"It Moved Slower Than Molasses" — 16 Movies That Were Way Longer Than They Needed To Be

"It could have been better edited into something a bit more manageable."

—aidanc4

"Thought it was kind of a boring movie, it could have been so good. But, when I thought it was over it still had a lot of scenes that didn't feel like an actual ending?"

—kellyloves

"I took against it in the first fvie minutes and it didn't go up from there. That being said, it could have been 90 minutes and I would have still disliked it."

—kathryna456a720b8

"It was over two and a half hours long and moved slower than molasses. Such tosh. Leo’s a great actor but was pretty lifeless here — his heavy breathing was almost the only way you knew he was alive. The scene with the mama bear was both ridiculous & unbelievable. Tom Hardy was the only redeeming aspect of that slothful mess!"

—fayeesnow

"Nearly four hours long. My dad made me sit through it once as a kid. With adverts it lasted nearly five hours."

—sophied442c618b5

"Excellent cinematography, but the story could have been told much quicker."

—putthephoneaway

"Actually they cut alot out and shortened time scales. The story is supposed to take place over a period of years. Dune would have been better as a TV series."

—lifetheuniverseandeverything

"I know it was a short movie anyway, but if you cut out most of the exposition in the beginning it would’ve been a way better movie. It honestly seemed like an executive thought the audience would be full of idiots and didn’t want anyone to leave the theater confused. It’s a horror movie. Confusion happens. That’s how people start discussions about the movie."

—bitterogre9346

"It could have easily dropped the ongoing joke that Grandpa Eddie didn't know he was in a video game, and streamlined both the ostrich and mandrill scenes."

—triffid77

"I love Baz Luhrmann as a director and I think his work is almost always wonderful. It had like four logical endings. By the end, I didn’t even care what the final ending was. It was a long movie anyway."

—buzzkeeper

"Time has moved on so much since the first one that the graphics aren’t as groundbreaking anymore and there were lots of scenes of 'wow look how pretty the sea is'. The plot didn’t really draw me in either, basically the first film but in the sea instead of the sky (minus the explanations of how they got there)."

—klmy

"Three and a half hours! I haven't ever watched it again since it came out in 1997, but if I remember right, the whole third hour was only about Jack and Rose's attempts to escape. Obviously that was part of the story, but it went on way too long and ruined the whole movie for me. Turned it from a character-driven tragic love story into an action blockbuster. Obviously the aftermath had to be shown, no quarrel with that, but a lot of it was pretty unlikely and just stretched out for the thrills. That's why I've never watched it again."

—deadpancupcake92

"Sat through it, regretted it. I think it was the slow pacing of it that made it feel like torture."

—ladedah

"Remember how it used such elaborate de-aging effects? Pretty sure by the end the audience really wished it had access to the same technology."

—sarahbird

"It did not need to be three movies. Even with adding additional content from other works, it did not need to be three movies. It could have been a fantastic single film, I think."

—am301394wne