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.
If a movie is short, but ridiculously entertaining (see my earlier example of WALL·E
), have you not gotten your money's worth?
X-Men 3 and Spiderman 3 were both woefully inadequate in the story telling department and should have been longer.
The problems with those movies were not with their running times (at 139 minutes, Spider-Man 3
was longer than both of its predecessors) but rather with the quality of their scripts. To say that "longer movie = better movie" is an at-best spurious argument that has little to no foundation in logic -- see my earlier point about the length of books.
I mean, heck, Psycho
is barely over an hour and a half long, and it's phenomenal. Same with Reservoir Dogs
. There's no reason to say that in order to be good, a movie needs to have a length of X minutes. There's just as much room for The Godfather
as there is for Cloverfield
(84 minutes) and Good Night, and Good Luck
I guess you don't like long movies. Ghostbusters
, which I just re-watched this past weekend, didn't really delve into the characters much. It was just a "fun" movie.
Then again, Raiders of the Lost Ark
was 115 minutes, while Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
was 122 minutes, yet with KotS, I felt like it was missing *something*.