In a cinema with an ending far, far away…

Clare Binns, a long-time champion of independent cinema in the UK, was awarded by Bafta early in 2026 for her outstanding contribution to the industry. Rather than spew platitudes, Binns took the opportunity to rail at movie producers and directors for the increasingly flabby length of their features. 

‘There’s always exceptions,’ said Binns, ‘but I look at a lot of films and think: “You could take 20 minutes out of that.” There’s no need for films to be that long.’

This may have been in response to contemporary blockbusters clocking three-hours plus. However, even the recent Oscars smash One Battle After Another with a barely more palatable runtime of 2 hours and 40 minutes, also looks to be a box office bomb, prompting its star turn Leonardo DiCaprio to question whether audiences have lost their stomach for long or challenging movies. 

They haven’t. Otherwise bingewatching wouldn’t be a thing. The charge that the Covid-19 pandemic ruined cinema going was put to bed by the Barbenheimer 
phenomenon – close to a five-hour stretch of screen time for those who watched both Barbie and Oppenheimer back-to-back. Perhaps Covid-19 merely accelerated the effects of living with a perpetual attention grabbing device close to hand.

Cinema urges you to close yourself off from the world, to turn-off the phones and bleeping machines for a few hours. Rare bliss to me but increasingly the case it seems, not to most. Whether it’s commenting mid-movie, capturing b-roll for a short, responding to messages, being always available just in case you’re needed, the mores of cinema are anti-smartphone. When people choose the cinema then, as with ’Barbenheimer’, it’s for an event wider than just the movie itself – call it what you will: FOMO, taking part in the global watercooler; I was there. 

Precious time

This doesn’t affect choosing a film to watch at home. Even so, that choice carries more cognitive baggage than choosing a series. Opting to watch 6 episodes of a show back-to-back appears to be a relative non-issue, whereas opting for a film that takes up three hours is a risky decision. 

Perhaps it’s because series are designed to oscillate the intensity-level with each episode ending on a cliffhanger. Perhaps it’s because they are designed to be watched piecemeal, whereas consuming a movie in parts could, by some, considered heresy. I’m not particularly proud that it took me four sittings to finish The Irishman, but it is what is.

We’re all trying to cram in as many different things in a day. Doing the school run, catching the second half of the match, squeezing in an episode of that thing everyone is talking about, writing a draft, playing with the kids, grabbing a pint, speed-reading a chapter, taking a gym class, catching up with a friend, winding down by blowing things up for half-an-hour’s gaming. All alongside doing a full day’s work.

Committing your whole evening of leisure time on one vehicle when there is so much else to do – so, so much more choice than 25 years ago – puts pressure on the long movie to deliver. Merely rattling through the watchlist to finally make a choice is fraught enough. Shorter movies lessen that burden, but are they any good? This what we are here to find out.

Why cut-off at 90 minutes?

Perhaps we have made a rod for our own backs here as stretching the runtime to 100 minutes opens up a surfeit of great films, but we need a hard stop, and a limit that tests us. Warning: may need to scrape the barrel. 

We refuse to go down the line of cutting long movies up into multiple, shorter watching sessions. Goodfellas is a great film that can lend itself to be watched in three acts, but we are not interested in those shenanigans.

Shorter movies may be older, be b-movie cuts or ‘cult’ obscurities, more likely be romcoms, comedies, or animations, but the films featured here are ones we think you should give the time of day, especially when soccer matches take longer to wrap up.