Unrated/ Extended and Director's Cuts

PaulB1984

More and more movies are being released in any of those formats over the last few years. But how many of them were actually as good or better than the original versions? Straight off, i expect a lot of Lord Of The Rings mentions, but even with those, aside from the odd great scene, i prefer the theatrical editions. Even recently i discovered that the US version of The Shining is actually 20 minutes longer than the international version, i knew of no such thing. There are some i'm in favour of, a movie that not many people liked, Tears Of The Sun (Bruce Willis), i think it's a stunning movie in it's theatrical form, but the extended version did an even better job of telling the movie's story. Then unrated versions, sticking with Bruce Willis, the unrated edition of Die Hard 4.0 has all the stuff we missed from the cinema release which is a great thing to see, but even there, they couldn't resist tinkering around with it and actually destroyed great scenes from the cinema version. Another i bought a long while back, the unrated version of Jim Carrey's Dumb & Dumber which i love even more than the original. Can anyone name some more?

bnt

My interest in such versions is essentially a wish to see the movie that the writer(s), director(s) & producer(s) wanted to make. That's it. If done right, with the right intentions, it's a chance for them to undo the compromises that were necessary for it to get made and released in the first place. Idealistic, I know, but what else are movies for, if not idealism?

As far as I know, the Lord of the Rings films were made with the Extended editions in mind from day one; personally, I've only seen those, and was happy to wait the extra year for them. I don't know what more they left out in the rush to get the shorter films in to the cinemas on schedule, and don't really want to know.

Could easily recommend a dozen op but seeing as you blocked me for disagreeing with you in another thread you'll never see it.

What I find odd about the whole undated releasing is that you often end up with half a dozen different versions of the same film. Just after rewatching Limitless and realised its different from the version I saw previously. There's actually three cuts of the film. The PG-13 theatrical cut released in US cinemas, the R rated home release and the European cut which is the directors preferred version. There's little difference between the various cuts, the R rated version has some boons on display which are absent from the PG-13 and European cut and the PG-13 is missing a few seconds if violence.

Colombiana is another film that exists in multiple forms. There's the PG-13 cut, the unrated cut, the European cut, the directors cut and at least one other. Unlike Limitless the various cuts differ quite a lot from one another and its a shame that all the various cuts couldn't be put on the one Blu-Ray disc as they did with Salt.

Mickeroo

bnt wrote: »

My interest in such versions is essentially a wish to see the movie that the writer(s), director(s) & producer(s) wanted to make. That's it. If done right, with the right intentions, it's a chance for them to undo the compromises that were necessary for it to get made and released in the first place. Idealistic, I know, but what else are movies for, if not idealism?

As far as I know, the Lord of the Rings films were made with the Extended editions in mind from day one; personally, I've only seen those, and was happy to wait the extra year for them. I don't know what more they left out in the rush to get the shorter films in to the cinemas on schedule, and don't really want to know.

I think both fellowship and two towers benefited a lot from their extended editions(two towers most of all) but ROTK came out a bit bloated.

Blade Runner is probably the daddy of director's cuts I suppose considering most people have probably never watched the theatrical cut. Ridley Scott has a habit of improving on his theatrical releases, I still haven't seen the kingdom of heaven director's cut but keep hearing its a huge improvement. The Alien one doean't really improve on the original but it's worth a watch. Is he the only person to release a directors cut shorter than the theatrical?

e_e

I'd say Aliens improves with the 155 minute cut. Some nice backstory for Ripley, a better explanation of what happened on the planet and that badass turret sequence.

Mickeroo

e_e wrote: »

I'd say Aliens improves with the 155 minute cut. Some nice backstory for Ripley, a better explanation of what happened on the planet and that badass turret sequence.

The turret sequence is a great scene, probably one of the best in the film, ramps the tension up massively. I think the pre infestation colony stuff killed the pacing a bit, was still good to see it though.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

, I still haven't seen the kingdom of heaven director's cut but keep hearing its a huge improvement. The Alien one doean't really improve on the original but it's worth a watch. Is he the only person to release a directors cut shorter than the theatrical?

Rectify that immediately. The directors cut turns a 2 star film into a 5 star one. Its a great example of why Scott should be left to his own devices when exiting.

Alexander is another historical epic that improved thanks to an extended cut though that said Stone did take the piss with his three different versions all of which were released seperatly and now he's gone back and done a fourth cut which will be on DVD and Blu-Ray early next year.

When ever I think of directors cuts I always think of Richard Kelly. For years he told us how much better his cut of Donnie Dario was, how the studio ruined it with their edit and I remember my excitement when the DVD of the directors cut came out. Sadly it turned out to be a massive let down, Nelly's cut is pretty terrible and robs the film of any sense of wonder and mystery. Had it been released as he intended there's no way the film would have became so popular and influential. Anyone who enjoyed his second film Southland Tales should check out the extended Cannes cut which is quite interesting even if like his fut if DD is the inferior verdion.

CastorTroy

There are 5 different edits of The Warriors that I'm aware of. In order of preference, worst to best, I would probably rank them as(Edits named by how I saw them):
Sky Movies Cut - Had extra scenes I hadn't seen before but edited the fights and swearing
Director's Cut - Just inserted comic panels really. Wasn't a fan
VHS Cut - The version most people know that's available on dvd except they changed the first song played by the DJ. In this version it's not "Nowhere to Run"
DVD Cut - The version pretty much everyone is familiar with
BBC cut - The first version I saw. Has the scene before the credits that introduces the characters. This isn't the preferred cut of Walter Hill as this scene takes place during the day and he felt they shouldn't see day until later.


As for Kingdom of Heaven, I heard it was much better than the original, but since I regard the original as my least favourite film, I've no plan to watch any version of it again.

An extended cut I would like to see is the Night Breed Extended version. Just out of curiosity

CastorTroy

CastorTroy wrote: »

There are 5 different edits of The Warriors that I'm aware of. In order of preference, worst to best, I would probably rank them as(Edits named by how I saw them):
Sky Movies Cut - Had extra scenes I hadn't seen before but edited the fights and swearing
Director's Cut - Just inserted comic panels really. Wasn't a fan
VHS Cut - The version most people know that's available on dvd except they changed the first song played by the DJ. In this version it's not "Nowhere to Run"
DVD Cut - The version pretty much everyone is familiar with
BBC cut - The first version I saw. Has the scene before the credits that introduces the characters. This isn't the preferred cut of Walter Hill as this scene takes place during the day and he felt they shouldn't see day until later.

Two Minute Warning has a similiar story. There are multiple cuts including a close to 3 hour TV version that completely changes the overall film as the network shot a whole number of new scenes. With the Warriors the cut with the comic book panels is the way Hill always intended the film to be seen but the producers refused to let him open the film with the panels.

CastorTroy

Deleted User wrote: »

Two Minute Warning has a similiar story. There are multiple cuts including a close to 3 hour TV version that completely changes the overall film as the network shot a whole number of new scenes. With the Warriors the cut with the comic book panels is the way Hill always intended the film to be seen but the producers refused to let him open the film with the panels.

Yeah I knew he intended it as a comic book style, but I suppose being a fan and seeing it multiple times, I felt the comic panels just interrupted the flow. Think it nearly equates to a bat symbol coming towards the screen and going back again.

Sleepy

Must check out the Directors Cut of Kingdom of Heaven, I *hated* the cinematic release, possibly because it should have been a good movie but just didn't work. Is Orlando "total sap" Bloom edited out by any chance?

The Directors Cut of Daredevil was a massive improvement over the theatrical release.

superblu

The extended version of the shining didn't really add anything more to what is a fantastic film.

the whole year inn

Dumb and dumber extended cut,how I havent seen this

Chris_Heilong

Alien the digitally remastered directors cut is better then the original, Aliens DC is really good also. Guess you got to be a big fan to appreciated it.

IncognitoMan

Has anyone seen the richard donner cut of superman 2? Is it any better than the original? Saw this in a boxset of the superman films the other day and was wondering what it adds

pixelburp

I think Die Hard 4 is a perfect example of how cynical these fashionable 'unrated' cuts really are. After the fuss and annoyance of a PG13 Die Hard, the unrated version was a cash-grab with some badly dubbed f-bombs, mixed with some CGI blood. The film's problems went far deeper than a lack of naughty language, so I expect the same scenario from #5 in the studio's quest for that teenage demographic.

More often than not though, 'unrated' tends to mean 'the director had absolutely no say in this cut & we just threw in some deleted scenes that belong on the editing floor'. If the director isn't involved I immediately set my defcon to 'sceptical'.

"Brevity is the art of wit" as they say & as great it was to see more Middle-Earth in the LOTR DVDs, they were an endurance test at the best of times, and proof that the editor has a very important role in cinema ha. Peter Jackson's distinct weakness is keeping short - I expect Hobbit will be the same.

'Brazil' is a good example of a Director's Cut done well though; famously butchered on theatrical release by the studio & it took emotional blackmail via a full-page advert in Variety (by Gilliam) to force their hand & rerelease the thing as it was meant to be see. OF course that's an extreme example, in most cases the editor probably made the right choice

Someone else mentioned Aliens & tbh at this stage I just can't watch the 'original' version - sure the LV-426 scenes nuke the pace (from orbit), but it adds so much more character to the film it's worth it. From what I recall of it, The Abyss was another Cameron film that benefited from a Director's Cut.

(Of course, the last time I disagreed with you Paul, you got annoyed & set me as an ignored user, you probably won't see this *waves* Coo-ee!)

MakeEmLaugh

Firstly, it is important to make the distinction between Director's Cuts and Unrated Version.

Director's Cuts are almost entirely an indulgent waste of time. True, there are exceptions, Blade Runner being the key one, but even in that case, all that was great about the film is present in the 1982 version (which can be seen on the five-disc DVD boxset): the music, the set design, the costume, the dialogue ("Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?").

We did not need an extended version of Apocalypse Now or, even more egregious, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The latter is particularly bothersome because

(a) It reinserted some scenes which Leone himself had cut, therefore cannot be seen as a definitive Director's Cut.
(b) It unwisely chose Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach to redub their lines, when their voices have changed so much in over forty years, they have become almost unrecognisable. Much smarter would have been to hire actors who could convincingly replicate the voices of Sixties-era Eastwood and Wallach.
(c) It is now the only version of the film available in HD. This is extremely annoying for fans who fell in love with the 166 minute version, who know must endure scenes they see as superfluously crowbarred in years after Leone's death.

Unrated Versions, on the other hand, are simply a ploy to sell DVDs. Most US comedies, or blockbuster actions, are deliberately edited by studios and the MPAA, so that a few frames of extra violence, or raunchy humour, can be reinserted on DVD, and trick naive fans into forking out more money.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

The turret sequence is a great scene, probably one of the best in the film, ramps the tension up massively. I think the pre infestation colony stuff killed the pacing a bit, was still good to see it though.

I always preferred that we never saw how the aliens got into the colony in the theatrical version, the scene with Newt's parents discovering the derelict took away from the mystery of that. Do like the other added scenes though the turret sequence, Ripley and Hicks telling each other their first names before she goes after Newt etc.

Mickeroo

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Firstly, it is important to make the distinction between Director's Cuts and Unrated Version.

Director's Cuts are almost entirely an indulgent waste of time. True, there are exceptions, Blade Runner being the key one, but even in that case, all that was great about the film is present in the 1982 version (which can be seen on the five-disc DVD boxset): the music, the set design, the costume, the dialogue ("Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?").

We did not need an extended version of Apocalypse Now or, even more egregious, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The latter is particularly bothersome because

(a) It reinserted some scenes which Leone himself had cut, therefore cannot be seen as a definitive Director's Cut.
(b) It unwisely chose Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach to redub their lines, when their voices have changed so much in over forty years, they have become almost unrecognisable. Much smarter would have been to hire actors who could convincingly replicate the voices of Sixties-era Eastwood and Wallach.
(c) It is now the only version of the film available in HD. This is extremely annoying for fans who fell in love with the 166 minute version, who know must endure scenes they see as superfluously crowbarred in years after Leone's death.

Unrated Versions, on the other hand, are simply a ploy to sell DVDs. Most US comedies, or blockbuster actions, are deliberately edited by studios and the MPAA, so that a few frames of extra violence, or raunchy humour, can be reinserted on DVD, and trick naive fans into forking out more money.

Had no idea about good the bad and the ugly, when was that done? I'm pretty sure I've only seen the original cut as its been years since I watched it.

Regards apocalypse now, I've only seen redux and found it a bit of a chore to get through. Keep meaning to watch the original.

Someone mentioned donner's cut of superman 2, not seen it but heard good things. Apparently there was lots of interference in the original cut.

the_syco

The extended version of the Watchmen included a lot more. It included a few more fight scenes, and a lot more scenes from the original comic book. The extra 13 minutes should have been included in the cinema release as it would've made more sense.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Had no idea about good the bad and the ugly, when was that done? I'm pretty sure I've only seen the original cut as its been years since I watched it.

Regards apocalypse now, I've only seen redux and found it a bit of a chore to get through. Keep meaning to watch the original.

Someone mentioned donner's cut of superman 2, not seen it but heard good things. Apparently there was lots of interference in the original cut.

The extended cut of Good, the Bad and the Ugly is sadly the only one currently available. The added scenes just slow the pacing and feature some terrible over dubbing that stands out in a film alread full of terrible overdubbing.

Redux is a one time only watch. It's interesting to see what was added but anytime I watch the film I stick with the original superior cut.

The Donner cut is interesting, but again it's not something I'd ever want to rewatch as the theatrical cut is fine as is. Richard Lester did a good job after Donner walked off set. The Donner cut uses a lot of rehearsal footage and obvious stand ins for scenes they had to reshoot.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

The extended version of the Watchmen included a lot more. It included a few more fight scenes, and a lot more scenes from the original comic book. The extra 13 minutes should have been included in the cinema release as it would've made more sense.

The extended, extended US version has been rereleased and is well worth getting your hands on. Bit of a chore to get through considering its length but its a much more rewarding experience than either the theatrical cut or directors cut.

TheIrishGrover

Well, the LotR director cuts were excellent and are the only ones I watch if I view them again (I especially loved the Boromir/Faramir scene in TTT. Totally changed Faramir's line "A chance for Faramir, captain of Gondor to show his quality"). But then again these are a slightly different situation. Many scenes were shot specifically for the extended cuts (Saruman's death for example).

I much preferred the director's cut of Blade Runner. Not so much for the extra/changed footage but because of the removal of the voiceover. I really hated that.

But there are some terrible director's cut. One of my favourite films is cinema Paradiso. The director's cut totally ruins it for me and I haven't rewatched either version since.

...... And don't get me started on Lucas. (Even Spielberg regretted the CGI-ification of ET and apparently the Blu-Ray release is the original version, complete with guns and non-cgi face)

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

The extended, extended US version has been rereleased and is well worth getting your hands on. Bit of a chore to get through considering its length but its a much more rewarding experience than either the theatrical cut or directors cut.

Aye, the ultimate cut is about 50 minutes extra. Must get it in full 1080p, and watch it with a few lads who like the humour.

Kess73

Some cracking examples of improvements thanks to a directors cit version (Watchmen, Kingdom Of Heaven, Daredevil, Bladerunner, and a great example of a "directors" cut taking a lot from a film (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly)


Would have mentioned a few of them myself had they not been mentioned already so will throw out one that has not been mentioned as of yet that benefitted to a huge degree from an extended rerelease.


The Big Red One.


When I first saw the film I thought it was clunky, disjointed, and had scenes where things just happened out of the blue or a character was suddenly missing or dead.


Then came the Deconstruction version of the film. More than a dozen scenes were put back into the film and suddenly it became a bit of an epic that went from World War I to the end of World War II in a smooth manner. The out of the blue scenes now had events leading up to them, the missing characters had scenes where they were killed or where they left for other reasons, the mention of ear cutting now had a scene with the actual ear cutting, and best of all we got a lot more depth to the character of Schroeder which made him less of a one dimensional foil to Marvin's Sarge.


For me it became one of the best war films I had seen, and still remains one of my favourite films, despite it being a film whose original incarnation being something I was scathing of.

PaulB1984

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think both fellowship and two towers benefited a lot from their extended editions(two towers most of all) but ROTK came out a bit bloated.

Blade Runner is probably the daddy of director's cuts I suppose considering most people have probably never watched the theatrical cut. Ridley Scott has a habit of improving on his theatrical releases, I still haven't seen the kingdom of heaven director's cut but keep hearing its a huge improvement. The Alien one doean't really improve on the original but it's worth a watch. Is he the only person to release a directors cut shorter than the theatrical?

Completely forgot the Blade Runner, i must agree, the Final Cut is easily the best version. The one thing i notice from knowing the different versions really well is the silence noticable where the narration has been removed. The first version i seen was the 1992 DC, and all the way through, before i ever knew it should have narration, i thought something was missing. I couldn't understand why there were so many scoping scenes with so little music and no dialogue, it gave me the idea that something had been removed, i checked out the history and discovered it had been given a narration by Harrison Ford in Deckard's character. When i'd finally seen the narrated original, i hated the voiceover, they'd made him sound like a drone and the scripting was awful. But in fairness just for me toward it, i like the idea of narration, it gives it that feeling of being an old detective movie, like those old movies from the 40s and 50s, but set in the future, which is an interesting angle of past meets future. I'd be in favour of a re-recording of a narration, but whole new script and have Deckard sound just like his character and not a robot. Even more interesting is the fact that the movie is 30 years old, so Harrison's voice has aged even more, which would give the movie even more of an edge, an almost "Here's a character narrating a futuristic movie as if it's happened 30 years ago" vibe, making it seem even more distant.

PaulB1984

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Firstly, it is important to make the distinction between Director's Cuts and Unrated Version.

Director's Cuts are almost entirely an indulgent waste of time. True, there are exceptions, Blade Runner being the key one, but even in that case, all that was great about the film is present in the 1982 version (which can be seen on the five-disc DVD boxset): the music, the set design, the costume, the dialogue ("Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?").

We did not need an extended version of Apocalypse Now or, even more egregious, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The latter is particularly bothersome because

(a) It reinserted some scenes which Leone himself had cut, therefore cannot be seen as a definitive Director's Cut.
(b) It unwisely chose Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach to redub their lines, when their voices have changed so much in over forty years, they have become almost unrecognisable. Much smarter would have been to hire actors who could convincingly replicate the voices of Sixties-era Eastwood and Wallach.
(c) It is now the only version of the film available in HD. This is extremely annoying for fans who fell in love with the 166 minute version, who know must endure scenes they see as superfluously crowbarred in years after Leone's death.

Unrated Versions, on the other hand, are simply a ploy to sell DVDs. Most US comedies, or blockbuster actions, are deliberately edited by studios and the MPAA, so that a few frames of extra violence, or raunchy humour, can be reinserted on DVD, and trick naive fans into forking out more money.

True, but the Blade Runner DC also did away with the crappy ending and added the unicorn dream.

The one i mentioned earlier, Dumb & Dumber, is a movie that somehow even bettered itself with it's unrated cut, which i never thought possible as i'm a big fan of the movie. But stuff like the extended hot tub scene with Lloyd and Harry, the hilarious scene with the trucker and Lloyd in the toilet cubicle and the hilarious slagging Lloyd then gets from Harry in their van aferwards etc... Agreed that some movies are edited badily for cinemas, then released unrated for home media (Watch out for the beautiful unrated of Taken 2 that'll be coming our way in all it's glory on Blu-Ray), but in fairness, it's not so much a trick when it's tagged as unrated and is unrated.

I believe that a lot of movies should be given the Blade Runner 5-disc box set treatment. Not 5 discs as such, but all versions made available to people who can then choose their favourite.

Anyway, last comment on Boards, nice to meet everyone (Almost), had fun (Kind of), seeya

Fysh

I'm surprised to see Alex Proyas' Dark City not mentioned here - like Blade Runner or Brazil it's a film that had some stupid bloody changes forced on the theatrical release, which hampered its performance. I first saw the theatrical cut on DVD, only later catching the superior Director's Cut.

Overall, though, they're a mixed bag. I've yet to see any Unrated Cut of a film that was in and of itself interesting - far as I can tell, it's a "featuring reinserted (crap) deleted scenes!" move in disguise. I am interested in Director's Cuts if they come from the actual director, though, because while they don't always work (Donnie Darko) it's interesting to see what they change.

It's the same reason I'm getting more interested in fanedits. It's fascinating to see what people change when they go beyond simply reinserting deleted scenes to make extended editions - for example, I've read about a Fight Club fan-edit that removes Edward Norton's inner monologue, which sounds really interesting in terms of how it would change your perception of the film's events.

Theboinkmaster

The new introduction to Riggs in Lethal Weapon 1 is quite good - sniper in children's playground. Sets the character up better than the xmas tree sceen IMO.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

I'm surprised to see Alex Proyas' Dark City not mentioned here - like Blade Runner or Brazil it's a film that had some stupid bloody changes forced on the theatrical release, which hampered its performance. I first saw the theatrical cut on DVD, only later catching the superior Director's Cut.

Overall, though, they're a mixed bag. I've yet to see any Unrated Cut of a film that was in and of itself interesting - far as I can tell, it's a "featuring reinserted (crap) deleted scenes!" move in disguise. I am interested in Director's Cuts if they come from the actual director, though, because while they don't always work (Donnie Darko) it's interesting to see what they change.

It's the same reason I'm getting more interested in fanedits. It's fascinating to see what people change when they go beyond simply reinserting deleted scenes to make extended editions - for example, I've read about a Fight Club fan-edit that removes Edward Norton's inner monologue, which sounds really interesting in terms of how it would change your perception of the film's events.

Was just thinking of Dark City and came here to mention it. Friend of mine posted pictures of Shell Beach or rather the location it was based on.

In the US the whole Unrated thing has became something of a joke. There are numerous undated editions of films that are identical to the PG-13 or R rated version. They just stick Unrated on the cover because they know it will shift copies. Even worse are the supposed directors cuts that the director has no input into, the Lethal Weapon series tor example. The directors cuts are the theatrical cuts and Donner has gone on record to say he wishes they didn't release them and refused to be involved with the Blu-Ray release unless they released his original versions.

pixelburp

Fysh wrote: »

I'm surprised to see Alex Proyas' Dark City not mentioned here - like Blade Runner or Brazil it's a film that had some stupid bloody changes forced on the theatrical release, which hampered its performance. I first saw the theatrical cut on DVD, only later catching the superior Director's Cut.

Wow, there's a film I haven't heard mentioned in many a year: ah Alex Proyas, you showed such promise once. I didn't even know there was a Director's Cut: I take it it's worth checking out; what does it add?

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Wow, there's a film I haven't heard mentioned in many a year: ah Alex Proyas, you showed such promise once. I didn't even know there was a Director's Cut: I take it it's worth checking out; what does it add?

Its well worth a watch as it turns a good film into a great one. The biggest change is the removal of the dreadful voice over which means that you no longer have the big twists ruined in the opening minutes.

Temaz

Kingdom Of Heaven is so much better than the cinema release.

CastorTroy

Wasn't aware of the DC of Dark City either. Must hunt it down.

I haven't watched the DC of The Exorcist yet, but I think it includes the bent over backward walk downstairs, which I remember seein in a Exorcist feature the director moved for a pretty good reason.

Then there's one like the Jackass .5 versions which just seems to be completely different stunts.

Fysh

The main thing I noticed was that god-awful voiceover being gone, it was up there with Blade Runner's original theatrical ending as a bloody stupid last-minute change to stick on a film. But Wikipedia claims it also has about 15 minutes of extra stuff, generally being extended scenes. It was only released in 2008, which may explain how it slipped under so many radars. It could be had for pretty cheap for a good while too - I'm pretty sure I got my copy for £5. It's out on Blu-Ray too for the HD-oriented

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

The main thing I noticed was that god-awful voiceover being gone, it was up there with Blade Runner's original theatrical ending as a bloody stupid last-minute change to stick on a film. But Wikipedia claims it also has about 15 minutes of extra stuff, generally being extended scenes. It was only released in 2008, which may explain how it slipped under so many radars. It could be had for pretty cheap for a good while too - I'm pretty sure I got my copy for £5. It's out on Blu-Ray too for the HD-oriented

The Blu-Ray is opp now so anyone who likes the film and see the Blue should grab it. Really worth owning as it looks and sounds great.

jaykhunter

It wasn't an official release but there was a fan edit of Matrix 2 & 3 ("Matrix DeZIONized") cutting out 2 hours of the sequels and making it into one film. It's so much tighter, removing all the fluff. I was shocked at how much better the film(s) flowed.

Seeya PaulB1984!

Bipolar Joe

Fysh wrote: »

It's the same reason I'm getting more interested in fanedits. It's fascinating to see what people change when they go beyond simply reinserting deleted scenes to make extended editions - for example, I've read about a Fight Club fan-edit that removes Edward Norton's inner monologue, which sounds really interesting in terms of how it would change your perception of the film's events.

Ever since seeing Fight Club, I wanted a version that removed Pitt completely. It would be awesome to see how it really happened, reckon it would be a right laugh and very unsettling.

I'm a fan of Leon: The Professional, and prefer the "International Version." Lots more interaction between Mathilda and Leon.

johnny_ultimate

I'll be perfectly honest and admit that when I see the words 'unrated cut' I tend to assume the film isn't my type of film - if a film's selling point is a few extra seconds of nudity, swearing or violence, well yeah I don't think the marketers are having an awful lot of respect for our collective intelligence. I'm sure there's a handful of unrated cuts for films that are actually deserving of some attention, but mostly it comes across as a condescending ploy.

Fairly indifferent about director's cuts on the whole, can't say there are all that many that have completely changed my mind on a film (although Donnie Dark did convince me Richard Kelly basically got lucky first time around). I have been meaning to get around to the Margaret extended version - which, as Kenneth Lonergan has been keen to emphasise, is still not necessarily his full vision of the film. Have Leon and Cinema Paradiso in a pile to watch, and will be using this thread as guidance on which version to watch

weemcd

jaykhunter wrote: »

It wasn't an official release but there was a fan edit of Matrix 2 & 3 ("Matrix DeZIONized") cutting out 2 hours of the sequels and making it into one film. It's so much tighter, removing all the fluff. I was shocked at how much better the film(s) flowed.

Seeya PaulB1984!

^ read about that one before, that interests me very much.

I like the extended edition of terminator 2, few scenes in there that help the film along very well imo. As others have said the dumb and dumber uncut edit is very good also, those few extra scenes are worth their weight in gold for a film you've seen so much.

I'd like to see the daredevil dc as I quite liked the original film even thought there was a lot that could be improved on.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'll be perfectly honest and admit that when I see the words 'unrated cut' I tend to assume the film isn't my type of film - if a film's selling point is a few extra seconds of nudity, swearing or violence, well yeah I don't think the marketers are having an awful lot of respect for our collective intelligence. I'm sure there's a handful of unrated cuts for films that are actually deserving of some attention, but mostly it comes across as a condescending ploy.

Fairly indifferent about director's cuts on the whole, can't say there are all that many that have completely changed my mind on a film (although Donnie Dark did convince me Richard Kelly basically got lucky first time around). I have been meaning to get around to the Margaret extended version - which, as Kenneth Lonergan has been keen to emphasise, is still not necessarily his full vision of the film. Have Leon and Cinema Paradiso in a pile to watch, and will be using this thread as guidance on which version to watch

Most unrated releases are quick cash grabs though every now and again one comes along that surprises you. The whole thing started because Blockbuster and others refuse to carry unrated releases and as such the studio was forced to cut numerous releases that were refused R ratings. Killer Joe is one of the more high profile unrated releases in the US.

Leon is best experienced in the theatrical cut, the extended version adds a lot but some of the scenes have undertones of a sexual nature that take away from the innocence of Leon and Matilda's relationship. I'd advise watching both versions and making up your own mind.

Cinema Paradiso I'd stick with the theatrical cut. Some interesting stuff was added but a lot of it feels like filler and its something of a slog to get through.

krudler

the directors/workprint version of Alien 3 is a big improvement on the theatrical one, adds in more plot, has a different scene with the chestbuster coming out of a cow instead of a dog, more interaction between Ripley and Clemens and more to the climax.

Gamayun

Eric the Viking: The Director's son's cut is notable for being 25min shorter than the theatrical release.

From Wiki:

The original US cut of the film runs to 100 minutes. Unhappy with the film's slow pacing, Jones prepared a 90-minute cut for the British market, but he was frustrated that he had not been given enough time to edit the film to his satisfaction. In 2006 Jones was given the opportunity of re-editing the film for its DVD release. Jones delegated the actual editing work to his son Bill, who produced a 75-minute "Director's Son's Cut" with re-ordered scenes and much tighter pacing as well as a completely remixed and re-dubbed soundtrack. Terry Jones considered this highly appropriate because the original book was written for Bill.

Kiith

How about the directors cut of Payback, which completely removed the original bad guy, and totally changes the film. Really enjoyed the original, and hadn't got a clue what was going on when i watched it recently.

Skerries

I bought the Alan Smithee version of Dune to see what it was like and whole heartily agree why Lynch took his name off the film but the Directors cut is like the original version but with some key scenes put back in and still retains it's feel

Das Boot was helped by taking all the extra footage they had and making the longer cut which led to us getting to know the crew more

delbertgrady

Picnic at Hanging Rock (Director's Cut) removes footage, and is the weaker for it, in my opinion.

Then of course, there's the added issue of the "TV versions" that were done for American networks in the 1970s and 1980s. I remember years ago (early 1980s) seeing a version of Superman The Movie on TV which included - among other additional scenes - the sequence where Miss Tessmacher is lowered down the elevator shaft into the lion's den by Lex Luthor. I also remember seeing Superman II with extra footage, including the very rarely-seen part where Non kills the kid in Little Houston with the police siren.

[Goes off to check online]

... Yes, RTE showed the extended TV versions of the first two Superman films in 1985 as a one-off Superman Night. Personally, I like most of the extra scenes from the first two films. Some of the more jokey ones were justifiably ditched, but others are nice to have. In some cases, I've got so used to the alternate versions, I get thrown when I see the originals. For instance, I saw the theatrical version of Superman II on TV recently and thought they had edited out the footage of General Zod using the machine gun in the White House, but of course, that's only in the Donner Cut.