From what I see most of the time its the American audiences who find the 3-4 hour film problomatic – I have no problems whatsoever watching a good movie for that amount of time; and neither do many of my friends. PS Im British...

hWell, I think that a real movie must be atleat two and a half hours long.
It is more than a football match, anyway. A movie on a personality like Che can afford to be four hour long, because those who choose to watch must be well read on him and may be looking for a fullfilling experience rather than just pop corn fare.Meanwhile, I am also working on one movie called 'BLOODY MARY'.

In India, the traditional 'Indian' audience craves for the 3. 5 hr long sagas, whereas the upper middle class audiences prefer 1.5 – 2 hr long International cinema formats, Hollywood or the newly introduced – Hinglish, (a mix of Hindi and English) formats...

Comedian Mike Myers said that a film comedy should not last longer than 60 minutes. He said it's too difficult to maintain comedic energy. Remember that the greatest film comedies by the masters Laurel and Hardy, Chaplin, Keaton, Fields and Lloyd were 20 to 30 minutes long. With drama, it depends on the quality of the script and direction. The best dramatic plays ever written, i.e. Shakespeare's, were four hours long. Of course, his audiences got up and walked around, left and came back, much as do the audiences for the marathon Chinese operas. Probably for modern audiences in modern theaters, 2 to 2 and 1/2 hours is optimum.

i won't mind watching a lengthy movie as long as it's 'necessary' in the effectiveness of the movie. i mean, there should be an organic unity -story, sound, actors and length altogether.

an "appropriate" length depends on too many variables...how much good material the makers of the film have, the physical tolerance (especially about sitting still for so long!!) of the person viewing the film, the pacing of the story, mood of the viewer, etc. every filmmaker strives to find the balance between all these variables. a good movie will keep one riveted until the viewer's personal tolerance is exceeded. an exceptionally tolerant viewer might find a short film "long" if the material is not appealing enough. in some cultures, if the movie is less than 2.5 to 3 hours, the audience will throw a fit no matter how good the movie is. but in the end, it is the filmmaker's responsibility to keep the length manageable after considering all the variables.

One of my favorite past times is watching Prison Break ( 4 episodes in one go) with my son on a weekend. I once tried doing this twice in a weekend but found that too much of the same thing. I guess the plot and formula became too obvious and that is tedious.

I also enjoy the classic long films like Ben Hur, Dances of Wolfes or any movie that is very good and holds your attention. It is nice to indulge in another world for a while especially if it is intense and exiting like Prison Break or inspirational spectacular and moving like Ben Hur.

You get a bigger than normal injection of something you thoroughly enjoy.

The problem however would be, if you get stuck in a movie theatre watching a movie that you half enjoy, but that carries on for too long.

If it "feels" to long, it is too long. I saw "The Great Silence" which was a good example of this. When you can hear more than one person in the audience snoring, the film is too long. "The Lives of Others" was 137 minutes, but they flew by. So the ideal film length really is relative. However, no film should never be so long as to require an interlude. In Italy, there is often an interlude even in a normal length film. It is so disruptive!

I love a well-done 2-5 – 3+ hour film. Especially with the cost of movie tickets and food, I like to feel like I'm getting my money's worth.

Bring back the intermission! Remember those?