Good Directors Cuts

Wedwood

Rumours of new cuts of Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker on their way to Disney+, following on the heels of this ‘Snyder Cut’ Justice League episode. It’s giving the term ‘Directors Cut’ a bad name.

There was a time when proper Director Cuts were done, here’s a few:

Lawrence of Arabia - Spielberg funded David Lean’s restoration, which saw some 40 minutes reinstated. Surviving actors such as Peter O’Toole, Omar Sharif and Anthony Quinn returned to redub the reinstated scenes.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Sergio Leone similarly brought back Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallace to redub reinstated scenes.

Both restorations were done in the 80’s and are seamlessly done. If you’ve watched either/both on Blu-ray/Streaming, then you’ve seen the restored versions.

Both those Directors Cuts improved classic movies, while many other Directors met with ‘mixed’ results. If you’ve any interesting examples share them here.

(Try and not let the George Lucas stuff derail the thread, it’s been done to death at this stage)

actuallylike

Apparently Kingdom of Heaven's Director's Cut is amazing. Why don't studios just trust Ridley Scott

McDermotX

actuallylike wrote: »

Apparently Kingdom of Heaven's Director's Cut is amazing. Why don't studios just trust Ridley Scott

Literally came on to post Kingdom of Heaven.

A massive improvement on the theatrical cut.

Niska

As above - When I saw the title first thought was Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical cut is a mess, while the director's cut is magnificent in places and overall bone of Scott's best

First director's cut I was aware of would have been Aliens. It adds a lot to the movie's background, and possibly better than the theatrical cut. But as I know all the extra background at this stage I occasionally prefer the leaner theatrical vetsion.

S.M.B.

Is there a difference between an Extended Cut and a Directors Cut? Didn't hear of an Last Jedi news.

Aliens was the first extended cut that I remember seeing back in the day on VHS.

Big fan of the Lord of the Rings extended versions.

Apocalypse Now (2001 redux, not the 2019 final cut) extra scenes in French planters and what happened to the playmates after they left the barracks show.

I'm not sure theres even directors cuts anymore with the 'movies in a can' these days.
The Final Cut of Alexander is a great movie, it was the 3rd version after the Directors Cut.

Once Upon a Time in America was famously chopped down and I think Sergio Leone's wife said it was what killed him. Directors Cut is 4hrs+

Dances with Wolves Directors Cut is over 5 hours long, pretty sure the longest film I've ever watched. Well worth it though

johnny_ultimate

S.M.B. wrote: »

Is there a difference between an Extended Cut and a Directors Cut? Didn't hear of an Last Jedi news.

Ain’t no Last Jedi director’s cut happening - Rian Johnson has been very clear that he cut whatever he cut for a reason, so the original version is his preferred version.

pixelburp

McDermotX wrote: »

Literally came on to post Kingdom of Heaven.

A massive improvement on the theatrical cut.

In what sense? I've heard this said before and while I didn't hate the theatrical cut, it was also "just a movie" I saw years ago and quickly forgot. Is this director's cut that transformative?

Goodshape

Blade Runner.

Brazil.

Goodshape

Extended/directors cuts I don't like include Alien, Aliens and Terminator 2. A few interesting new scenes in those but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the originals and the new scenes don't fit well with the pacing of the films.

It's a real pity that the longer versions tend to be the ones that get broadcast/streamed and reissued these days.

Sad Professor

S.M.B. wrote: »

Is there a difference between an Extended Cut and a Directors Cut?

Traditionally director's cut meant the last cut of the film finished by the director before the studio/producer took over. So the release of a director's cut implies that the director did not have a final cut and there was studio interference in the theatrical cut. However these days it's used interchangeably with extended cut to mean a longer or alternate cut of a film even when the director had complete control over the theatrical version.

pixelburp

Goodshape wrote: »

Extended/directors cuts I don't like include Alien, Aliens and Terminator 2. A few interesting new scenes in those but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the originals and the new scenes don't fit well with the pacing if the films.

It's a real pity that the longer versions tend to be the ones that get broadcast/streamed and resissued these days.

I think the "Aliens" director cut restored two important scenes which added some texture: the scene with Ripley discovering the fate of her daughter was a great character moment of heartbreak; while the"auto guns" sequence added to the tension. The scene was a good reinforcement that for all the marines' superior tech, they were in a quickly deteriorating situation. Maybe it didn't add to the plot, but definitely the stakes IMO.

Goodshape wrote: »

Blade Runner.

Brazil.

What a great movie I haven't watched in too long. Was the studio-mandated cut of Brazil ever released? I seem to recall Gilliam took out adverts in Variety and made a very public stink - with the studio eventually releasing the original version , with the original downbeat ending.

Not unlike Snowpiercer: where Bong Joon-ho had to make very public noise to prevent Weinstein chopping up the film to suit American / international cinemas.

ziedth

I genuinely think the last Jedi could have been saved in the edit (And I say that as someone who was bitterly disappointed with the film). IE Cut all the casino planet stuff, limit the Finn/Rose Story to the essentials (Although I don't agree with the hate the poor girl got.... the character was just shocking) and if you could salvage the Poe Mutiny some bit..... Maybe add a scene for Luke so that his ending isn't quite as polarizing....... I'm afraid "Rise of" there is no saving.....

Also Fully agree about the extended cut of Aliens...... Both scenes mentioned really added to the film.

Outkast_IRE

pixelburp wrote: »

In what sense? I've heard this said before and while I didn't hate the theatrical cut, it was also "just a movie" I saw years ago and quickly forgot. Is this director's cut that transformative?

Kingdom of heaven directors cut adds crucial scenes back into the movie.

When you watch the directors cut, you will think how did they get away with some of the cuts in the first place. In the theatrical cut there are characters that suddenly change their behavior entirely and its not explained. Its honestly like a different movie and its up there with Ridley Scotts best. Here is a recent review of it

https://collider.com/kingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut-ridley-scott-best-movies/

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

I think the "Aliens" director cut restored two important scenes which added some texture: the scene with Ripley discovering the fate of her daughter was a great character moment of heartbreak; while the"auto guns" sequence added to the tension. The scene was a good reinforcement that for all the marines' superior tech, they were in a quickly deteriorating situation. Maybe it didn't add to the plot, but definitely the stakes IMO.

I can't immediately remember the "auto guns" scene but the fate of Ripley's daughter was a nice extra scene that I think was better left out of the film. I'm sure it was intended to inform her relationship with Newt but that was unnecessary (the character of Newt and that relationship was strong enough on it's own) and the scene kills the pacing, imo.

But the real failure - and I think it really impacts the film in a negative way - are the early scenes with the colonists and Newt's family on LV425. Would have been another fun "DVD extra" but it was the right choice to cut it out of the movie.

I'm also pretty sure that Aliens is a good example of the director having nothing at all to do with the extended version.

What a great movie I haven't watched in too long. Was the studio-mandated cut of Brazil ever released? I seem to recall Gilliam took out adverts in Variety and made a very public stink - with the studio eventually releasing the original version , with the original downbeat ending.

Yeah, the "Love Conquers All" studio cut of Brazil is on the Criterion Collection edition. Similar enough to Blade Runner, it's almost an entirely different film.

otnomart

Donnie Darko by Richard Kelly

mikhail

Goodshape wrote: »

I can't immediately remember the "auto guns" scene...

I remember watching it for the first time. It's such a simple scene, but the tension is almost unbearable as the guns start to run dry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQDy-5IQvuU

Fysh

I thought the Donnie Darko DC was really bad, myself, in that it went into more detail than needed about

the time travel aspect

and in doing so knackered the ambiguity that made the film compelling.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I think the "Aliens" director cut restored two important scenes which added some texture: the scene with Ripley discovering the fate of her daughter was a great character moment of heartbreak; while the"auto guns" sequence added to the tension. The scene was a good reinforcement that for all the marines' superior tech, they were in a quickly deteriorating situation. Maybe it didn't add to the plot, but definitely the stakes IMO.



What a great movie I haven't watched in too long. Was the studio-mandated cut of Brazil ever released? I seem to recall Gilliam took out adverts in Variety and made a very public stink - with the studio eventually releasing the original version , with the original downbeat ending.

Not unlike Snowpiercer: where Bong Joon-ho had to make very public noise to prevent Weinstein chopping up the film to suit American / international cinemas.

I thought the directors cut of aliens was primarily the colony and newts family finding the egg? What changed with the guns?

And I personally thought the colony scenes added to the movie even though it left questions unanswered. Seeing them getting slaughtered might have joined the two versions better. I dunno

MfMan

The first time I saw Cinema Paradiso it was the reduced c. 2-hour theatrical release. Later, I got to see the (a) fuller director's cut which was nearly an hour longer and added depth and more explanation to the relationship between Toto and Elena. It made for a fuller, rounder film, yet I found the 2-hour version nearly more tear-jerking and moving, perhaps because of what you didn't see or know.

johnny_ultimate

Yeah Donnie Darko director’s cut is awful ****e. I loved that film when I was a teenager, but I’d go as far as saying that cut was when I kinda grew out of it? It suggested to me Kelly didn’t even know what made his film work in the first place. The awkward revamped music cues; the exposition and graphics that drag the pacing and indeed sense of mystery down; just a general loss of pace and flow... just really was a bummer to watch IMO. If anything, it’s a case study in how financial restraints - as in the original cut - can sometimes result in a leaner, smarter film.

mikhail

Fysh wrote: »

I thought the Donnie Darko DC was really bad, myself, in that it went into more detail than needed about

the time travel aspect

and in doing so knackered the ambiguity that made the film compelling.

That's a movie reputedly saved in the editing room. The director's cut is poor.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I thought the directors cut of aliens was primarily the colony and newts family finding the egg? What changed with the guns?

And I personally thought the colony scenes added to the movie even though it left questions unanswered. Seeing them getting slaughtered might have joined the two versions better. I dunno

The director's cut is quite a lot longer: 154 mins vs 137, so all the little bits add up. Whether the cost to the pacing is worth what they add is really a matter of personal preference. I like it, but I couldn't fault anyone for preferring the theatrical cut.

Tefral

actuallylike wrote: »

Apparently Kingdom of Heaven's Director's Cut is amazing. Why don't studios just trust Ridley Scott

I watched this last night on the basis of this post. Couldn't believe the difference it made from the Theatrical version.

Unbelievable movie. Would agree that its up there with Scotts finest work.

rob316

Once Upon a Time In America is probably the most notable. Chopped down to 139 mins and it was panned, the original was 229 mins and is considered a masterpiece. Personally it would of been an even better movie if they found something in between the original is a little too long.

CastorTroy

I keep hearing about Kingdom of Heaven DC but after wasting about 2.5 hours on what became my least favourite film, I don't intend on chancing it.

As for Donnie Darko it did that thing with inserting pages from a book. The Warriors went a similar route with some transitions done in comic page form. It's 1 of my last favourite cuts of that film.

If the LOTR extended editions count then they're among my favourite Director Cuts.

Although I can't remember the differences, I think Close Encounters is meant to have a good director's cut

Tony EH

'Aliens' is probably the best example of a director's cut done well.

'Apocalypse Mow Redux' is an example of one that was completely and totally unnecessary and killed the flow of the picture. The theatrical cut is the superior to every other one and it won't be bettered. That extended bunny scene is terrible and the French plantation scene is a turgid pit stop. It's abundantly clear why they were cut in the first place.

'Kingdom of Heaven' benefited from the extra material. But the film still suffers from things that no cut could salve, such as an insipid lead in Orlando Bloom. Likewise the problems with 'Alexander' wasn't its running time, it was the people in it. Farreller was a terrible idea as the lead character and Kilmer as Philip and Jolie as his missus are just flat out awful.

As for 'Blade Runner', I have always preferred the original theatrical cut to any of Scott's meddling. The voice over never bothered me and in fact I think it added to the Film Noir feel that Scott was going for in the first place. Ford's narration gets a lot of stick, but it is no worse than the voice overs in the likes of 'Sunset Blvd.', 'Farewell, My Lovely' or 'Double Indemnity', which is what they were trying to recreate anyway. Plus, this bogus idea that Deckard was a replicant never sat right with me, because it was flat out stupid and simply doesn't work if you analyse the problems it throws up.

In reality, there's actually been very few director's cuts or extended cuts that have bettered the originals, largely because there are massive flaws in the film, no matter what cut one is viewing.

Tony EH

Goodshape wrote: »

I'm also pretty sure that Aliens is a good example of the director having nothing at all to do with the extended version.

As far as I know, the "special edition" scenes were originally in the cut that Cameron submitted to Fox and they were cut on the order of Fox reps. because of length considerations.

ixoy

Tony EH wrote: »

As far as I know, the "special edition" scenes were originally in the cut that Cameron submitted to Fox and they were cut on the order of Fox reps. because of length considerations.

I thought Cameron decided to cut them though based on the fact that showing what happened, for example, to the colonists on LV-426 ruined the tension later on.

'The Making of Aliens' book is out later this year and will definitely give the answer. It also covers the Director's Cut, as it were, of 'Alien' which is actually shorter than the original theatrical cut.

Tony EH

ixoy wrote: »

I thought Cameron decided to cut them though based on the fact that showing what happened, for example, to the colonists on LV-426 ruined the tension later on.

'The Making of Aliens' book is out later this year and will definitely give the answer. It also covers the Director's Cut, as it were, of 'Alien' which is actually shorter than the original theatrical cut.

Can't say for sure about 'Aliens', but think I read it somewhere that it was Fox who asked for cuts on the original. Maybe Cameron cut the LV426 stuff at the beginning. But, I'm pretty certain he wanted the other stuff intact.

There are two scenes in the "Director's cut" of 'Alien' that I like though. That scene where Lambert slaps Ripley after they bring Kane back on board is good for showing that both girls are very catty toward each other. And the scene where Ripley finds the cocooned Dallas needs to be in the film, to show that the drone isn't just killing people. It has a higher purpose, which is elaborated on in the sequel.

MfMan

Tony EH wrote: »

'Apocalypse Mow Redux' is an example of one that was completely and totally unnecessary and killed the flow of the picture. The theatrical cut is the superior to every other one and it won't be bettered. That extended bunny scene is terrible and the French plantation scene is a turgid pit stop. It's abundantly clear why they were cut in the first place.


As for 'Blade Runner', I have always preferred the original theatrical cut to any of Scott's meddling. The voice over never bothered me and in fact I think it added to the Film Noir feel that Scott was going for in the first place. Ford's narration gets a lot of stick, but it is no worse than the voice overs in the likes of 'Sunset Blvd.', 'Farewell, My Lovely' or 'Double Indemnity', which is what they were trying to recreate anyway. Plus, this bogus idea that Deckard was a replicant never sat right with me, because it was flat out stupid and simply doesn't work if you analyse the problems it throws up.

Not sure what version of A.N. the Beeb screened recently, but I liked the French plantation bit of it. As with all 'Road' movies, it added more varied characters and incidents that the protagonists encounter on their journey. (Look carefully to spot Pierre Segui, Julien from The Deerhunter).

Equally, I preferred the version of Blade Runner without the voiceover and which suggests that Deckard is himself a replicant. It adds to the great ambiguity of the film. "How can it not know what it is?"

MfMan

MfMan wrote: »

Not sure what version of A.N. the Beeb screened recently, but I liked the French plantation bit of it. As with all 'Road' movies, it added more varied characters and incidents that the protagonists encounter on their journey. (Look carefully to spot Pierre Segui, Julien from The Deerhunter).

Equally, I preferred the version of Blade Runner without the voiceover and which suggests that Deckard is himself a replicant. It adds to the great ambiguity of the film. "How can it not know what it is?"

Same here, it gave a nod to the French occupation of Vietnam and the futility of the American effort there, also the innocence and ignorance of the playmates getting caught up in the war. But I’m biased, it’s my favourite movie. Coincidently the “tears in the rain” from BR is one of my favourite movie monologues on all time along with “the path of the righteous man”.

budgemook

I had completely forgotten about the voiceover in Blade Runner. Well, I’ve never seen it in the movie, just some YouTube videos taking the piss out of it. There were suggestions that Ford was doing it poorly on purpose but I don’t know if there’s any truth in that. For me the version without the voiceover is the only one I have watched so watching the theatrical cut would be weird.

Zeek12

MfMan wrote: »

Not sure what version of A.N. the Beeb screened recently, but I liked the French plantation bit of it. As with all 'Road' movies, it added more varied characters and incidents that the protagonists encounter on their journey. (Look carefully to spot Pierre Segui, Julien from The Deerhunter).

Equally, I preferred the version of Blade Runner without the voiceover and which suggests that Deckard is himself a replicant. It adds to the great ambiguity of the film. "How can it not know what it is?"

The AN on the Beeb recently was the Final cut, which is apparently Coppola's favourite version.

Thought the Redux was very inferior to the original myself, too bloated and really killed the momentum of the film. The final cut was fine.
But the original cut is just perfection for me.

Oafley Jones

Tony EH wrote: »

'Kingdom of Heaven' benefited from the extra material. But the film still suffers from things that no cut could salve, such as an insipid lead in Orlando Bloom.

Yip. The director’s cut is much improved and you no longer get whiplash for some of the transitions, but Orlando just isn’t up to the job. And I don’t mind him in general. Just to think, Scott want Paul Bethany for the role. What could had been.

MfMan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Yip. The director’s cut is much improved and you no longer get whiplash for some of the transitions, but Orlando just isn’t up to the job. And I don’t mind him in general. Just to think, Scott want Paul Bethany for the role. What could had been.

Could had been much much worse, especially if his pal Johnny was hanging about.

Wedwood

Another interesting Directors Cut is the Donner Cut of Superman 2. The story is well known that Donner originally was filming the first 2 movies side by side. He left the second movie incomplete to finish Superman the Movie in time for release but was subsequently fired by the producers. Richard Lester was eventuality hired to complete Superman 2 and reshot much of the movie in order to gain the Directors credit.

Some 30 years later, Donner returned to reassemble his old footage to give an approximation of his version of Superman 2, which was released on DVD/Blu-ray.

It’s less jokey than Lester’s version and the reinstated Marlon Brando footage adds to the story.

Sad Professor

I was disappointed with the Donner cut. It was cheaply put together and Donner wasn't really involved in it apart from giving it his blessing. Good to have but not something i would watch instead of the theatrical cut.

The ironic thing with some of these "director's cuts" - the director sometimes isn't that involved. Ridley Scott didn't do the 1992 director's cut of Blade Runner for example, film preservationist Michael Arick did at the request of the studio. Scott did do the "final cut" though.

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

I was disappointed with the Donner cut. It was cheaply put together and Donner wasn't really involved in it apart from giving it his blessing. Good to have but not something i would watch instead of the theatrical cut.

Yeh, this is me as well. I never felt that the original cut was that bad. In fact kid me preferred it to the first film. The attempts at comedy were always rubbish though. But that can be said for 90% of movies.

That Donner cut was getting a lot of praise on the web, though, and when I watched it I thought it was, largely, a waste of time really. Plus that reused spin the earth backwards footage from 'Superman'?

No...just no.

It's ok to watch as a curiosity piece. But back to back with 'Superman' it's just awful.

Goodshape

Must watch the Donner cut again. Think I've only seen it once but I remember enjoying it plenty.

I was never too fond of the original Superman 2 though. It was "fun" but felt like a real step away from the dramatic realism of the first film, which I love so much.

TheIrishGrover

It may be a bit of a cheat as the vast majority of the extra footage was never intended to be shown in the cinema and was always designed to be released as extended DVD versions (Apart from Boromir, Faramir and Denethor's flashback sequence from The Two Towers). They were still shooting scenes for Return of The King DVD AFTER winning the Oscar for Best Movie that year.

Before Jackson's overly-padded, plasticy and simply ridiculous Hobbit trilogy. Jackson was writing that on the fly and it shows but his Rings trilogy was written and honed over many years. So, despite being almost 12 hours combined I believe the extended cuts are superior and actually have very little fat to them.

Now for BAD director's cuts do NOT see the director's cut of Cinema Paradiso. It totally guts the romantic heart of the movie. Avoid at all costs.

MfMan

Goodshape wrote: »

Must watch the Donner cut again. Think I've only seen it once but I remember enjoying it plenty.

I was never too fond of the original Superman 2 though. It was "fun" but felt like a real step away from the dramatic realism of the first film, which I love so much.

Dramatic realism? The first Superman? I thought it was a bit all over the place. The first 45 mins or so is perfectly fine, where his story and background is established. It works as an emotional drama where we see Kent wanting to fit in despite being different. Then the narrative moves to NY, where it turns into a comedic slapstick movie altogether. e.g. the silly missile hijacking scene with Hackman, Beatty et al, the trafficlights control men starting to fight with each other (real 'jump the shark' moment that); and how could anyone fall in love with a virago like Lois Lane? Just didn't get it myself; a bit like 12 Angry Men turning into a song-and-dance cabaret half way through.

Goodshape

MfMan wrote: »

Dramatic realism? The first Superman? I thought it was a bit all over the place.

Well, relatively maybe. It did lighten up a bit as it went along, and had some comedy for sure, but I think it has a more serious tone than a lot of superhero films.

It wasn't all that long after Batman 1966's shark-repellent-bat-spray.

actuallylike

Exorcist 3: Legion has an interesting cut. Blatty had never intended it as a direct sequel. More a mystery, but obviously the studio wanted to cash in on the name. The recent dvd release has a cut made by Kermode and someone else, after Blatty's death that tries to recreate what Blatty wanted. Also includes a few comedic parts that were cut. Some of the footage is very degraded but it's nice to get a cut that is more true to the Directors intent, even after his death. But kermode and blatty had quite a strong personal relationship so I assume its what we would have wanted. Kermode does the commentary throughout as well mentioning the additional scenes and cuts.

TheIrishGrover

MfMan wrote: »

Dramatic realism? The first Superman? I thought it was a bit all over the place. The first 45 mins or so is perfectly fine, where his story and background is established. It works as an emotional drama where we see Kent wanting to fit in despite being different. Then the narrative moves to NY, where it turns into a comedic slapstick movie altogether. e.g. the silly missile hijacking scene with Hackman, Beatty et al, the trafficlights control men starting to fight with each other (real 'jump the shark' moment that); and how could anyone fall in love with a virago like Lois Lane? Just didn't get it myself; a bit like 12 Angry Men turning into a song-and-dance cabaret half way through.

Yeah, I agree with most of this. I LOVED (And still do like) the first act of the movie. And I have posted about it before in other threads. I loved the humanity of the Kent family and Smallville in general.

I did think it lost it when he was in New York.

I didn't have a problem with Reeves as Superman/Clarke Kent. Thought he did that very well, even the slapstick.... HIS slapstick I could take as an act.

But I never really liked Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty. Always thought (Even as a kid) they were too bungling and slapstick for Luthor to be the greatest criminal mastermind. As a matter of fact I thought he was supposed to be deluded.

I actually liked Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. Sure, you had Amy Adams and Kate Bosworth in the other movies and while they are very pretty I never thought they had the oomph that Kidder had (Especially Bosworth. WAY too lightweight). You actually felt Kidder was a hard ass reporter.

Back to topic, I actually haven't watched the Donner Cut of Superman 2. Must give it a go.

bigar

The already excellent Dark City is even better in it's Director's Cut keeping the mystery of what is happening for longer.

The "Straight Up" version of Payback is interesting as it restores the original third act as filmed by director Brian Helgeland. The original version of the film had a different third act not directed by Helgeland but by star Mel Gibson (who was also producer). It also had a different beginning and pacing.

Gibson later allowed Helgeland and editor Kevin Stitt to construct their version. I like the later version better as it has more of a noir feel and less of a formulaic action movie as there were too many around at the time.

"The Counselor - Extended Cut"

A much maligned movie that I particularly like as it's a great morality play and is stylish with a Cormac McCarthy script. Some really good extended dialogues and a couple of new scenes.
Really adds to it imo.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-xpm-2014-feb-14-la-et-mn-extended-cut-of-the-counselor-settles-its-case-20140214-story.html

The extended cut reshuffles scene order, lengthens some scenes with additional dialogue and adds a few scenes altogether. The differences are subtle but have an impact: The film’s pacing is less jagged and its flow more organic. Even with its extended exchanges of dialogue, the longer version somehow plays brisker.

chrislad

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Yip. The director’s cut is much improved and you no longer get whiplash for some of the transitions, but Orlando just isn’t up to the job. And I don’t mind him in general. Just to think, Scott want Paul Bethany for the role. What could had been.

Is this on streaming anywhere? I see that it's on Sky, but from the run time, it's the regular cut - I actually had this on DVD years ago, but never watched it as I heard it was really bad, so it just kept getting shunted back further in the backlog.