close reading

Every Movie Critic: 30 Minutes or Less Should Have Been 30 Minutes or Less

Somewhere in the movie critic handbook, issued to all reviewers who land on Rotten Tomatoes, there’s a page on making jokes about a movie’s length. The three scenarios in which it’s mandatory are when a movie is abnormally long, abnormally short, or has a time reference in its title. 30 Minutes or Less, which is only 83 minutes long, hits a sweet spot, going two for three on that criteria. And the Hollywood criteratti didn’t let this chance pass them by. Presented for you below is a sampling of the many, many shots taken at 30 Minutes or Less that reference its length. All can do double duty as a decent laugh line to deliver to your friends after leaving the theater.

“If only it were 30 minutes or less.” —Seattle Times

“Even if the film had been 30 minutes or less, this comedy would still be too long.” —The Hollywood Reporter

“Even at 30 minutes or less, it would outstay its welcome.” —Star Tribune

“You should get free pizzas for enduring more than 30 minutes of this dud.” —E! Online

“I might urge readers to go a multiplex this weekend, sit through the movie for 30 minutes or less, then leave en masse and demand a refund — except that life is too short for such political theater.” —Time

“‘30 Minutes’ feels way longer.” —AP

“Would that ‘30 Minutes or Less’ lived up to its title. Even under 90, it feels interminable.” —Washington Post

“The movie claims to be only 83 minutes long, but it’s the longest 83 minutes to come along in quite awhile” —Philadelphia Inquirer

“At a mere 83 minutes, ‘30 Minutes or Less’ might seem able to deliver on the promise of its zippy title. Instead, this slackers-go-gangsta comedy demonstrates that less than 90 minutes can be a very long time.” —NPR

“It gets in and out in an hour and 23 minutes. I’ve waited longer for a pizza to be delivered. Unfortunately, that pizza also was more enjoyable.” —Times Picayune

Every Movie Critic: 30 Minutes or Less Should Have Been 30 Minutes or Less