Two in one day! I didn't even do this good on my own Myspace page. Not emo enough I guess. Anywho, this one's just a simple question really, with a Harry Knowles-style intro just to take up space. I finally got around to reading last week's EW today. One of my favorite little pieces in the mag has always been the "Ask a Critic" column in the Movie Review section. Last week's posed a question that Mr. Owen Gleiberman decided to handle. The question: Has an extended or Director's Cut of a film ever changed your opinion of the original?
I'll sum up Mr. Gleiberman's answer for those who don't get the magazine. No. Never. His reasoning? Because the extended/added scenes only end up taking away from what was there before. This is of course a simple paraphrase, but I believe that to be a fairly accurate portrayal of his argument. And this is what I have a problem with...
Now to be completely fair to Mr. Gleiberman, I agree... for the most part. Was it really that necessary for Oliver Stone to release 2 extended/Director's Cuts of Alexander, when the first one was plenty bad enough? Do we really need an extra 40 seconds of Saw 2? No. Never. But to rule out all director's cuts as nothing more than vanity projects or excuses to sell more DVDs? Not at all fair. So, my question to you is this, first answer the aforementioned question proposed to Mr. Gleiberman, and what films do you think benefited most or least from an extended or Director's Cut?
For the record, my vote for most improved would be either Brazil or Blade Runner. For the most unnecessary, Apocalypse Now Redux.
I'll sum up Mr. Gleiberman's answer for those who don't get the magazine. No. Never. His reasoning? Because the extended/added scenes only end up taking away from what was there before. This is of course a simple paraphrase, but I believe that to be a fairly accurate portrayal of his argument. And this is what I have a problem with...
Now to be completely fair to Mr. Gleiberman, I agree... for the most part. Was it really that necessary for Oliver Stone to release 2 extended/Director's Cuts of Alexander, when the first one was plenty bad enough? Do we really need an extra 40 seconds of Saw 2? No. Never. But to rule out all director's cuts as nothing more than vanity projects or excuses to sell more DVDs? Not at all fair. So, my question to you is this, first answer the aforementioned question proposed to Mr. Gleiberman, and what films do you think benefited most or least from an extended or Director's Cut?
For the record, my vote for most improved would be either Brazil or Blade Runner. For the most unnecessary, Apocalypse Now Redux.
4 comments:
Totally and unimaginably wrong. Two examples off the top of my head (neither of which I have seen unfortunately to date), but Once Upon a Time in America whose running time was cut from 229 minutes to 139 minutes in the 'studio version' (you're telling me that nothing was lost in 90 minute trim?) and Touch of Evil whose lasting cut is the Director's Cut, as best as it could be pieced back together by notes from Orson Welles himself to dimwitted studio heads that chopped his film to pieces. That the brilliant opening scene of Evil was overrun with credits so that it's next to impossible to watch is ridiculous.
As for unnecessary Director's Cuts... from what I've heard you're right about Apocalypse Now, and I'll throw in the original Star Wars trilogy for good measure.
Spot on with both of your picks Mulligan. Ted, yours too. I totally agree with you guys, that to simply regard all extended cuts as simply a double dip is outrageous. However, there are a lot of studios that do pull that crap. Unrated edition of Dodgeball. Are you kidding me! Some of the other great ones I can think of are Aliens, Abyss, LotR (maybe not necessary, but having seen them now, I don't watch the theatrical), True Romance, THX1138, and the Descent (best additional ending ever). Donnie Darko kinda took away some of the mystery. As for most unnecessary...that has to go to ET. "You look like a hippie" makes me cry.
I always kinda admired Scorseses mentality on directors cut. He wont do them because each film is what he was able to produce under the conditions he was given. He doesn't see them as flawed, but the best he could do with what he had.
Well now Im off to buy the Spiderman 2.1, the Unrated Coyote Ugly, and watch Team America Unrated. (the more the puppet sex, the better off we all are)
Mulligan, you best see Touch of Evil. It is classic. Has a Fincher esque quality to it, minus all the figurative gore.
Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression I haven't seen Touch of Evil, I have, and I absolutely love it. I just haven't seen the original studio cut version of it... and haven't seen the point.
Good...I was about to say that movie has you written all over it. Another classic I forgot was the Directors Cut of Wild Bunch, which adds about 25 more minutes to the original, including more flashbacks and character depth for the William Holden character. I love that movie.
Post a Comment