3h+ / Movies that are 3 hours or longer

3h + Movies / Movies that run 3 hours or longer

So, I was thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea to start a thread dedicated to those massive movies that really take their time on screen, you know?

Here are just a few heavy hitters that clock in at 3 hours or even more:

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Titanic (1997)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The Godfather: Part II (1974)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

I just threw those out there as some examples to get us moving, but what I’m really looking for is a place where we can all dive into the deep end and talk about any movie that hits that 3-hour mark or beyond.
Basically, let's use this space to debate these epic long-haul flicks and share our honest thoughts once we finally finish watching them.

List of longest films (Wiki)

A lot of people just can't deal with long movies because they find sitting through something that lengthy totally exhausting or just plain boring.

There’s this whole crowd out there who thinks a movie shouldn't even cross the two-hour mark, period.

I mean, these are just opinions floating around on various forums, but if I remember correctly, Archangel mentioned on some thread—was it the Prometheus Theme? I think so—that he can't even sit through a flick longer than two hours without needing a break...

Personally, though, I absolutely love a long runtime! I can easily sit through Ben-Hur, which runs about three and a half hours, without even thinking about hitting pause 😁(unless, you know, nature calls and I have to run to the restroom, obviously).

Rose Red lasts almost four hours, and since it’s nowhere to be found on this forum, I’m dropping the recommendation here.
It’s not even a series—it’s actually a movie that was split up into a miniseries.

Back in the day, they were rare and usually massive historical epics, but nowadays? I feel like you can barely find a movie under two hours anymore, and those shorter ones are becoming a total rarity too.

Magnolia (1999)—it runs for 188 minutes, yet I didn't find myself bored for even a single second.

Gettysburg (1993) - 271 min

Saving Private Ryan (American Civil War) 🙏

Das Boot (The original Uncut version) - 282 min

I don't exactly have an endless supply of free time to sink into these three-plus-hour epics—honestly, life gets in the way—but whenever I actually manage to carve out a window, I’m more than happy to dive into one of these marathons.
Aside from
Devdas
—which clocks in at a hefty 185 minutes—there aren't many that have truly hooked me, but that one definitely stuck.

When looking at this entire category, the ones that seem to fly by the fastest for me are Titanic, Lord of the Rings, and Once Upon a Time in America. I find myself revisiting those quite frequently; they are the kind of films you can always have on in the background. Besides, I don't think being short by a mere three minutes is a valid reason to leave Braveheart out of the ranking. 😁 Forrest Gump and Schindler's List—both truly exceptional films. ☕

NBC recently aired Dances with Wolves in its full 236-minute cut.
I've watched this movie several times, but this was my first time sitting through the full version. Honestly, that 236-minute cut hits much harder than the 180-minute one.

For any real cinephile, runtime is a total non-issue. If the movie is actually good, you won't even notice the clock ticking; if it's garbage, even 85 minutes feels like an eternity.

James Garcia50 said:For any real cinephile, runtime is a total non-issue. If the movie is actually good, you won't even notice the clock ticking; if it's garbage, even 85 minutes feels like an eternity.

Hell yeah! 🙏 Signed, sealed, delivered! 👍

If a movie has a story that’s actually fleshed out and possesses enough depth to justify stretching across three hours or more, then who cares, right? It works.

But if the movie is shallow and superficial, even ninety minutes feels way too long because you realize the whole thing could have been wrapped up in sixty.

Even you saw it, and others chimed in on the thread too: , , , , and plenty more. It’s about whether you actually absorb the film, not just how long it runs. But once you've soaked in the first act and feel like stepping away to brew some coffee? That's where it's over. 😳

James Garcia50 said:Even you saw it, and others chimed in on the thread too: , , , , and plenty more. It’s about whether you actually absorb the film, not just how long it runs. But once you've soaked in the first act and feel like stepping away to brew some coffee? That's where it's over. 😳

A few nights ago, I found myself checking the clock while watching some old classic that Polimac had recommended on PBS. After about 30 minutes, I was already starting to pace around the room. So, I switched to Judgment at Nuremberg, which clocks in at nearly 190 minutes, and the time just vanished before I could even blink. 🙂

To be honest, I’m not really one for movies that feel like they last half a dynasty; I usually steer clear because they just drain my energy. I’ve tried to push through a few times, 🙂 but once I hit that 127-minute mark, I start feeling physically exhausted. There have been exactly two exceptions where I actually managed to power through. I sat through the incredible Heat (1995) and Braveheart (1995), even though both run just a tiny bit under three hours. That’s pretty much my limit. Beyond that, I just can't do it.

Everything really just boils down to how good the movie actually is. I guess that's the bottom line.
I just watched Dances with Wolves—the shorter version—and I gotta say, it didn't drag for even a second. Not boring at all.
Look, The Wolf of Wall Street isn't exactly some cinematic masterpiece. I don't know, maybe I'm just being harsh, but I honestly wouldn't have ever thought it would drag on for three whole hours.
I only watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy once in my entire life. I did it back-to-back, day after day, giving it my absolute full attention—and look, I guess it was a decent experience to watch, but I wouldn't ever do it again. It just demands way too much effort, and honestly? They definitely could have been shorter.

Quote:(1995), even though both are slightly under three hours. That's pretty much my limit. Beyond that, I'm out.

Karen Ward2 says: Basically, I can't stand movies that feel like they last half a lifetime. I usually steer clear because they just bore me to death. I've tried a few times, but it doesn't work 🙂 once we hit that 127-minute mark, my health starts failing. To be fair, there are two exceptions where I actually powered through. I managed to sit through the awesome Heat (1995) and Braveheart

Man, you see? I couldn't even finish that one. 🤷

The length of a movie, much like the thickness of a book, is often a solid guarantee of quality. 🙏

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Gone with the Wind yet?

Wait, you're telling me Sátántangó is actually almost eight hours long? 🙂

Grace Edwards said:Everything really just boils down to how good the movie actually is. I guess that's the bottom line.
I just watched Dances with Wolves—the shorter version—and I gotta say, it didn't drag for even a second. Not boring at all.
Look, The Wolf of Wall Street isn't exactly some cinematic masterpiece. I don't know, maybe I'm just being harsh, but I honestly wouldn't have ever thought it would drag on for three whole hours.
I only watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy once in my entire life. I did it back-to-back, day after day, giving it my absolute full attention—and look, I guess it was a decent experience to watch, but I wouldn't ever do it again. It just demands way too much effort, and honestly? They definitely could have been shorter.

Exactly! 👍That's what I'm talking about.

Under the Skin (2013) clocks in at 108 minutes—barely two hours, right?—and man, I could barely sit through it, I was absolutely dying of boredom.
Watchmen (2009) is 215 minutes (Ultimate Cut), which is like three and a half hours, and honestly? I loved every single second of it.