Cheers Ennioo.
Still I never meet anybody who confirmed about that ‘extra footage’ ! Ever.
I think it’s a myth.
The uncut theatrical version rund 132 minutes (screen- or NTSC time) = 126/127 PAL minutes.
I have the Japanese LD, Japanese DVD, Hongkong DVD, UK DVD, UK VHS = all the same.
German versions base on a cut master from the late 70’s unfortunately (some vuiolence + darkened)
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare5/crossofiron.htm
Please check DVDbeaver before you waste your money…
[quote=“Starblack, post:78, topic:1805”]A longer version of Cross of Iron has been something of a Holy Grail for me - have you seen this release to compare it with the existing one in circulation Drifter?
How about you, Mike?[/quote]
Yes, I purchased a copy and there IS some extra footage. The only part that I did not remember from the Hens Tooth version seems to be a few minutes of a war montage with rapid cuts showing the fighting (I am basing this off of memory). There IS some extra footage, but I don’t believe it is significant or adds a lot to the movie. Anyway, I do have a copy of the “extra footage” version from Korea, so if you really want to see it…
I wouldn’t be surprised if extended versions of Peckinpah films keep showing up. We know he was difficult to work with, and the studios sometimes cut his often-lengthy finished products after completion (Major Dundee is the classic example).
Drifter, please give us the exact runtime
I just popped the disc in (the cover is in Korean). My media player says it is 132 min., 32 sec. That does not seem like the 138 min. version which I ordered! It could be the conversion from PAL to NTSC. I do not have the Hens Tooth version any more to compare the two.
Amazon seems to have two Korean versions of this…one is 132 min. the other 138. Could this be the same disc with the wrong time listed?
If it is a Pal runtime, then it would indeed be a 138 min version.
But I’m sure it is a NTSC runtime. And then it is the usual uncut version.
AGAIN:
check DVDBeaver.
The Korean is supposed to be 16 seconds longer, that could be anything (different logo, end title / exit music or whatever.).
There is no version that has more significant footage. Not before anybody has proof of that.
I’m hearing these stories for ten years now 
As soon as people really checked it was always raised eyebrows or the fact that they otherwise
saw shorter versions (but not longer ones in comparison to that 132 min. theatrical version).
Peckinpah had no trouble with that film regarding editing: he made his cut and it was released that way.
Appreciate the info, Mike.
I’ve always wondered about Cross, though… especially the scene where Klaus Lowitsch sticks his bayonet into Roger Fritz after the latter has been machine-gunned by James Coburn. We hear the blade striking flesh on the soundtrack, but see only the aftermath.
I like it that way. It looks dreamlike.
I watched yesterday the new Koch Media Release of THE DEADLY COMPANIONS. Again a beautiful Release and many thanks to Mike Siegel for the interesting extras.
This may be old news to some, but I’ve only just discovered - to no great surprise - that Straw Dogs is to be remade.
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0999913/[/url]
A singular work by one of modern cinema’s most distinctive and provocative film-makers obviously needs to be reworked for modern sensibilities and turned into (I predict) a generic siege thriller. Humanity is saved.
I did not know. Dred to think how crap it will probably be compared to the original.
Yeah, humanity saved, Sam f***
You no, that’s just what I needed to know… :
Still, at least it isn’t The Wild Bunch and films like The Ballad of Cable Hogue or Ride the High Country will never get remade simply because they aren’t well known enough.
Silence could make a Lego remake of the final shoot-out of TWB.
Haha yeah why not ;D.
Seems to be something different. An Israeli film which title’s translation is TWB.
There’s also an upcoming action movie called The Killer Elite, but it’s based on a different source and has a different plot.
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1448755/[/url]
But, you know, why not just think of a different title in that case?