3h+ / Movies that are 3 hours or longer

Casey Cox2 What's up, guys? So, I was just sitting here thinking about what cosmiclynx57 was saying...
You absolutely have to mention one of the greatest movies ever made here—though, let’s be real, nothing is ever gonna top The Deer Hunter, right?

So, I just wrapped up this massive 216-minute Director's Cut from Criterion, and man, where do I even begin? Can you actually wrap your head around a runtime that long without feeling like you need a nap halfway through? It’s an absolute marathon, but honestly, was it worth every single second? I think so! There's just something about that extra footage that makes the whole experience feel so much more immersive, you know? It’s not just about the length; it's about how they really let the story breathe. Have you ever sat through something so epic that you completely lost track of time? That's exactly what happened here.
I'm sorry, but it looks like your message was cut short! What's on your mind? I'm ready to dive into whatever you want to talk about—whether we're breaking down some cinematic masterpiece, debating the best snacks, or just shooting the breeze. Just let me know what's up!
Apocalypse Now Redux - 197min

I haven't checked that one out yet, though I have to say, the acting lineup looks seriously solid—it’s definitely one of those films that’ll eventually find its way onto my watchlist!

Man, even though Apocalypse Now Redux is such a heavy, grueling watch, it absolutely grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go for a single second. It’s one of those movies that just commands your full attention from start to finish, you know? Honestly, I’ve always felt that some of the absolute best films ever made are those massive, epic stories that run over three hours—there's just something about that scale that hits different. For me, those long-form masterpieces are easily sitting among my all-time favorites.
So, according to IMDb, the runtime for the Redux version is 202 minutes. Can you believe that? It’s such a massive chunk of time!

Casey Cox2 said:you definitely have to mention this one—it's easily one of the best films ever made (though, obviously, it doesn't quite top The Deer Hunter)

Honestly, the movie would’ve been way better if they’d just given it a decent edit and kept things moving... instead, we got all this unnecessary dragging out of an already pretty slow plot.

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.

But isn't it also dependent on other factors, such as individual personality traits and the viewer's own perception? You can't just pin everything on the quality of the film, especially when "quality" itself is such a deeply subjective judgment to begin with...

Gettysburg runs over four hours long, but honestly? It’s one of the best war movies ever made. It easily ranks as the second best film out there about the Civil War.

It’s easy enough to talk about those "newer" movies, but have you ever actually sat through a silent film that runs longer than three hours? I'm talking about things like Griffith's One Nation or Erich von Stroheim's Greed—which was originally nearly nine hours long, though we mostly only have the four-hour version now. Or even Napoleon, where the only surviving version is just under five hours. These are all fascinating, groundbreaking pieces of cinema. Everything you see in them was being done for the very first time, from filming in the Valley of Death in 100-degree heat to pioneering widescreen by literally mounting three cameras side-by-side. Still, you definitely need some serious patience to sit through a four-hour silent movie.

Every time I think about it, I’m instantly transported back to the mid-eighties, sitting in some dark movie theater watching *The Right Stuff*. I was just a kid back then—probably one of the few people actually paying attention. Half the audience had completely checked out; you could practically hear the collective snoring echoing through the room. Honestly? I can't say I blamed them. To my younger self, the pacing felt so incredibly sluggish that it was borderline agonizing. It actually ended up being such a tedious experience for me that I caught a few sharp swats behind the ears from my old man—just his way of telling me to sit still and settle down.😁

goldenscout14 said:But isn't it also dependent on other factors, such as individual personality traits and the viewer's own perception? You can't just pin everything on the quality of the film, especially when "quality" itself is such a deeply subjective judgment to begin with...

I guess I agree.

stormywalker68 said:Every time I think about it, I’m instantly transported back to the mid-eighties, sitting in some dark movie theater watching *The Right Stuff*. I was just a kid back then—probably one of the few people actually paying attention. Half the audience had completely checked out; you could practically hear the collective snoring echoing through the room. Honestly? I can't say I blamed them. To my younger self, the pacing felt so incredibly sluggish that it was borderline agonizing. It actually ended up being such a tedious experience for me that I caught a few sharp swats behind the ears from my old man—just his way of telling me to sit still and settle down.😁

The Right Stuff being boring? Well, maybe you got what you deserved! 🙂

In an era where hypnotized viewers are happily churning through 14 seasons of 25 episodes of the exact same garbage TV series, I find it a bit strange to be obsessing over movie runtime. A good film is a good film—forget the length.

In my opinion, the runtime should have been longer 😁 there's no way I'm forcing myself to sit through
Das Boot; that movie's duration is all I can think about.

The longest movie I’ve ever watched that actually stayed with me was Novecento. I really dig how Bertolucci blends those heavy socio-political themes with personal stories and eroticism.

Watched Sátántangó, but I didn't have the stamina or the nerves to actually finish it.

From Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev, 205 min.

cosmiclynx57 said: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.

Personally, I think Watchmen (2009) at 186 minutes (Director's Cut) is way better than the Ultimate Cut. And don't even get me started on the theatrical version; it’s a complete mess! Even though it's still pretty long at 162 minutes, it felt totally butchered just so they could fit it onto those old IMAX reels and try to dodge an R rating.

Jose Brooks62 said:The longest movie I’ve ever watched that actually stayed with me was Novecento. I really dig how Bertolucci blends those heavy socio-political themes with personal stories and eroticism.

Watched Sátántangó, but I didn't have the stamina or the nerves to actually finish it.

Ugh, I ended up splitting that one into two separate viewings... but man, what an insane story and atmosphere.

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.

Pihhhh... just try watching all three of the Ultimate Cuts back-to-back in order 🙂
Take a day or two off... then do it ALL OVER AGAIN 😁

"It began with the forging of the great Ring! Three were given to the Elves..." LOL 🙂

I haven't really spent much time diving into movies that stretch past the three-hour mark, but the only two that immediately come to mind—and honestly, they were both absolutely incredible—are 😍Titanic and Dances with Wolves.🙏 Back in the day, I felt like I could watch them on loop forever without ever getting bored, but these days, my attention span just isn't what it used to be; I find myself wanting to give up after maybe thirty minutes or an hour or so.😢

Oh, and I actually tried sitting down to watch The Wolf of Wall Street just to see why everyone makes such a huge deal out of it, but the first time I tried, I gave up after only half an hour because I just couldn't find it interesting at all. I decided to give it another shot about a month or two later, and even then, it took me two separate sittings to get through it. It just didn't resonate with me, and I honestly don't quite grasp what people find so hilarious about the whole thing.😕🤷

Commune (Paris, 1871), La (2000) 😁 345 min
🙂Fanny
Alexander Directors Cut (1982) 300 min
Until the End of the World (1991)—honestly, this one's a total slog at 280 minutes
😁That’s basically everything
I've got.

bluemaker24 said:I haven't really spent much time diving into movies that stretch past the three-hour mark, but the only two that immediately come to mind—and honestly, they were both absolutely incredible—are 😍Titanic and Dances with Wolves.🙏 Back in the day, I felt like I could watch them on loop forever without ever getting bored, but these days, my attention span just isn't what it used to be; I find myself wanting to give up after maybe thirty minutes or an hour or so.😢

Oh, and I actually tried sitting down to watch The Wolf of Wall Street just to see why everyone makes such a huge deal out of it, but the first time I tried, I gave up after only half an hour because I just couldn't find it interesting at all. I decided to give it another shot about a month or two later, and even then, it took me two separate sittings to get through it. It just didn't resonate with me, and I honestly don't quite grasp what people find so hilarious about the whole thing.😕🤷

Jao... but hey, 😁fair enough.

So, I actually sat down and gave this thing a second watch just a couple of days ago, and man, let me tell you... it really hits different when you go back to it after having a little time to process everything the first time around! So, I was just sitting here thinking about that massive epic, *The Fall of the Roman Empire* from 1964, and man, where do you even begin with a beast like that? It’s one of those sweeping, gorgeously shot historical dramas that feels like it belongs to a completely different era of filmmaking, right? You know the type—where they actually bothered to build massive sets instead of just relying on some cheap green screen nonsense we see everywhere today. I mean, does anyone else feel like modern movies just lack that sheer, overwhelming scale? This film is just sprawling. Every frame feels heavy with intention, almost like you can feel the weight of the history pressing down on the characters. It makes you wonder, if we tried to make something this ambitious nowadays, would anyone even have the patience for it? Probably not, because everyone's too busy scrolling through their phones to sit through a slow-burn masterpiece, don't you think? It’s got that classic, grand feeling that stays with you long after the credits roll. It’s not just a movie; it’s an experience. Honestly, if you haven't sat down and really let yourself get lost in it, you are seriously missing out on a piece of cinematic history. It’s just... wow. Just pure, unadulterated spectacle. Man, we're looking at a solid 188 minutes here! Can you even believe that kind of runtime? It's basically a marathon, isn't it? I mean, grab your popcorn and settle in, because you’re definitely going to need a refill halfway through if you're planning on sitting through this one!

So, I finally sat down and watched it for the first time! So, I was just sitting here thinking about that massive 1963 epic *Cleopatra*, and man, where do you even begin with a production like that? It’s one of those movies that feels less like a film and more like a whole historical event, right? I mean, can you even imagine the sheer scale of what they were trying to pull off back then? It’s absolutely wild! You’ve got Elizabeth Taylor basically carrying the weight of the entire ancient world on her shoulders, and honestly, she just commands the screen in a way that most modern stars couldn't dream of. It’s pure, unadulterated Hollywood spectacle. I was actually chatting about this with cosmiclynx57 the other day, and we were both wondering—do you think modern studios could ever actually attempt something this ambitious again? Everything today feels so polished and digital, but there’s something about those massive, physical sets and the sheer costume budget that gives this movie such a heavy, tangible presence. It’s almost overwhelming! And let’s be real, the runtime alone is enough to make you want to grab a huge bucket of popcorn and settle in for the long haul, but isn't that kind of the charm of these old-school epics? You don't just watch them; you experience them. It really makes you appreciate the craft behind the scenes, too. Even if you find certain parts a bit over-the-top, you have to respect the vision. It’s like looking at a massive piece of art that refuses to apologize for its own grandeur. Does anyone else feel like we lost something when cinema moved away from these sprawling, larger-than-life stories? I really think we did. Four hours and eleven minutes. Can you believe that? Seriously, just sitting there, losing track of everything else while that clock keeps ticking away!

Man, I’d honestly give both of those flicks a solid 8/10!

I honestly can't wrap my head around how some people just breeze through life without ever stopping to really *feel* the weight of a masterpiece, you know? Like, I was sitting there thinking about all those deep dives we do, and it hit me—are we actually watching movies, or are we just consuming content to kill time? There’s such a massive, gaping canyon between someone just scrolling through Netflix and someone who actually sits down to experience a film like it's a religious event. Don't get me wrong, I love a good popcorn flick as much as the next guy, but isn't there something almost spiritual about that total immersion? I mean, when you find a director who truly understands the soul of the medium, doesn't it feel like they're speaking directly to you? It makes you wonder if most modern cinema is even trying to reach that level anymore, or if everyone is too busy chasing the next viral trend to bother with actual substance. kaže:
Honestly, I’m just going to say it: the Watchmen Director's cut is lightyears ahead of the Ultimate Cut. Like, seriously, why even bother with the other version when you have the original vision right there? It’s just so much better, isn't it?

I mean, I totally get that, but my whole point was just to find the absolute longest version available so I could really sink into it and enjoy the ride, you know? Like, who cares how long it is if you can just lose yourself in the full experience?

A little cultural enrichment never hurts anyone. 😁

Hamlet (1996)

The full version is the complete adaptation by Ken Branagh, clocking in at a solid 242 minutes.

Strangely enough, there was also this heavily butchered edit—the kind that used to hit theaters back in the day (I caught it once at a local Film archive)—that ran for only about 129 minutes.

Honestly, the difference between the two is night and day. 😁