I demand a refund!

[swo17]

And Tom, if someone asked for a refund after or during Punch-Drunk Love, I'd most likely ask them to leave my theater and ask them to never come back.

I'm not sure what this means, but I once took a friend--who I'm fairly certain literally never watches movies of her own volition--to see PDL, and her only response at the end was "That is why I never watch movies."

[TMDaines]

And Tom, if someone asked for a refund after or during Punch-Drunk Love, I'd most likely ask them to leave my theater and ask them to never come back.

That's one film I just never got. It never clicked for me. When the film ended, I thought, "Is that it?" I was watching it with my girlfriend and she was exactly the same about it. It was just felt like an hour and a bit of awkwardness.

[LQ]

I'm not quite Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon, but it was still fun.

Glad it was fun for someone.

[Perkins Cobb]

When I was a film student at USC, they showed Addams Family Values and Young Sherlock Holmes in the mandatory Intro to Cinema class. I asked for my $30,000 back, but they said no refunds.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

Well I was given a refund once (without asking) because ten minutes into Tokyo! I got a call for a family emergency and had to leave.

There was an emergency but you had time to grab a refund? Isn't there a Seinfeld episode about that?

[knives]

There probably was. I ran out, the lady at the food stand stopped me and handed me a refund ticket. Took all of twenty seconds.

[domino harvey]

I just saw Tree of Life and not one person walked out or loudly sighed or anything. I demand a refund

[Siddon]

The only time I asked for a refund was when I went to see Jonah Hex, I knew it wasn't going to be good but that run time was just obscene (72 minutes) to pay full price for. But having to sit through 30 minutes of ads only to watch something that was a little over an hour was insane.

[MichaelB]

The only time I asked for a refund was when I went to see Jonah Hex, I knew it wasn't going to be good but that run time was just obscene (72 minutes) to pay full price for. But having to sit through 30 minutes of ads only to watch something that was a little over an hour was insane.

Not an Aki Kaurismäki or Czech New Wave fan, I'm guessing?

Personally, I'd far rather watch an outstanding 72-minute film than a terrible 144-minute one - but I haven't seen Jonah Hex, so can't comment on that particular title.

[knives]

It feels like the original cut would've been as great as their other work, but it's so hacked to ribbons that it almost becomes an experimental film instead. Even in it's present form I'd call it interesting if not good.

[Siddon]

I wouldn't mind seeing an experimental film but not a comic book western for $9.75 that runs 20 minutes shorter than the minimum requirements for a film (90 minutes).

I've seen many (Black Cat, Most Dangerous Game, Bank Dick) great films that were a little over an hour but those were made 70 years ago.

[MichaelB]

I wouldn't mind seeing an experimental film but not a comic book western for $9.75 that runs 20 minutes shorter than the minimum requirements for a film (90 minutes).

Minimum requirements? Who says? And why didn't anyone tell Robert Bresson, Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, Jiří Menzel, Jerzy Skolimowski and many, many other filmmakers who often seem to regard 90 minutes as the maximum permitted length?

I've seen many (Black Cat, Most Dangerous Game, Bank Dick) great films that were a little over an hour but those were made 70 years ago.

There are plenty of great films being made today that are less than 90 minutes long, including several on my current 2011 top ten: Le quattro volte, Attack the Block and Jerzy Skolimowski's Essential Killing. In fact, Skolimowski told me when I recently interviewed him that he thinks that no film should be longer than 90 minutes, and I can see his point.

Seriously, don't you think most films these days are far too long and bloated for their own good? I remember looking at my watch convinced that the torture of the second Pirates of the Caribbean film would end soon, only to discover to my horror that it still had an hour to run (it's a numbing 154 minutes in total - why?). Which is why I'm automatically well disposed to feature films that run noticeably under 90 minutes, especially if they're by well-established filmmakers - as it suggests they'll be lean and efficient rather than sprawling and indulgent.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Minimum requirements? Who says? And why didn't anyone tell Robert Bresson, Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, Jiří Menzel, Jerzy Skolimowski and many, many other filmmakers who often seem to regard 90 minutes as the maximum permitted length?

I re watched Aki's Match Factory Girl recently and think at just over an hour it is indeed a paradigm of cinematic economy. Kati Outinen is rivetting and gives one of the greatest cake eating performances ever, rivalling even that of Sunrise.

[Roger Ryan]

This reminds me of an acquaintance who will select a movie to watch based on it's length; whatever films are currently showing at the multiplex, he will choose the one with the longest running time "to get his money's worth"! Now I haven't seen JONAH HEX, but it sounds like the short running time might be due more to a post-production panic rather than the result of artistic choices or story requirements. All the same, there is no need for a film to run longer than 70 minutes if that's what it takes to tell the story. I'm always wary when I see comedies hitting the 130 minute mark when so many of my favorites are less than 90 minutes. Certainly for home viewing, I find that I will gravitate to shorter films during weekdays simply because I don't want to be up past midnight when I have to go to work the next day.

[Jeff]

I knew [Jonah Hex] wasn't going to be good but that run time was just obscene (72 minutes) to pay full price for... the minimum requirements for a film (90 minutes).

"There's an old joke: Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, 'Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.' The other one says, 'Yeah, I know; and such small portions.'" - Annie Hall (93 minutes)

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defines a feature length-film as being 40 minutes or longer.

[MichaelB]

I knew [Jonah Hex] wasn't going to be good but that run time was just obscene (72 minutes) to pay full price for... the minimum requirements for a film (90 minutes).

"There's an old joke: Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, 'Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.' The other one says, 'Yeah, I know; and such small portions.'" - Annie Hall (93 minutes)

Up to about the mid-1980s, 93 minutes would have been considered relatively long for a Woody Allen film - many of his best films don't hit 90. The Purple Rose of Cairo is practically a short at 82, which would dip below 80 on a European DVD.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defines a feature length-film as being 40 minutes or longer.

There are various definitions out there ranging from "longer than three reels" (i.e. 33 minutes) to "longer than an hour", but I've certainly never come across anyone claiming that 90 minutes should be a minimum length before. In fact, since you've brought Woody Allen up, this discussion is reminding me of the scene in Hannah and her Sisters (a 103-minute epic) in which Max von Sydow's ultra-serious artist hurls abuse at a would-be customer for daring to ask about the size of his canvases as opposed to their contents.

Incidentally, for the better part of a decade, 85 minutes was my ideal feature film length - for the practical reason that my daily commute lasted 86 minutes, so that way I could guarantee that the film would end just before reaching my destination, while allowing wiggle room for ticket inspections. Handily, many of my favourite filmmakers (some mentioned above) have catered for precisely that length.

[Aspect]

"If I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter letter."
— Mark Twain

I think this should be true for most screenplays too.

[Noiradelic]

Of course many B and genre films that have attained classic status are less than 90 minutes. None of these are more than 80 minutes:

Frankenstein 70m
Dracula 75m
Freaks 64m
Invasion of the Body Snatchers 80m
Cat People 72m
Force of Evil 78m
Pickup on South Street 80m
Raw Deal 79m
Detour 62m
Ride Lonesome 73m

[domino harvey]

No one likes a size queen

[Siddon]

Minimum requirements? Who says? And why didn't anyone tell Robert Bresson, Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, Jiří Menzel, Jerzy Skolimowski and many, many other filmmakers who often seem to regard 90 minutes as the maximum permitted length?

Bergman's maximum was 90 minutes huh...glad he exceeded that on those rare occasions like Fanny and Alexander, Autumn Sonata, The Serpent's Egg, Face to Face, Scenes from a Marriage, Cries and Whispers, The Touch, Hour of the Wolf, Crisis, Wild Strawberries, Frustration, Port of Call, To Joy, Summer Interlude, Divorced, and several others. The last major release of Bergman's that was under 90 minutes was Persona made in the 60's and the average ticket price was about 86 cents.

Bresson's last film came out in 1983, average ticket price $3.15, last time Menzel made a film under 90 minutes it was in 1986, average ticket price $3.71.

There are plenty of great films being made today that are less than 90 minutes long, including several on my current 2011 top ten: Le quattro volte, Attack the Block and Jerzy Skolimowski's Essential Killing.

And how many theaters were those films released in, the only info I could find was on Le Quattro Volte which according to Box Office Mojo was released in 5 theaters. Skolimowski has no economic figures available online which tells me that while his opinion on runtime is interesting they are also irrelevant. I don't take issue with art house films being short, I take issue with a film that got a wide release being 72 minutes.

Seriously, don't you think most films these days are far too long and bloated for their own good? I remember looking at my watch convinced that the torture of the second Pirates of the Caribbean film would end soon, only to discover to my horror that it still had an hour to run (it's a numbing 154 minutes in total - why?). Which is why I'm automatically well disposed to feature films that run noticeably under 90 minutes, especially if they're by well-established filmmakers - as it suggests they'll be lean and efficient rather than sprawling and indulgent.

Most, absolutely not. Three of the Best Picture nominees this year I felt were over edited (127 Hours, Winters Bone, TKAAR). With 127 hours you didn't really feel time go by the guy's trapped under a rock and yet you never feel the time go by. TKAAR my biggest complaint with the film was that the ending sort of came out of the blue. Winters Bone had some great suspense scenes but they sort of went by to quickly.

"There's an old joke: Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, 'Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.' The other one says, 'Yeah, I know; and such small portions.'"
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defines a feature length-film as being 40 minutes or longer.

So I suppose you are happy with what food companies are doing right now. Changing the packages to give you less food but for the same price.

[matrixschmatrix]

$3.15 in 1983 is about $6.93 in 2010 dollars- as the average ticket price in 2010 was $7.89, the effective cost of a ticket hasn't changed very much.

More importantly, calculating the value from a movie by how much it costs per minute is crazy. Did you know that the theatrical experience is waaay longer if you go early and sit through all the ads? Value add!

[domino harvey]

Everyone, stop encouraging this insanity

[MichaelB]

$3.15 in 1983 is about $6.93 in 2010 dollars- as the average ticket price in 2010 was $7.89, the effective cost of a ticket hasn't changed very much.

More importantly, calculating the value from a movie by how much it costs per minute is crazy. Did you know that the theatrical experience is waaay longer if you go early and sit through all the ads? Value add!

John Waters once called for a new ticket pricing system whereby a film's budget should be divided by the number of people plausibly likely to see it. Voila - Bresson's L'Argent, $65 a ticket, Rocky IV, 42 cents. This might not have worked for Heaven's Gate, though. Or Mars Needs Moms.

Incidentally, Waters is another one in the "no film should be longer than 90 minutes" camp.

I would respond in detail to Siddon's latest rant, but far too much of it is spectacularly missing my original point. In fact, I feel sorry for people who genuinely think that an extra hour of bloated self-indulgence makes a film "better" when the actual evidence so often suggests otherwise. Not least because they're wasting so much time that could productively be spent doing something else.

Oh, and slightly tangentially, in the early 1990s I hosted the first British commercial run of Samuel Beckett's Film (the original 1965 version with Buster Keaton). I wasn't mad enough to think that people would pay just to see a 20-minute film, so it played as a supporting short to something else (The Plot Against Harry, if I remember rightly) - but we thought it was important enough to publicise separately. As a result, we did indeed get quite a few people coming along, buying a full-price ticket, just watching Film and skipping the main feature.

[SamLowry]

Back to the original topic. The only time I ever got a refund also happens to be my most memorable movie-going experience. As a teen, I was just getting into foreign & independent film by going to whatever was playing at my local art house theater (19th St. theater in Allentown). One week Das Boot finally arrived (you usually had to wait several weeks before the latest indie/foreign film made it to the local theater) & I found a date that was actually interested in going to see it. Just as the movie started you could hear some rumbling outside (it was summer). The rumbling became louder as the movie progressed. During the first scene that emphasized the precarious nature of the U-Boat (metal creaking), there was a loud clap over the theater & I noticed water running down the edges of the movie screen. I looked around the theater & noticed water streaming down the walls. Just as I pointed this out to my date, a wave of water flowed over our feet, taking bits of popcorn & candy boxes with it down the sloped (concrete) floor. Soon after, the lights came on & the projector stopped. The manager announced that we would have to leave the theater & gave us complimentary tickets (without us asking). As we walked into the lobby, the water in the front of the theater was close to waist high & cars were floating in the street in front of the theater from the flash flood. Fortunately the lot my car was in was not flooded. But it was definitely the most surreal movie experience I had ever had.

[David M.]

I demanded, and got a refund for Pirates of the Caribbean 4. Not a film I cared much about seeing, but the fact that the chain managed to show the trailers in perfect focus then showed the entire film (after the aspect ratio change) in a blurry mess was unacceptable. Especially given that I left the auditorium to complain three times and ask them to fix it.

They still managed to send someone in half-way through to check for anyone camcording the film, of course.