hm, haven’t seen nothing, nor Driver, nor Southern Comfort, nor Warriors, but i must say Warriors are very tempting - thematically my cup of tea
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:7339, topic:1923”]No, I haven’t. What’s wrong with it?[/quote]Added all these comic art sequences, spoiled it for me. Hill said he wanted to do it in the 70’s. Thing is it’s up to date style drawings not 70’s style.
I certainly hope it doesn’t stop them releasing the original cut again as the blu ray is only the director’s cut.
Not to fond of these Director cuts all the time, Tony Scott’s Revenge is one I prefer in its original version. Actually like the more slow build up to things, and more character developement.
However, many of the director’s cuts of Ridley Scott’s movies are a large improvement over their theatrical cuts (for example: Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven etc, etc).
I much prefer the film with Deckard’s narration. I like the extra bits if I remember right - but I missed that voiceover. Is there a version that has both?
I’m the same, Rev. The film I remember fondly was the original cut. However, it seems the only way to see the film the way it was originally released is if you stump up for the 5 disc complete edition. Having the best of everything in one film is still not available it would seem. To be honest though, if push comes to shove I’d just as soon stick with the original. The whole ‘director’s cut’ movement we’ve had over the past decade or so has left me more frustrated than anything else. For one thing it is getting harder and harder to see anything the way it was originally released (something I am particularly keen on in my current project) and for another I have an increasing conviction that, given complete freedom to do as they like, most directors will foul things up rather than make them better. George Lucas anyone?
Not too fond of Blade Runner actually, but I prefer the version with the voice over too. It only had a rather stupid added-on happy ending.
I’m currently rewatching the Director’s Cut of Kingdom of Heaven. I’m not sure it’s a real improvement over the theatrical version. Some characters are better defined now, and there’s a bit more blood and gore, but the film moves at a really awkward pace, at least the theatrical version was better-paced.
This is what I said about it two years ago, when I first watched the DC:
[i]Kingdom of Heaven (Director’s Cut)
With some 45 minutes of previously cut scenes re-inserted, and an overture and entr’acte added, this director’s cut is remarkably different from the theatrical version. It solves some problems of the truncated version, but creates a few of its own.
The opening scene in France has been expanded, adding depth to both Godfrey and Balian’s characters by revealing more of their backgrounds. We understand much better now what Balian has lost and why he sets out for the Holy Land. Godfrey (played by Liam Neeson) becomes more or less the anchor point of the movie: like Balian (Orlando Bloom) he is a troubled man, seeking redemption in a desperate religious statement, but he has failed. By travelling to Jerusalem, Balian not only wants to redeem himself, but also his father. This longer version is also a bit more gory and violent (though never on the level of Gladiator): apparently Scott was forced to remove some blood and gore. Two characters are fleshed out in this director’s cut, King Baldwin’s sister Sybilla and the villainous Guy de Lussignan. We understand now why Sybilla suddenly sides with Guy, but the extra material also gives us more time to think about what we see and experience. The theatrical version felt disjointed, but it was well-paced, and the spectacle was so overwhelming, that you didn’t care much about some characters being ill-defined.
The main problem is still caused by the actor Bloom and his character. Bloom isn’t bad per se, but he’s simply hard to accept as a blacksmith and a military genius. He’s just not the man. And for most part of the movie, the character has very little to do. He hangs around a little in and around Jerusalem, digging in the ground, looking at the sky, flirting with Sybilla. The intriguing and back-stabbing of most of the other characters is clichéd and rather predictable, not to mention politically correct, in the worst possible sense of the term. It’s clear that Scott wanted to avoid, above all, to hurt any Islamic feelings. The Crusades were a complex event and the situation in the Holy Land was a true imbroglio, both in the Christian and the Muslim camp. Peace was always fragile, merely an interruption of the hostilities, and if they didn’t fight each other, they fought among themselves. It’s nonsense to put the blame for the hostilities on a few rotten apples, like in this movie. Neither of the two parties was interested in true co-existence (the idea was completely incompatible with the medieval spirit). The film is robbed from much of its authentic feel by making the Muslims talk Arabic in one scene, and English in another (not only to the crusaders, but even among themselves!). performances aren’t bad, but none of the characters really holds your attention, with the possible exception of Edward Norton as the leprous King Baldwin.
I won’t say this is a bad movie. Production values are superior and Saladin’s final attack on Jerusalem is a memorable cinematographic experience. Overall the film has a glorious, wonderful look, rivaling even the best work of a Kurosawa or a Zhang Yimou. Potentially more interesting than Gladiator, it never equals the momentum and expressiveness of that movie.[/i]
7/10
5 discs!!! ;D :o 
:-\ 
Fuck that - I’ll stick with the one.
I have fond memories too. The choirmistress was pursuaded under my spell and seduced to the tune of a half-decent bottle of red wine and the Vangelis soundtrack (+ Al Bowley’s ‘one more kiss dear’) - ahhhh! Sweet memories… :-*
Mostly DCs are better than the older versions, but surely not always. It depends, and at first on the individual taste.
In the case of the DC of Kingdom of Heaven (8/10), this one works very well for me, which is Scott’s best film in the DC since his Alien (9/10) and Blade Runner (8/10) days. I have never seen the shorter version, only read what was altered, and I don’t think that I have any interest in watching the theatrical version.
One problem is of course that now directors easier accept a shorter sellingmorepopcorn version, or one which can get a PG letsnotloseoneofthepotentialaudience rating, or both, because they know that their version will also be released soon, and therefore not rotting in the vaults.
Salt is a very good example how films are made worse in order to get a PG rating.
But of course it should be taken for granted that both versions are released together on disc. And not first releasing the theatrical version and then half a year later the DC to make double money.
The Salt disc contains both versions and as a bonus another one which was a in parts a very different earlier incarnation. All 3 with seamless branching on a single disc.
Interesting views on Director’s cuts - I can’t say I agree with much of it though. Of course not all Director’s Cuts are improvements over the Theatrical Cuts, but I am glad that there is the oppurtunity for directors to restore material cut against their will.
I would certainly agree with your last point John. Let’s face it, any British or U.S. based Spaghetti fan would be pretty miserable to only have the theatrical cut of OUATITW. The one butchered down to an hour and a half. But I think that sometimes just because a director would have liked to do something differently than he was originally able to doesn’t mean it would have made the film better. Sometimes it would only make it longer. And in the same way that even the best novelists can benefit from the help of a good editor, so even the greatest of directors can often benefit from the restraints put on them by their producer. Not always, but often. Directors, after all, often come with big egos (it kind of goes with the territory) and a foil for that isn’t such a bad thing.
The thing that bugs me most though is the disappearance of the earlier version. Lucas is the worst at this. The first Star Wars film was just called Star Wars but you will be hard pressed to find it listed anywhere as such now. It has become Episode IV: A New Hope. WTF? Changing scenes and inserting new special effects wasn’t enough? And any version of the film you buy now will reflect that. It’s like the film we saw 35 years ago doesn’t exist any more.
While I think of it, GBU is similarly ‘revised’ now. Any new version released is always the updated version with the inserted scenes. Scenes which were never originally dubbed and so can hardly be considered original. Whether you prefer the new to the old is neither here nor there really. The point is the choice has been taken away and that annoys me.
When Director’s cuts first came out as different editions they were important editions of sorts.
Nowadays a lot of them (not all) I reckon were there waiting to come out purposefully after the normal edition to get you to buy it again.
While all new editions of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are of the 180+ minute cut, the 160+ minute cut is still easily available on DVD off Amazon. However, I do agree that all versions of a film should be available of buy, so I am annoyed as you are when movies like Star Wars are released in only one version.
As for Blade Runner, my favourite version is The Final Cut. I’ve seen the Theatrical Cut and the Workprint (I own the 5000000000 disc boxset ;D) as well. The voiceover to me sounded exceptionally stilted in delivery and didn’t tell us anything knew about the character, just “clarifying” plot points that were already obvious to the viewer.
But in the case of GBU it is Leone’s preferred version, the original theatrical one, only minus the cave scene.
I finally watched ”Conan the barbarian” the remake. Unfortunately it was exactly as poor as I expected.
So 1979 has finished for me and after the two Italian crime ones I mentioned earlier I watched the following for the year:
Manhattan
The Lady Vanishes
The Brood
Winter Kills
The Long Good Friday
The Tin Drum
Alien
Kramer Vs. Kramer
Lady Vanishes was some light fluff but I wanted to include it because it was the final film Hammer ever made before their recent reincarnation. It’s not great but entertaining enough and nice to see our old friend Dan Van Husen popping up. As a Nazi henchman of course. Winter Kills has an incredible cast which was led by Jeff Bridges and John Huston but also included Tony Perkins, Richard Boone, Sterling Hayden, Elizabeth Taylor and, a surprise to me, Tomas Milian. I didn’t realise Milian was working in the States as well as Italy at this time. It’s a cameo but a nice little one in which he looks a lot older. Unfortunately, the film, while having some really nice moments is a bit of a mess as a whole.
The Long Good Friday is a film I have very fond memories of but haven’t seen for some years so it was nice to find it still holds up very well today. Also fun to see a very young Pierce Brosnan turning up in a non speaking role. One of his first I presume. The Tin Drum is still one of my favourite novel adaptations of all time and from a book that I also love. It is so well made and captures the text so beautifully in my opinion. Great performances too. Obviously from little David Bennent who seems to have been born for the role of Oskar but also Mario Adorf as one of his fathers (we never really know who is his biological sire). A wonderful film.
Manhattan, despite the slightly creepy ‘life imitating art’ nature of it now with Allen’s relationship with a teenage girl, gets better and better I believe. I’ve always thought it was one of his strongest, most well rounded films, but if anything I liked it even more this time around. And for that matter, I found myself enjoying Kvs K more too. I’ve always thought it a well made film but, possibly because of the subject matter’s personal nature, I have somehow found it difficult to warm to. I liked it a lot better this time around.
The Brood was a nicely unsettling slice of Cronenberg and Alien still has enough jumps and suspense even after untold viewings.
All in all a very good week and I still missed out on some I had originally lined up. In particular. Apocalypse Now which I just ran out of time for.
As of today it is 1980 for me and I must admit I’m very sorry to be leaving the 70s behind for the rest of the year. Hopefully, the 80s will be better than I remembered it. I’ve already sorted out my pile for 1980 and it looks like being a pretty good start.
Is THE LONG RIDERS in your 1980 pile Phil?
Rewatched The Brood a few weeks ago. This was my impression:
The Brood (1979, David Cronenberg)
As more often with Cronenberg, I have mixed feelings about this SF shocker about murdering mutant dwarfs.
The film is a slow starter, but once the little creatures start hammering people down, it offers some real scares. But Cronenberg is one of those directors who often destroys what he has created himself, and in this case the tension is broken by too much madness and effects that are more gory than scary. The idea of traumatic memories having psychosomatic consequences and creating physical changes is interesting, at least in the context of the horror movie, but Cronenberg once again pushes things too far when he has Samantha Eggar eating her own afterbirth. That’s just tasteless and not what I’m looking for, not even in a horror movie.
Samantha Eggar is nevertheless great as the psychic mother. Oliver Reed is miscast as the professor of psychoplasmics (whatever that may be).
Some animals do this, like cows. So it is only natural …
Yes, but Samantha Eggar …
Animals also walk around in the nude, she had better copied that natural behavior