Odeon website in the UK has SPECTRE with a running time of 160 mins.
That would smash CRs record and IMO is a bit too long.
Thoughts?
That's 2 h & 40 min, which is quite a bit long for a Bond film. It's 1/3 h shy of 3 h.
This is 007 we're talking about, not LOTR.
CR was long enough, but at least it doesn't drag.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Peter Hunt, when tasked with editing down YOLT said he felt the best of 007 was in the early days, when the movies ran under two hours. He certainly has a point: DN, FRWL, GF all share a coherent and compelling narrative which doesn't tax the patience of the audience. There are moments of peace (FRWL particularly has periods of almost inactivity) but the underlying tension of the story and the remarkable cast of characters created for these films allows them to breathe and feel 'bigger' than they really are. Look then at movies like DAD, TWINE and LTK which despite having more minutes have less substance, less tension and less interesting characters. These movies 'bump' the climax continuously and the watcher ends up exhausted. This was first mooted in TB, which in 1965 worked wonders at the box office, but which appears a little draggy today. SF too suffers from this problem: there seems to be a whole new movie starting in the last 40 minutes. The exceptions to the rule are OHMSS and CR which both utilise their source novels to dramatic and melodramatic purpose and continue to develop character and situations to the very end of the movie. CR (as pointed out) does have a unique structure for a Bond film and in fairness repeated viewing IMO tends to dim it. OHMSS more standard and prosaic storytelling works best of all. It never feels like 140 minutes to me, even with the hour long action-less middle section. Curiously, that movie was, of course, directed by Peter Hunt.
I was always bemused by how the longest Bond film was adapted from the shortest novel And QoS certainly should have been at least ten minutes longer than it was, to allow for some narrative coherence, and to let some very important dramatic scenes 'breathe' a bit more
I've always rather liked the fact that the Bonds tend to run a bit long. It's a world I enjoy visiting, and hate to leave :007)
I was always bemused by how the longest Bond film was adapted from the shortest novel And QoS certainly should have been at least ten minutes longer than it was, to allow for some narrative coherence, and to let some very important dramatic scenes 'breathe' a bit more
I've always rather liked the fact that the Bonds tend to run a bit long. It's a world I enjoy visiting, and hate to leave :007)
Great point, I feel the same about QoS.
I like how QoS is short, they get the point across quickly and effectively.
TND, DAD and CR for me are too long. It might not be the running time, it could just be that they just drag out.
Most of the Bond films could have been 10 minutes shorter (just under 2 hours) if they wanted to be clean.
Just because Bond films tend to run a bit long doesn't mean it's necessarily bad thing. If a film is really good, it will suck you in and you'll forget about the length. Just like with books ; I'd rather read an amazing 500 page novel than a decent 200 page novel. Films like Dr. No and Goldfinger, I appreciate because they are really clean and pure. Every scene felt intentional, necessary and important.
A lot of it comes down to creative choices and preference.
* You Only Live Twice, which is already one of the shorter films, could have completely jettisoned the tacked-on Little Nellie air fight and the story would not have been affected one bit.
* Live and Let Die could have trimmed down the boat chase by a few minutes, but perhaps you really enjoyed the boat chase. * Thunderball could have cut some of the underwater fighting scenes in the 2nd half.
* License to Kill could have cut out some of the more action in the first act in order to place more emphasis on the Bondian elements in the rest of the movie.
* A View to a Kill could have used slick editing and quicker in order to convey a greater sense of energy in the film.
* Octopussy could have cut out the dinner scene entirely. It just felt like it was there to copy the Dr. No formula.
But if you liked all of these things, then it's good for you that they left them in.
Regarding the longest films, they're all Craig films. Casino Royale could've been a half-hour shorter if it wanted to focus more on drama than action, but the action scenes are very well done so there are no complaints. In Skyfall, it runs slower because the director deliberately chose to indulge in certain scenes to create an emotional effect. With Spectre, there were lots of concerns about it being too long. I thought it flowed very well because of the constant even stream of humor and action throughout. My complaint of the film isn't the length, but rather how it could have had a deeper story considering the amount of time it had. Quantum of Solace, however, was the shortest film, and while I really liked its brisk pace, I wouldn't have minded a few extra minutes in order to flesh out the movie some more (and to give me more geography of what was going on.
Also, some movies warrant being longer than others. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was long, but it had a lot going on. It was introducing a new Bond, so naturally Lazenby was expected to do all of the staples in one film. The Man with the Golden Gun was one of the shorter films, but it had a sparse story and was filled with random gags ; it could have been a 100-110 minute shorter film instead of 125. Whereas, The Spy Who Loved Me (same length) had a lot more going on.
TB - Vulcan, hospital and underwater scenes.
YOLT - Little Nellie.
FYEO - Ice skate goal thing.
AVTAK - SF chase, burning building.
GE - St Petersberg.
DAD - "Extended" Ice Palace chase scene.
CR - Love scenes while Bond is healing.
Comments
That's 2 h & 40 min, which is quite a bit long for a Bond film. It's 1/3 h shy of 3 h.
This is 007 we're talking about, not LOTR.
CR was long enough, but at least it doesn't drag.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Great point, I feel the same about QoS.
I like how QoS is short, they get the point across quickly and effectively.
TND, DAD and CR for me are too long. It might not be the running time, it could just be that they just drag out.
"Better make that two."
Just because Bond films tend to run a bit long doesn't mean it's necessarily bad thing. If a film is really good, it will suck you in and you'll forget about the length. Just like with books ; I'd rather read an amazing 500 page novel than a decent 200 page novel. Films like Dr. No and Goldfinger, I appreciate because they are really clean and pure. Every scene felt intentional, necessary and important.
A lot of it comes down to creative choices and preference.
* You Only Live Twice, which is already one of the shorter films, could have completely jettisoned the tacked-on Little Nellie air fight and the story would not have been affected one bit.
* Live and Let Die could have trimmed down the boat chase by a few minutes, but perhaps you really enjoyed the boat chase. * Thunderball could have cut some of the underwater fighting scenes in the 2nd half.
* License to Kill could have cut out some of the more action in the first act in order to place more emphasis on the Bondian elements in the rest of the movie.
* A View to a Kill could have used slick editing and quicker in order to convey a greater sense of energy in the film.
* Octopussy could have cut out the dinner scene entirely. It just felt like it was there to copy the Dr. No formula.
But if you liked all of these things, then it's good for you that they left them in.
Regarding the longest films, they're all Craig films. Casino Royale could've been a half-hour shorter if it wanted to focus more on drama than action, but the action scenes are very well done so there are no complaints. In Skyfall, it runs slower because the director deliberately chose to indulge in certain scenes to create an emotional effect. With Spectre, there were lots of concerns about it being too long. I thought it flowed very well because of the constant even stream of humor and action throughout. My complaint of the film isn't the length, but rather how it could have had a deeper story considering the amount of time it had. Quantum of Solace, however, was the shortest film, and while I really liked its brisk pace, I wouldn't have minded a few extra minutes in order to flesh out the movie some more (and to give me more geography of what was going on.
Also, some movies warrant being longer than others. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was long, but it had a lot going on. It was introducing a new Bond, so naturally Lazenby was expected to do all of the staples in one film. The Man with the Golden Gun was one of the shorter films, but it had a sparse story and was filled with random gags ; it could have been a 100-110 minute shorter film instead of 125. Whereas, The Spy Who Loved Me (same length) had a lot more going on.
For me:
TB - Vulcan, hospital and underwater scenes.
YOLT - Little Nellie.
FYEO - Ice skate goal thing.
AVTAK - SF chase, burning building.
GE - St Petersberg.
DAD - "Extended" Ice Palace chase scene.
CR - Love scenes while Bond is healing.
"Better make that two."