    When was the last film you came out of thinking, god I wish it would go on a bit more?
  • Petra
    Let's see - most boring movie I ever remember seeing in the theatre = LOTR III. I thought that freakin' movie would never end. They'd fade to black ...but wait, that's just a scene ending, not the movie. After about the 5th time I said out loud, "Oh, please!"

    On the other hand, I remember thinking Men in Black II might be a waste of time and go by in a flash at 80 minutes and yet I thoroughly enjoyed it and did not feel it was rushed in any way.
  • Why do people complain? Hell, if it was a really good movie, I'd sit there for four hours.

    The problem with this is it's too short to tell some stories. Ever notice whenever someone adapts a novel to the big screen that there's a lot of parts from the book that don't make it to the movie? Yeah, it's because everyone wants to keep it neat and trim.
  • Name
    So, all of your analysis adds up to..... not much.
  • Bristol
    What was the point of having the graphs 3D and on an angle? It might look snazzy but it makes them harder to read I think.
  • David Lowe
    I understand why the book-based movies are longer: fans get uptight when their favorite chapter gets cut. A short story or novella is actually the perfect size to turn into a movie and not leave out any plotlines. Look at all the Stephen King movies that managed to please fans. Many of those source texts are rather short.

    I just have one personal comment regarding movie length: anything over two hours needs an intermission. If i'm going to have to sacrifice seeing part of the movie to take a potty break, then i'll just wait until i can rent it. I don't know if it's the studios that don't provide a 'stopping point' in the production or the theaters that just want to squeeze in another showing.
  • clowery316
    Isn't it strange that in an age where everyone is either ADD/ADHD or Bipolar and can't sit through a 55 minute high school class, our silver screens are bombarded with 120+ minute movies. Perhaps that's why so many people complain about "long" movies. Sit down and read a good novel and if you can do it in less than two hours then you can complain about the length of a movie being too long. Just eat the popcorn and enjoy the story!
blog comments powered by Disqus