Infographic: How Good Does a Movie Have to Be to Justify the Time Investment?

If you’re anything at all like me, then there’s a direct relationship between your expectations of quality from a movie and the length of the movie. As such, there’s a certain quality that really should be met if a film is taking up a certain amount of your time. 75 minute 50’s monster movie? Who cares if it’s bad? All you lost was 75 minutes. Three hour sweeping epic? If it’s going to gobble up the bulk of my night, it had better be pretty damned good. I’ve put it all together in this infographic:


18 Comments

Filed under Humor, Movies

18 responses to “Infographic: How Good Does a Movie Have to Be to Justify the Time Investment?

  1. That’s got to be the easiest graphic you’ve ever put together. Yet probably the most accurate.

    • Ha… definitely easy. Not a lot of thought put into a straight angled line. The bulk of the work was spent on finding that picture of Bogey checking his watch.

  2. rtm

    Ha! Coincidentally I have a movie with a 4-hr running time at home, Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet. It has 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I’d say the movie has to be REALLY good or has an actor I REALLY like to justify the time investment. There are only a handful of them in that category.

    • 94% is definitely a good sign. Once you see an RT score that high, or at least this is true for me- when I see an RT score that high, I feel pretty safe that it’ll be worth the watch.

      • rtm

        Well now that I’m done watching it, I can attest to that rating. It’s really an extraordinary effort on Branagh’s part. Great cast, wonderful acting and the lines delivery is just spot on (even Billy Crystal was great even though he didn’t really bother to do any accent, ahah) I highly recommend that one.

  3. Ha, clever! Most of my favourite films are long ones, such as Inland Empire, Eyes Wide Shut, Dekalog and of course, Magnolia. I don’t mind sitting through really long movies. They actually excite me with their length. Except Meet Joe Black, that was a fucking crock.

    • More often than not, they deliver on the promise of their run time. It’s the few that don’t that are such a disappointment because then you’re trapped for another hour or more than you would for an average movie (and 2 more than you would a bad movie).

  4. Jesus

    Loved this! I’m one of those people who can watch a bad three-hour movie and still don’t care, but this was just brilliant. Love your site!

  5. Stu

    I love long movies – “Ben Hur” and “Lawrence of Arabia” are some of my favorites – and yet I also grow weary of most summer-action/blockbuster films at around the 80 minute mark. The Michael Bay’s of this world could make note of this and probably improve their critical reception considerably.

  6. Alexandra

    The other infographic that should go with this is how good a movie is compared to how long it *feels*–I’ve watched plenty of bad movies under 90 minutes that felt longer than Gone with the Wind.

  7. It is funny ~I have found myself looking at running time now more and more as a tool for helping me to choose the evenings viewing. It never bothered me before. But now I have to think about what time I am getting my old body up to bed.

  8. Was Transformers constantly in your mind while making this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s