You can often find a good place in a long story for it, or even edit one in if needed. A good example is the home versions of the Lord of the Rings extended editions, since they have to break to switch discs. It's a perfect intermission point - like, the first movie breaks right after the Fellowship forms and heads out ("Mordor Gandalf, is it Left or Right?") If I remember right, the other two movies each broke on a cliffhanger moment that changed the story.
The version of The Hateful Eight I went to had a short intermission. It was actually kind of nice. If we're going to be in the age of +2.5 hour movies then I think it might be a good idea. Gives you time to hit the bathroom, grab another drink, and just stretch your legs.
The 90-minute to 2 hour movies are whatever, but after 2 and a half hours a quick break wouldn't be the worst thing ever.
They test screened a shorter version and it tested far worse.
I can agree in terms of action blockbusters not earning their length usually when they get to 2:30 hours or more, but I love longer films that are not in that three-act structure mode and become more like novel pacing. It becomes a case by case basis for me rather than something that can be generalised.
I think last movie I saw in cinema was Dacing with Wolves.
movies had intermissions here for my entire lifetime and it works just fine. usually they pick a good spot for it.
