|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 20, 2010 22:15:25 GMT
Decent enough, though it felt a bit shallow and rushed as a story. The theatrical release of Ridley Scott's previous historical epic, Kingdom of Heaven, suffered from the same thing, but the extra-long Director's Cut put everything right on that score. If there's an extra-long Director's Cut of this film I'll probably buy it. But I doubt I'll watch the theatrical version again on big screen or small.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on May 21, 2010 6:57:51 GMT
While watching it I kept thinking that it felt a lot like a more serious version of A Knights Tale. Then when the credits start I see it was written by the writer director of A Kinghts Tale.
I quite enjoyed the attempt to make it a historical film. But there were the odd leaps of plotting and or logic especially at the end that did feel rushed, so I too would be interested in a directors cut.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 25, 2010 17:35:50 GMT
Had all the ingredients for a good film, but just didn't gel and I found it quite boring to watch.
-Ralph
|
|
Cullen
Empty
Cat Stabber
Posts: 1,224
|
Post by Cullen on May 27, 2010 21:47:57 GMT
The start was too slow, the middle and end too rushed. The big battle at the end fell flat too. And what was up with Crows accent? It changed in every scene!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on May 27, 2010 22:11:53 GMT
I was more confused by the kids on ponies.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 20, 2010 17:52:19 GMT
Hm. The Director's Cut of Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven was 45 minutes longer than the theatrical version and transformed it from a quite shallow violence-fest to an epic story with depth of characters. The Director's Cut of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is apparently 15 minutes longer than the theatrical version. I'm not convinced that 15 minutes is enough to turn it into a much deeper story than it was in the cinema. Therefore unless I hear wonderful things about it I won't be rushing to make a purchase. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 20, 2010 20:03:51 GMT
Makes no difference to me, personally. I've never equated length with quality.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 21, 2010 6:28:43 GMT
Makes no difference to me, personally. I've never equated length with quality. Not quality, depth. And not equating, but being a factor in. Especially when it's obvious when watching a film in the cinema that it is a rushed story, chopped down by the studio to turn it from what it was originally intended to be into what they think the mass audiences want. I'm not saying that adding on yet another hour invariably makes a film better, but with supposed epics it frequently is the case that the material the studio thinks non-essential is material that makes characters more rounded, provides background context and motivations for what's going on, or helps to convey the time spans and distances covered during the course of a journey. I find this with a lot of things, from 'The Lord of the Rings' to productions of Hamlet (where only the Kenneth Branagh film really brings home the bacon). Length doesn't imply quality, but abridgement tends to spoil an otherwise masterly work. Martin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2010 17:07:38 GMT
Usually films are cut for pace. If the director thinks that the film is moving along too slowly parts will be cut to speed up the film regardless if it means cutting out bits that give the story depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 21, 2010 17:18:46 GMT
Ah right, Martin, I see where you're coming from now.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 21, 2010 20:15:54 GMT
Usually films are cut for pace. If the director thinks that the film is moving along too slowly parts will be cut to speed up the film regardless if it means cutting out bits that give the story depth. Not necessarily, sometimes movies are cut because the studio says that the film is to be a certain length. Then it is up to the director to go away, sit with the editor and hack bits out of the film to bring it down under the specified length - or if he won't do it someone else will come in and do the job. Sometimes editiing is as practical and pragmatic as that. (Some films deserve to be longer that their theatrical cut - I suspect "Kingdom of Heaven" is one of them having seen the theatrical version (the directors cut is not available for rental) by contrast the directors cuts of both Aliens and Alien actually restore material that - whatever the merits of the individual scenes - actually harm the structure of the film by their presence. It is very much a case by case thing - some films benefit from an extended cut and some don't, it all depends on what it is that is missing). |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 21, 2010 20:18:35 GMT
Sometimes the studio also wants films recut due to tone.
The Army of Darkness studio cut is amazing and fun, the director's cut, which you can get in the same 2-disc dvd and is sometimes shown on tv, has all the good bits taken out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Sept 21, 2010 22:58:51 GMT
Universal made a cut for us cinemas that was shorter, the other cut was the one used by Dino DeLaurentis in the uk and overseas and was Raimi's version and it is the better of the two, expanded scenes and the proper ending.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 22, 2010 7:21:32 GMT
Noooo the Universal version is better, damn you Turnbull!  EDIT: I'll try to quantify that. The Universal one is more fun and has the amazing 'hail to the king' ending. The Rami one cuts most of the good lines and is less snappy, and whilst the ending is truer to the character of Ash, that isn't necessarily a good thing for the audience! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2010 18:15:11 GMT
I've got the DVD with both versions on but I can't decide which one is better. The UK DVD release of the 1982 cartoon movie The Plague Dogs also has two versions on it. One is the original UK cinema release while the other is a version with the deleted scenes restored to it. Either way the film is still quite shocking to watch.
|
|
