The reviews are in: '2012' is too long

The new special effects-laden “disaster porn” film “2012” opened today and the reviews are unanimous: It’s too long.
Even those who like this end-of-the-world thriller say it could have used some major editing.
“2012” clocks in at 153 minutes. That’s 2 hours and 33 minutes.
I track conversations on Twitter with the search terms “movie too long” and “movie too short” and chatter about “2012” being too long is rampant. The movie stars John Cusack and was directed by Roland Emmerich, who also destroyed Earth in “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow.”
Some sample comments on Twitter in the last 12 hours:

amandaalvich: The movie '2012' was three hours too long. I would rather the world come to an end than to watch that stupid movie ever again.

carrmah: ... The movie was way too long. It should be renamed 20h12m

RockstrNinjaGrl: ... This movie is way too long. I need everyone to die so I can go home.

BrettCoppol: LONG ASS MOVIE. 2012 was good but WAY TOO LONG.

mikenightslash: 2012 WAS...A typical disaster movie, nothing really special about it except its rediculous length of time, one hour too long.

Is the movie any good? “2012” received 36% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The consensus is that the movie “provides plenty of visual thrills, but lacks a strong enough script to support its massive scope and inflated length.”
Since Oct. 27 -- my last post on the subject of movie length -- 37 people have commented on Twitter about “2012” being too long. No one has said it was too short. Most of those comments have come in the last day or so, of course.
In second place is the Michael Jackson concert movie “This Is It.” Eight people on Twitter have said it was too long and three people have said it was too short.
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," now on video, continues to be the focus of gripes for being too long. Four Twitter users tweeted about it being too long.