I’ve seen a couple movies that are ~3 hours long, but I think the longest are Seven Samurai and Eureka, both of which are roughly 3.5 hours.
There was also a Taiwanese drama, A Brighter Summer Day, which I began watching but gave up after 1.5 hours because I felt like I didn’t understand any of the characters or feel anything significant about the movie. The total running length is about 4 hours, I think.
Longest movie I’ve ever seen was probably either Avatar or Fiddler on the Roof.
Mine may also me Avatar, need to think harder about that though.
Avatar a long movie? Come on, even Titanic is longer (and not even that much). Surely You’ve seen Titanic, haven’t you? Or the Lord of the Rings films? Or King Kong? Just citing main stream films, as lots of classics like Gone with the Wind pass that mark.
I’ve seen quite a number of film of around 4 hours. Fanny and Alexander is 5 and Napoleon is almost 6. I think that’s the longest I’ve seen, but I can be mistaken.
This might sound odd but I haven’t seen any of those films yet. Just haven’t had the time to check them out.
Gone With the Wind, which is nearly 4 hours long. And other long movies I’ve seen are Avatar, Titanic, and Intolerance.
Ah, add Gone with the Wind to my list. I knew I was forgetting quite a few movies. Even as a film studies major, however, I admit I don’t have much interest in seeing most silent epic films.
I forogt Titanic. Got to add that.
I haven’t actually seen Titanic, admittedly, but I have watched all the Lord of the Rings films a few times, and I guess I’m just perceiving Avatar as a longer movie because I wasn’t as entertained by it, so it felt way longer in my mind.
That’s a good one! 
Watching Election again, so now I rank Payne films as follows: Election, The Descendants, Sideways, About Schmidt, and Citizen Ruth. While The Descendants has better dramatic depth and performances, I just love the dark humor of Election, along with its screenplay and characters. Plus, Tracy Flick is just so annoying I can’t help loving her.
I found Avatar entertaining enough. I know it isn’t great, but I love it personally.
Oh, I don’t think Avatar is a bad movie by any means. I actually came away thinking it was pretty good. I just don’t think I was enthralled enough with it to stay completely awake for 3 hours. 
I’m ashamed to admit it, but I have a fairly short attention span.
You guys know their making two sequels?
Yes.
You guys gonna see them or not.
idk. I liked Avatar, like it was a decent movie. But I wasn’t crazy about it, I’d rather see Dances With Wolves or Pocahontas anyday. I’m 97% I won’t see the sequels.
I’ll watch them, of course, but not at theaters.
Don’t want Cameron to surpass himself again.
I might and might not. I thought the film was good but I wasn’t like some people going… “BEST MOVIE EVER! OTHER MOVIES SUCK!” It depands on reviews and such.
Haha, the dude has a crazy track record! It’s not like Titanic and Avatar even have a lot in common on the surface, especially to an average American moviegoer. Insanity, I tell you.
I think I’d like to see Avatar again and absorb the entire movie. From what I remember, it was entertaining and gorgeous, but the story was a little uninspiring and predictable. Sort of cookie cutter, if you will. I wouldn’t go out of my way to see the sequels, but if they get decent reviews, I may join someone to see them. But yeah, they’re more of a rental thing for me.
I’m interested in seeing how 48 fps looks in movies from Cameron, Peter Jackson, and whoever else is playing around with this technology that is clearly the “future of cinema.” All I know is I was watching my dad’s girlfriend’s new HD TV with some weird frame rate setting and everything looked like a cheap, slightly sped-up soap opera. 48 fps might work for what Cameron and Jackson are doing, but I hardly think it would fit into most of the movies I enjoy, unless I’m looking for intense realism. But maybe it’s more versatile than I’m assuming.