106 minutes? ACK! IMHO, one of the reasons CR was so great is because the full story could be told properly. Short movies always leave out too many details, making it feel forced and rushed. I prefer a movie to have a minimal running time of 2 hours.
I dislike storylines getting butchered by unnecessary editing, but what is worse is a limited plot being overstreached to a 200 minutes or something silly like that. Casino Royale
was not egregiously overlong, but it had weird pacing issues towards the end as soon as Bond gets 'rescued' by Mr. White. And 106 minutes is not much shorter than two hours (120 minutes) anyway.
I agree that stretching a story is also bad, but to me, a short running time is akin to not getting my money's worth.
I prefer a movie to have a minimal running time of 2 hours.
This ... this, I do not understand. A movie should be the length needed to tell its story, no more and no less. A crime epic like HEAT
needed all of its nearly three hours, but Ghostbusters
was a taut 105 minutes, Casablanca
is perfectly paced at 102 minutes, and WALL·E
was, what, 90 minutes long?
My point is that there's no reason to have an artificial criterion for the length of a movie -- that's an idea as ridiculous as saying that a novel needs to be at least 350 pages long.
The two movies people seem to gripe about the most regarding running time are Transformers
and Casino Royale
. To me, they both had excellent running times and told the full story. X-Men 3
and Spiderman 3
were both woefully inadequate in the story telling department and should have been longer.