Want to advertise on
The Movie Blog?

Click here for
information!

» News

Indiana Jones Just Under 2.5 Hours

By John - April 16, 2008 - 01:11 America/Montreal

Indiana-Jones-Run-Time.jpgThe film that I had given up all hope would ever get made is going to be on screen very soon, and according to various sources Indiana Jones 4 is now 100% locked down and completed and has a run time of just over 140 minutes (just a hair under 2.5 hours for those of you who are like me and don’t like to bother with instant minute math in your heads)

At first I admit that the length struck me as a little bit long, but the more I thought about it, the more I’m ok with it. This is a film a lot of people have been anxiously awaiting for nearly 20 years. Indiana Jones films are always epic in nature, and although this is roughly 20-25 minutes longer than the other Indiana Jones films, I think it’s warranted.

But obviously the question of if 140+ minutes is too long or not will ultimately be decided by the movie itself. If it maintains a strong sense of pace with the adventure constantly moving forward (however fast or slow) and it’s good enough to keep our attention, then the film could be 4 hours long and we’d all still be happy. If it lacks those things then 90 minutes would seems like an eternity.

My guess is that the length will be just fine. I still say this will be the top grossing film of 2008 (not the BEST film). We’ll just have to wait and see. I can’t wait. (Source: Hollywood Elsewhere)

» 15 Comments

  1. James says:

    From the leaked script info and storylines that have been confirmed by advance mercahandise, there is easily enough story to fill those 140 minutes, trust me. We’re not talking character overload, ala [b]Spider-Cry 3[/b], but they cover a lot of ground in [b]Indy 4[/b].

  2. Uh oh. Don’t let Doug know. I believe he’s going to say that they could cut the while Shia LeBeouf sub plot and bring it in at 90 minutes.

  3. CanuckLou says:

    Top grossing movie of the year: WALL-E
    Best movie of the year: WALL-E

  4. Sahil says:

    I dont think 140 Mins is a huge deal. Transformers was 143 mins and if they can make a movie that long about robots and keep us entertained that I am sure that Indy will do atleast that.

  5. Slushie Man says:

    The average movie length these days is a lot longer then it was back in the 80’s when the others were made, so this doesn’t bother me at all.

  6. Dave says:

    I often feel cheated if a good movie is under two hours. There have been a few times where 90 minutes seemed just right for a non-comedy, but most of the time I would want it to be around 150 minutes. Then again you are right, if it is bad then 150 minutes would be very painful to watch. I can’t wait to see if this one really lives up to its name.

  7. Well, let’s see….

    Raiders…115 minutes

    Temple Of Doom…118 minutes

    Last Crusade….127 minutes

    So, it comes off as no surprise that the new Indy film would have a 140 some minutes (of course, given the huge budget of the new installment, five of those minutes might be simply end credits!)

    Note to Dave: I never felt cheated in the first two Indy pix; I felt cheated in “Last Crusade” which was just over the threshold. Also, if there is a picture whose biggest flaw is that you loved it so much that you want more…I don’t see that as a flaw at all. Unless you get swindled out of your money when they make the sequel which is lesser running time than the first! (Men In Black II)

  8. Roguepirate says:

    So here’s my take on how it’s all going down. Now that John is all excited and believes that Indy 4 is actually in production, on it’s way to completion and also believes the film is 140+ minutes. He’s going to go to the Arclight to watch Indy, the trailers pass, the opening credits roll and just as they’re about to pan from Indy’s infamous hat down to his face… John gets Rick Roll’d.

  9. James says:

    ^^^^ Haha! That would be hilarious if we are all in our respective theaters on opening day and the film starts, but after the Paramount logo fades, we just get Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford in front of a green screen…and we watch in horror as they all shout in unison “This one’s for you Campea!” and proceed to drop their pants and moon the audience….

  10. nbakid2000 says:

    2.5 hours is fine by me. More Indy for my buck? I’m there. I have no problem with long movies as long as they’re interesting.

    I know a lot of people DO but that’s because they have low attention spans (I have a friend who can BARELY sit through an hour and a half film). It’s annoying to have to watch movies with them (him) because towards the last 30 minutes or so, he’s always fidgeting, not looking at the screen, making weird noises, and by the last 5 minutes he’s always leaned foward on the edge of his seat, ready to SPRING UP and get out of there as soon as the credits start rolling.

  11. Kristina says:

    Look, it’s not the runtime that concerns me. It’s the pace. The Departed is 151 minutes, but I never once checked my watch because the thing moved so well. The only time that I begin to “feel” a film’s runtime is when the story begins to drag, like the first hour of King Kong Way Too Long. I have a feeling that with the addition of Beefy’s character and the rumored role that he has to play in all of this, the film will be weighed down with certain issues that might have me checking my watch if they don’t handle it well. I know that a movie can’t just be 2.5 hours of BOOMBOOMBAMFLASHWHAMMO!, but I don’t want to see 2.5 hours of family dramatics, either. That’s the shit that turned Singerman Returns into an extended episode of Maury.

  12. Phil Gee says:

    Maybe it takes Harrison quite a while to deliver a line of dialogue these days. He’s past it you know……way past it;)

    Sorry, that was cruel and bitchy. In these days of ridiculous ticket prices, it really does mean a lot to me that the film i’ve paid to see is at least 2 hours long. That’s just how i feel. I am very curious why it’s that long though. Indy films are known for their thunderous pace and quickness in rapping things up.

    But the picture is locked baby, it’s locked. It’s nearly here; i’m so excited.

  13. Robert says:

    Why the lack of Dark Knight coverage???? It is gonna be the best movie of the year! Academy award nominee (Screenplay) Chris Nolan writing and Directing. Academy award nominee (story/screenplay) Jonathan Nolan co-writing. Academy Award nominated cinematographer Wally Pfister lensing the pic. Christian Bale starring. Golden Globe nominee Maggie Gyllenhaal., Golden Globe nom. Aaron Eckhart, Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman, Academy Award Winner Michael Caine, Academy award nominee Heath Ledger, Academy Award nominee Eric Roberts, Gary Oldman, Anthony Michael Hall, William Fitchner, Michael Jai White, Senator Leahy (cameo). This movie is packed with talent! None of the other movies this summer have this much talent!

  14. EZELL says:

    as long as there good films i would be ok with a 4 hour film if it kicks ass like star wars or James Bond or evan the Nolan’s Version of Batman. i would watch them i never get board watching a good film. King Kong did not bother me a bit.

  15. Gavin Bollard says:

    Did you ever get around to posting a youtube video of yourself eating your hat? – or whatever it was you promised to do a couple of years ago if this ever got made.

» Leave a Reply