Movies Under 90 Minutes Part 2: Horror

Part Two

Short and Spooky: The Horror Genre

 

The first genre I’m shining the spotlight on is one of the two biggest in terms of eligible contenders. I’ve been a big horror fan for a long time, so this is also one of the easier genres for me to analyze because I’m very familiar with these films. I’m lumping in one adjacent thriller as well because it fits in best here and it’s really the only one of its kind worth including. 

CONTENDERS

It’s difficult to say what the best order would be in which to go through these candidates, but I think I better start with the oldest ones because they, collectively, stand out as the elephant in the room. Yeah, I'll get to nearly a dozen horror films ranging from the 1970s all the way up to modern day, but the simple truth is this: the all-time horror classics, which many such as myself argue still stand up to this very day as some of the greatest scary movies ever made, are pretty much all under 90 minutes.    

This grouping is referred to as the Classic Universal Monsters. Here is what we are dealing with: Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Bride of Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, and the Gill-Man, AKA The Creature (from the Black Lagoon). That isn’t even all of them. Even in that sample size, every single one is a contender for the greatest Universal Monster, and every one of them, plus more, has a very short runtime. What I will need to do is sort through the Universal Monsters as a sub-group of horror before moving on to later films. This is easier said than done.

Here is the complete list:

-Dracula (1931)

-Frankenstein (1931)

-The Mummy (1932)

-The Invisible Man (1933)

-Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

-Werewolf of London (1935)

-Dracula’s Daughter (1936)

-Son of Frankenstein (1939)

-The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

-The Mummy’s Hand (1940)

-The Invisible Woman (1940)

-The Wolf Man (1941)

-The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)

-Invisible Agent (1942)

-The Mummy’s Tomb (1942)

-Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1942)

-Son of Dracula (1943)

-The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944)

-The Mummy’s Ghost (1944)

-The Mummy’s Curse (1944)

-House of Frankenstein (1945)

-House of Dracula (1945)

-She-Wolf of London (1946)

-Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

-Revenge of the Creature (1955)

-The Creature Walks Among Us (1956)

But, this list isn’t really complete, is it? I’ve only collected the Universal Studios monster films of this early age of horror cinema. What about other classics of that early era with short runtimes? The Old Dark House (1932), White Zombie (1932), Freaks (1933), or oldest of all, the highly influential silent film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)?

You might be a little surprised so many classic horror films are a part of this first round of eliminations (maybe more than a little surprised), but to be honest, there are not that many films in the Universal Monsters list that are truly worthy of the shortlist. Maybe one day I can go through and rank all of the Classic Universal Monster movies (I didn’t include the Abbott and Costello ones because those are technically part of a subgenre that I haven’t even touched yet), but for now, my shortlist of the true greats from that list features the following: Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), The Mummy (1932), The Invisible Man (1933), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), and Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954). Of the other non-Universal movies I mentioned prior, only Freaks (1933) stands out to me as a real contender. I certainly appreciate what the others mean to the genre’s roots, but I’m looking for the best short horror films that still hold the most entertainment value, regardless of age or sequel status.

Before I decide which of those is the best, let me sort through the remaining films. There are certainly numerous horror flicks that keep runtimes tight, but many of them are cheap, trashy, and not even worth mentioning. Some truly great ones come very close to the 90-minute mark, but don’t dip below, hence why it may seem I’m skipping many of the all-time best. There’s also another reason, but I’ll get to that later…

Hammer Films remade many of the Universal monsters in the 50’s and 60’s, and while I don’t think any of them are going to beat out the many other films still to come, I must consider The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Horror of Dracula (1958), and The Mummy (1959). Atomic age genre entries worth remembering include The Thing From Another World (1951), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), and The Blob (1958). In the absence of most of the all-time great horror movies of the 1970s, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) stands out as the only one to make this shortlist, clocking in at 83 minutes, and remaining a classic work of grimy, gritty, documentary-like filmmaking that did more than just act as a precursor to the slasher genre, but influenced future filmmakers in crafting ever more believable tales of terror that pushed the boundaries of disgust and fear without huge budgets.

While many revered 70’s classics ran more than 90 minutes, there are a few more niche contenders from the decade. It’s not nearly as scary or as exemplary of turning a tiny budget into gold in comparison to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but Phantasm (1979) spawned its own successful horror franchise, and despite an early cut with a runtime exceeding three hours, ended up with a theatrical cut that was only 89 minutes. The Wicker Man (1973) is easily forgotten for its horror potency thanks to the laughable remake starring Nic Cage, but the original is still compelling, and only 88 minutes. One last short 70’s horror entry is Eraserhead (1977) from David Lynch, with the same length as Phantasm.  

Two notable slasher flicks from the following decade are The Slumber Party Massacre (1982) at a mere 76 minutes, and Child’s Play (1988), sneaking in at 87 minutes. Slumber Party seems more generic on the outside comparatively because of Child’s Play’s now iconic killer doll Chucky, but both are notable for their own reasons, and both spawned successful franchises. A couple more nods to short 80’s horror are Pumpkinhead (1988), at 86 minutes (including its very drawn-out opening title sequence and end credits), and Re-Animator (1985), with the same runtime, though I think of the former more as an underrated monster movie and the latter as an underrated zombie/H.P Lovecraft-inspired movie, not so much either as a real contender for best short horror film.

I found a personal favourite from the 90’s—Lake Placid (1999), at 82 minutes—and a far more famous flick from the same year that, unlike the aforementioned killer croc feature, does not have one toe dipped in the waters of comedy: The Blair Witch Project (1999), which is among the most famous found footage horror films and runs one minute shorter than Lake Placid. From the 2000s there’s another found footage movie, Rec (2007), made in Spain, only 78 minutes long, and Wes Craven’s high-flying psychological thriller Red Eye (2005), though only the theatrical version would count, which runs 85 minutes. ABC aired an extended version with deleted scenes included which put the runtime over 90 minutes. Another for the slasher genre is Hush (2016), a simple cat-and-mouse game with a clever twist that’s only 81 minutes. Finally, there’s Saint Maud (2019), the most recent film in this genre, at 84 minutes.  

 

ELIMINATIONS

 

Rec, Red Eye, Hush, and Saint Maud fall to the wayside, as do Child’s Play and The Slumber Party Massacre. Of those assorted films, only Hush, Rec, and Child’s Play are the ones I’m sad to see go. Hush is a solid film, but a little too simple and not quite original enough to truly stand out. Child’s Play is not perfect, but as the original in the long-running Chucky franchise, it still stands out, and Rec is one of the better found footage films of the 2000s, but certainly not as prominent as The Blair Witch Project. Many cite BWP as overrated, outdated, and not scary, but I think it still holds up as a creepy exemplar of low budget filmmaking. Unfortunately, it will not continue on, either.

None of the 1950s films resonate as exemplary enough to make it out of this first elimination round. The same goes for both “head” movies, Eraserhead and Pumpkinhead, as well as Re-Animator, Phantasm, and Wicker Man. That only leaves The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Lake Placid. Both are great for completely different reasons. Lake Placid is one of my favourite killer animal movies that I never tire of, but even as a fan, I can recognize its comparably trivial impact on the overall genre when held up against Texas Chain Saw Massacre: still one of the scariest horror films of the 1970s, and that really says something considering it’s from the same decade as some of the other scariest movies of all-time.

Let me match up Freaks and Texas Chain Saw Massacre, then, before tackling the Universal Monsters. Freaks is a unique film, mainly because director Tod Browning used real circus freaks, but in terms of horror, it doesn’t get truly scary until the end, with most of the film acting as buildup and an odd mix of comedy and tension. Despite its age and outdated qualities, it’s still a great film, though not as rewatchable, to me, as TCM. That leaves seven more classics for it to contend with, so let’s go through all those next.

I’ll start with the one I’m most eager to discard: Dracula. Yeah, it’s a classic, yeah Bela Lugosi set the standard for Dracula’s optimal depiction, and yeah it’s obviously a little more faithful to the source material than the earlier (and better) silent film, Nosferatu, but I saw Dracula for the first time after I saw most of the other best Universal Monsters, so aspects like the total lack of music, minimal sound, minimal camera movements, and demise of Dracula happening offscreen, all stood out to me to make it seem like not only a lesser adaptation of Dracula compared to the many others to come in later decades, but a lesser Universal monster movie. The Invisible Man, while certainly a feat of visual effects for the time, has some annoying aspects, and isn’t as scary as the others. That isn’t why it won’t make the cut, though. This is a very difficult assemblage of films to compare. The Mummy, for instance, is so short, at only 73 minutes, but it’s still creepy and entrancing, with Boris Karloff standing out just as much in the role of Imhotep as Claude Rains stood out as the titular Invisible Man.  

I’m comfortable with eliminating The Mummy along with The Invisible Man because there are definitely aspects of the Egyptian culture and depiction of characters that feel more dated than anything from the remaining films. That leaves the first two Frankenstein films, The Wolf Man, and Creature from the Black Lagoon. It’s important to note that Bride of Frankenstein remains one of the greatest horror sequels ever made. It is arguably better than Frankenstein, and The Bride herself is iconic in her own way from The Monster. Both have Boris Karloff once again, both were directed by James Whale, and both are less than 80 minutes. But, the reason I always side with the original over the sequel is because of the timeless fright factor. Bride of Frankenstein is great, but it has more humour, some campier qualities, more humanity added to The Monster’s characterization, and more mad scientists. All of it makes Bride great, don’t get me wrong, but I appreciate the relative simplicity of Frankenstein, the dramatic buildup of the story, the horror, and how consistently satisfying, entertaining, and disturbing it is from beginning to end.

Between The Wolf Man and Creature from the Black Lagoon, I have to pick Creature, even though I have nothing but respect for The Wolf Man. The story is great, the tragic inevitability of the cursed Larry Talbot played by Lon Chaney Jr. is compelling, and the monster himself is iconic. I love The Wolf Man more every time I watch it, but I’ve always loved Creature from the Black Lagoon ever since I first saw it. Though it came later, it’s quite different from the other Universal Monsters, with it featuring an amphibious creature and a King Kong/Anne Darrow-type of relationship between Gill Man and Julia Adams’ character.

When it comes down to Frankenstein and Creature from the Black Lagoon, I’m going to make a tough decision, because while Creature is my personal favourite Universal monster movie, with a great setting, fantastic monster, and a real sense of adventure infused with horror, I have to give it to Frankenstein because it’s more original (though doesn’t stick that close to the novel), the characters are more intriguing, and you actually get more bang for your buck. So much happens in Frankenstein despite that short runtime, and I love Creature from the Black Lagoon, but it just isn’t as timeless or as thought-provoking.

You might think I’m done with the horror genre…but I’m not. The next installment in this series won’t be quite as long because I don’t have as many films to go through, but I have to dedicate a section to the subgenre of horror-comedy, because there are at least half a dozen films all worthy to compete against our first two genre winners. Tune in next time as I cover horror comedies and see if any survive the second round of eliminations! 

What Is the BEST Movie Under 90 Minutes?

 

Part One

Time is everything. Knowing we only have so much time is both a superpower and a form of kryptonite for the human race. When I am limited on time, I get stressed out, and thinking about what to do with my free time can be stressful, too. I know I’m not the only one. I suppose a moment when I was contemplating this conundrum inspired the idea to make a list of the best short movies. It then evolved from there into what I am about to embark on: a multi-part series exploring many great films across numerous genres, and pitting them against one another, to determine what movie, exactly, is the best of all-time with a runtime shorter than ninety minutes.

There are many arguments about what constitutes “feature-length” runtime when it comes to films. I have always asserted that a movie should be no less than an hour as an absolute minimum for it to count as a movie. While some believe modern feature length must be greater than seventy-nine minutes, according to many organizations that stand as “experts” in the field, such as the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, a film must only run for more than forty minutes for it to count as feature-length. That seems too generous to me, but I won’t argue. The shortest movie I can think of made in the 21^st century that I have watched is ThanksKilling, at 66 minutes—which barely counts as a real movie, anyway, and it wasn’t widely released in theatres. Usually, if a new movie is released in theatres and the runtime is on the shorter side, it isn’t less than eighty minutes.

It's a relevant question to ask: what are some of the best movies that are under 90 minutes? Lately, the problem of movies being too long has become a generalized complaint among critics and audiences. A couple related facts that are found quite easily online are, 1) the average shot length (time the camera stays focused on something before cutting to a different shot) has gone down from the old average of about 10 seconds to just about 2 seconds, meaning images move and change much quicker than they used to, and 2) the average runtimes for the highest grossing films of the year have increased in recent years. There was a study done a couple years ago published in The Guardian with this interesting result: the ideal film length was deemed to be 92 minutes. There are some movies that don’t need to be as long as they are, for sure, but I don’t feel that everything is too long now. If we look back at the 1950s and 1960s—the era of epic films like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur and Cleopatra—those movies are too long, but they’re also great! Ultimately, a movie should be as long as it needs to be.

For me, I find the ideal runtime for action/adventure/sci-fi/drama is, more often than not, precisely two hours. Jurassic Park, Jaws, Back to the Future, Alien, and the original Star Wars are all very close in length. For a horror/thriller or comedy, 90 minutes is all you need, give or take. I’m not looking at the give part of that here, though, I’m looking at the take. Let’s take it down below 90 minutes and see what movies we are left with. The results might surprise you! 

 

The Challenge Begins

At first I thought I would just gather up all the movies I could think of that were under 90 minutes, briefly explain each one, and then pick which one is the best overall. I quickly realized that would not be possible, because there are so many movies that are under 90 minutes. Not only that, but there are so many exceptional movies, in multiple genres. How can I really pick just one over so many others in genres completely different from one another? I can’t. That is why this is going to be a meticulously arranged process. I will work my way through several different genres, identifying all the examples I think are the best in those genres that are under 90 minutes, and pick several winners from each. Then, those winners will all go up against one another in a series of elimination rounds, and I will finally crown one movie the winner: the greatest movie of all time that’s under 90 minutes!

There will be upsets. There may even be tears. Each genre has some tough competitors. There will be many movies throughout that might seem to have been forgotten. Trust the process! I verified the runtimes of dozens of movies to make sure I didn’t miss any. There may be some missing that I simply missed, or have not seen, or do not think should be considered “best” so this will not be an unbiased exploration. But, I will try to include all movies worth a mention at the very least for each genre. This is a celebration as much as it is a competition. Bias is inescapable, but I will give each film featured in each round a fair shot, with details and comparisons provided before coming to any conclusions. This might be my most challenging blog series yet, but I am going to have fun with it and stick with it until I have determined which film, in all of film history, stands out as the best one amid a very special mix of short feature length motion pictures.  

Tune in next time for part two: the first genre under examination and the first round of eliminations!

Part 3: Ultraviolet (2006) Retrospective - Conclusion

 

Part 2: https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2026/06/part-2-ultraviolet-2006-20th.html

 

Last time, I examined the greatest strength of Ultraviolet (Milla Jovovich as the main character), as well as some of the good and the not so good in terms of worldbuilding, effects, and action, but the problem I’m going to address next is one I don’t think anyone can argue with, even if they’re a fan of the film like I am.

I don’t know if the lore made any more sense in Wimmer’s original two-hour R-rated cut, but I didn’t realize that one of the reasons I felt compelled to rewatch the movie so many times to understand it better as a kid/teen was because of how incomprehensible it gets. Too much information is clumsily spat out by three random guys after that first action scene, mere minutes after the opening credits, one of whom gets shot because he gets blood on his bare hands, and then Violet gives us a voiceover backstory for how the virus got out and started the war. Then, we get introduced to the main villain, and the story gets underway from there, but some of the dialogue is just utterly reprehensible. The theatrical cut doesn’t even provide as much voiceover explanation, making it even more confusing. There’s clever filmmaking where you let the audience discover important things for themselves and don’t spoon feed them information, and then there’s poor filmmaking where you don’t explain anything and leave the audience too bewildered to care.

This movie ricochets from cool to crap so many times so fast. In one skirmish, Daxus tells his men to switch to night vision; instead of seeing, we hear a bunch of fighting, then thermal red lights come on, illuminating all of his men, dead, and the hemophages standing there in triumph. It looks very cool, very sinister, and makes you wonder what the next move will be for Daxus. He ducks into a side room, opens a cup of sealed coffee that’s self heating (a fun enough little gag, and another example of interesting future tech), and reveals to Nerva he has his own special abilities, for he’s able to shoot Nerva’s three comrades before they can even raise their own weapons. They’re shot in ways that make them react as if they’re doing the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil thing, before individually dropping dead, leaving just Nerva standing. It’s kind of dumb and not as clever as Wimmer probably thought it was.

What many people find plainly bad about Ultraviolet I find peculiarly bad which increases its entertainment value, for me. Remember, I like movies that are so bad they’re good, and in ways, I would classify Ultraviolet as one of these, but it’s such a mixed bag, because there are aspects I find genuinely great, and aspects I find horribly misguided, and again, sometimes it yo-yos between great and garbage within the same scene! Here’s another prime example: Violet is driving with Six slouched on the passenger seat, and she says to him, “Haven’t you been paying attention? Killing is what I do. It’s what I’m good at.” Milla delivers the line pretty well—well enough they used it in the trailer, even—and I think it’s cheeky and badass at the same time. But then, she keeps talking, and the shot changes to focus on her face straight on through the windshield, and as she stares right at the audience, she says, “I am a titan. A monolith. Nothing can stop me.” That’s…pretty corny. A monolith? Like from 2001: A Space Odyssey? Milla’s delivery of this line isn’t as badass, but I mean, I don’t think anyone could’ve delivered that line straight and made more out of it than she did.

Sometimes, bad dialogue can’t be salvaged, but mediocre dialogue can be elevated by stellar actors. Milla is talented enough to at least make some of the one-liners and retorts work, but let’s branch over to some of the other cast members of Ultraviolet, and wonder, was Kurt Wimmer maybe not quite skilled enough to handle a production of this scope, and that’s why some of the performances are so stilted and strange? Sebastien Andrieu as Nerva isn’t very good; he was a model, and has no acting credits on IMDB after this film. I’ll give Cameron Bright as Six a pass because he was just a kid, and his strangeness is less to do with his acting choices and more to do with the nature of his character. He’s in constant danger and needs rescuing on more than one occasion. He’s also sick and dying and radioactive (?), so he’s slow, lays down a lot, and is nearly lifeless at points. William Fichtner is solid, but his character Garth doesn’t add too much to the story, he just gives Violet an ally in a world otherwise filled with enemies.

Nick Chinlund as Daxus ranges from appropriately evil to campy to annoying to dull, but like Jovovich, he makes the most of some of his bad dialogue. His character is a germaphobe, which fits for this disease filled world, but I really don’t find the twist that he also happens to be the same scientist who unleashed hemoglophagia in the first place necessary or logical. His character at no point acts or feels like a former man of science. The final battle between him and Violet is a bit brief but, again, topped up with cool ideas, from flaming swords in the dark to Violet slicing him in half at the conclusion. Another reason I would’ve loved to see the original R-rated cut: it definitely feels like the action could’ve (and should’ve) been bloodier at multiple points, but it isn’t the most egregious PG-13 censoring of a sci-fi/action film I’ve come across. 

There are a few supporting roles, but the cast isn’t really that big, which makes some of those minor characters stand out worse. Even though she only says like three lines, the courier woman who shows up after Violet has already infiltrated the “Blood Bank” has some of the worst line delivery I’ve ever heard. Apparently, she was played by one of Milla’s stunt doubles, but still, couldn’t they have overdubbed her lines or rerecorded them or done another take? Something, anything? Violet frequently fights ArchMinistry soldiers who wear all black tactical gear and say nothing. At one point she faces down hundreds of them, reminding me of future criticisms of comic book movies like The Avengers and Justice League with the heroes defeating faceless armies of stock enemies. I’ll at least give Ultraviolet credit for having the Stormtrooper-esque soldiers played by real stuntmen/actors, as well as having Violet defeat all of them singlehandedly. What a badass!

In many ways, Ultraviolet comes off as a 2000s product for teenage boys, and for this teenage boy, it was a thrill. I was so into it that I showed it to all my friends, watched all the DVD special features, including the commentary by Milla Jovovich, and went on to watch the Resident Evil movies (at that time, there were only three), but for as awesome and action-packed as those movies were, to me they still weren’t quite as unique or as thought provoking as Ultraviolet. Even twenty years later, I can’t say I’ve seen anything quite like it, but I certainly can see the influence of the aforementioned zombie video game adaptations, as well as The Matrix, Underworld, and even Aeon Flux, which came out the year before. I probably haven’t sold anyone who didn’t know anything about this movie on watching it, and I don’t know whether or not I would wholeheartedly recommend it to just anyone, either.

As I wrap up this epic retrospective, I’ll say this: Ultraviolet is a concept rife with possibility wrapped in an incomplete package stumbling along, and for all the nostalgia I have from watching it at a formative age and forming my first celebrity crush, I find it deeply flawed, yet still entertaining as hell. Who cares if it doesn’t always make sense or if the action is sometimes derivative or if the quality of the effects varies? I find it fun in a way that only something produced in the 2000s can be. It took risks, and even if they didn’t all pay off, that’s worth commending, especially from the perspective of our modern cinematic landscape where the effects-heavy-mid-budget sci-fi/action film has basically gone extinct, and every superhero movie is a pre-existing IP. Who knows? Maybe one day, somehow, Ultraviolet will return...