The Many Cuts of the Many Movies We Watch

When it comes to classic or older films that have gained a good reputation, I tend to go with the theatrical cut first, since that is what most people viewed during its initial release. If I enjoy the movie and what to see more or hear that an improvement was made, I then watch the director's or extended cut.

Yeah, a lot of new releases do have different, bullshit cuts. I believe the general consensus is that the theatrical versions of the Apatow films are superior to the more commonly available versions, for one example.

Sorry, I don't anything about the Trainspotting DVDs. I was wondering about Amadeus, if anyone can help with that one.
And of course, the most dramatic change between cuts is probably Kingdom of Heaven. I've yet to see anyone argue that the theatrical is better than the director's cut.

Have you ever seen it before? If not, start with the original theatrical cut. It's a near-perfect piece of cinema in my estimation.

With Trainspotting I think the difference is minimal. If I remember correctly the only differences were a slight MPAA trim to the sex scene, and some lines were dubbed to tone down the Scottish accents slightly for the American theatrical release.

Of course there are exceptions, but in most cases your best bet is the theatrical version of any of these films. Do a little research, though. Sometimes studio interference causes a butchered edit of the film to be released theatrically (Brazil) while the director's cut restores the auteur's original vision, but for every one of those there are a hundred arbitrary "unrated editions" that are bloated or trivial.

ETA: According to IMDb the Trainspotting director's cut may be an extended version with deleted scenes re-incorporated. You're still better off with the theatrical.

The director's cut isn't really all that different. I didn't actually catch all the differences the first time around, and it certainly didn't feel any longer.

I tend to go with longer cuts of most of my favs, but there are plenty of extended and director's cuts I've never bothered to see because I know for a fact that the recutting was only to sell another DVD, as in the case of Gladiator or Black Hawk Down. But I think Donnie Darko is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that was really ruined by a longer running time.

The Alien and Alien: Resurrection director's/extended cuts are not worth it. Not even to see the Dallas egg scene in Alien because you could just watch it in the deleted scenes section and it wrecks the pacing of the third act.

The American Gangster extended cut kind of sinks that film a bit. Particularly the ending.

For being so famous for his director's cuts Ridley Scott is kind of hit and miss with the quality.

Nixon: The film is stopped dead with the Richard Helms scene at the CIA in the director's cut.

Plus it alters the xenomorph's life cycle in a way that doesn't make sense with the other movies.

I actually didn't think The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen was too bad, but I own both versions. Some day I'll get up the nerve to watch Exorcist 2.

The Alien 3 director's cut is significantly different, but its a bit like the Richard Donner cut of Superman II, in that it is still a compromised version of what could have been, albeit an improvement over the theatrical version.

The Amadeus director's cut is definitely preferable, just for the extra little bits here and there. That's a near-perfect film in any form, though.

And Kingdom of Heaven - don't even bother with the theatrical, the extended is the only way to go with that one.

An interesting one for me was seeing the CopLand extended version. There are just a few extended lines of dialogue scattered around, but it really does add that little bit extra to the characters and I think I'd miss those little moments if I went back to the original cut.

I have only seen the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. When I went back and read about the theatrical version, I couldn't believe what had been cut out.

Same. The moment I read - here on chud actually if I recall - that Scott had said publically that the theatrical cut wasn't his vision and that he'd release the film he wanted on dvd, I just waited for that re;ease.

One of the best blind-buys I've ever made.

Where the Exorcist re-cut fucks up is that in the original cut, you only see what the protagonists see; you're experiencing the narrative through them in a very naturalistic way. In the recut, Friedkin adds a handful subliminal shots of Pazuzu's face over people's shoulders, in dark corners, etc. In those moments it becomes more of a Hitchcockian "the audience knows more than the protag" kind of thing. It completely destroys the fabric of the movie's reality for me.

The Gladiator Director's Cut upped that film a couple points of greatness.

Also, re: Donnie Darko, the pages of Roberta Sparrow's book, and the NASA bullshit over the time travel moments hurt that film. The extra/extended scenes and runtime don't.

I'm torn over the DC of DD because while almost every addition Kelly adds hurts the overall artistic product, the scene between Donnie and his Dad almost validates it's existense single-handedly.

Thats become one of my favourite scenes from the whole Darko experience.

I just wish it had been included in the original cut.

For me, it's the Watership Down discussion. Fuck the therapy sessions, the insane talks with Frank, etc, etc....that scene shows how heavy Donnie's burden is weighing on him better than anything else in the film.

To tell you the truth Justin it's been a while since I've seen the Gladiator cut.

But the way I see it:

Doesn't Help/Hurts the Movie: American Gangster, Alien, Black Hawk Down

Helps the Film: Kingdom of Heaven, Blade Runner

Don't Have an Opinion: Gladiator, Legend.

I'm just saying that Ridley's got a reputation for these cuts and in actuality if we play a numbers game in my opinion it's not always to the film's advantage.

What was added to Black Hawk Down? I didn't notice any differences.

ETA: The director's cut of Troy is a humongous leap in quality over the theatrical.

There're three cuts of Alexander... are any of them good?

The directors cut of Alexander makes more sense compared to the original cut, stone also did a final cut which is basically 'everything but the kitchen sink' edition which runs for nearly 3 hours 45 mins which i think is a mess..here are a few examples of extended/director cuts that have been released

Hellboy improves no end in the director's cut. Lots of really nice little character scenes get added.

I have such a hard time remembering which one's which, but if I remember correctly, the director's cut (the second one) puts the film in a slightly more chronological order. The flashbacks are still there, they just happen sequentially. To be honest, there's no reason why the film needed to be so oddly ordered since it's not like The Killing, where Kubrick lets the story unfold in the order that best suits the narrative - even if it's not in the order it exactly happened.

I can't really tell you if the Final Cut is an improvement. I've seen it but it didn't really scream "this is THE cut"; it just feels like Stone is letting you choose how much of the Alexander universe you can handle by offering different versions of it. Also, unless I'm mistaken the DC cuts back on the Alexander being gay scenes. Which I guess is a good thing if you're homophobic or dumb (I like my director's cuts bigger and gayer whenever possible).

But anyway. Back to the matter at hand. If you got a weekend to kill, watch them all in the order they were released so you can make the best educated decision. Alexander's not a great film and in many ways it's a failure, so trying to quantify which version to get can be tricky since they're all slightly tweaked versions of something that's very flawed to begin with. I should also make it clear that I don't like most of Stone's films, Platoon and Natural Born Killers especially. But I'm always interested in what the guy has to say as a filmmaker because he's doing something different.

Short answer: the second release. The DC.

Hear, hear! I actually ENJOYED the director's cut.

Untitled versus Almost Famous: no contest. Untitled has more Lester Bangs so the DC wins.

I think I read that they even modified some of the lighting and color filters of some scenes, and the score.

The American Gangster director's cut doesn't help the movie at all, especially the end.

And, since I don't think anyone's mentioned them: I prefer the "Extended" versions of the LotR movies over the theatrical any day of the week. Now, as for King Kong? Ehhhhn, so-so.

Well, I think you're mixing director's cuts and extended cuts in with each other. With one notable exception, all of his final director's cuts have been improvements, while all of his extended cuts are just that: longer versions of his preferred theatrical cuts. Most of his deadpan intros to the extended cuts are basically, "Well, it's not preferred my version but, here, if you want it so bad, check it out anyway, mate."

The one exception to the above rule is the "director's cut" of ALIEN but he pretty much distances himself from that in the Quadrilogy's booklet, stating that it's more of a marketing exercise by Fox and that his preferred cut is still the 1979 original.

I sort of despise the extended cut of Return of the King. There's a lot of things that needed to be left on the cutting room floor.

I probably should've put that in brackets as you're absolutely right, most of them are just extended cuts.

As for whoever asked about Black Hawk Down I have absolutely no idea what was put back in. I saw the DVD once, returned it to the video store, and my opinion of the film didn't change a bit. It was probably just minor things.

I have yet to see that Troy Director's Cut but I really want to.

If anyone can help with Blade Runner or Close Encounters, that'd be awesome. Each movie has like 18 different versions and I have no clue where to start with either of them. I've seen both films, but it's been so long that it might as well be my first time.

As for Trainspotting, I have the "uncut international version" on DVD. I'd go with that one. Any difference between that and the theatrical is minimal.

I've come to the conclusion that it's a small price to pay for Saruman's death, the added Pellenor Fields stuff (never minding the ruined Aragorn-stepping off the boat reveal), and the Mouth of Sauron.

As for Close Encounters, you want the Spielberg-approved 137 minute cut.

I went through the Blade Runner cuts in order (Well sort of, I still haven't watched the workprint), but I think starting with The Final Cut might be the best way to go. It's Ridley Scott's "definitive" version, so it might prove a good base to compare the other cuts by.

I really enjoyed the darker tone of Payback: Director's Cut. Glad to see Mel Gibson give Brian Helgeland his due and release the OG version before Mel got to tinkering with it.

Yes, and even though it goes nowhere I adore the Gandalf VS Witch King bit. I thought the theatrical cut felt a bit sloppy in the cutting, and though there may be a bit too much added overall, the flow of the Extended Cut is much more natural and satisfying.

Also, I'm bummed to hear about Nixon. I've actually never seen it and just got the DC blu-ray for review. I was a little shocked at the length when I read the back.

I also remember the many cuts of Dawn of the Dead. Apparently Romero prefers the theatrical cut, but I think the longer version is the better movie. The Argento cut is a weaker film dramatically, but surprisingly well paced.

Personal preferences (I swear I've composed this exact post before):

Blade Runner -- Workprint, but if you've never seen any version start with Final Cut

The Abyss -- The ending of the Director's Cut is a little flabby, but there's some crucial character detail restored to the first half.

Legend -- The DC, if only for the reinstatement of Jerry Goldsmith's music

Brazil -- American theatrical release has better pacing, cooler opening.

Lord of the Rings -- Only Fellowship seriously benefits from the Extended treatment.

Star Wars -- Get away from me, kid, ya bother me.

Close Encounters -- Maybe it's nostalgia talking but I really think Steve got it right the first time around.

Dune -- They're both pretty bad. The half-assed restoration on the Extended Edition kills more goodwill.

Superman II -- The 'Donner Cut' is a fascinating curiosity. The theatrical release is an actual movie.

Touch of Evil -- Walter Murch's reconstruction is exemplary. I kinda miss hearing the Mancini over the opening titles though.

Apocalypse Now -- Redux has some great extra Kilgore material, but the encounters with available women almost turn the film into a conventional War Is Hell movie.

I'll take the hit for the team:

The 2004 edits undo a lot of the damage of the original SEs. Not entirely, mind you (Greedo and Han shoot at the same time? No deal, Lucas. No fucking deal.), but a lot.

That said, I also never hated the Empire edits to begin with(aside from Luke's scream), splicing in Ian McDarmid and Temuera Morrison were good moves, and I still believe Hayden at the end of Jedi as opposed to Sebastian Shaw thematically, works better, full stop.

That sound you just heard? Oh nothing...just a can of worms being opened.

Was Black Hawk Down even a director's cut? I thought it was just an extended cut released by the studio. That's the thing. So many of these cuts are actually "extended" cuts and not director-approved.

Speilberg and Lucas special editions almost don't count because they go back and change them like every five years. It's one thing to do a director's cut when you were forced to trim things for business reasons or the studio fucks you out of your original vision but nobody should keep going back to change things that much.

The Cameron "special editions" of Terminator 2 and Aliens are great for people who want more of that movie but casual viewers can get the right experience without the extra character moments. I would have like a special edition of the first Terminator with the Reese breakdown and Lt. Waxler scenes added back in but that's just me.

Of all the special extended versions of the Alien movies, the only one that is actually a "director's cut" is the first one, which is actually shorter than the original version. Ridley has said he actually prefers the other one too and did it for business reasons.

Is there anymore overrated an alternate version than the "Producer's Cut" of Halloween 6? A lot of obnoxious character moments, a crappy half-assed ending, and it's supposed to be an improvement because it explains away some plot holes with answers that tend to add more confusion than closure. It seems like people try to sell it up in hopes of getting an official studio release for it but it really ain't that good at all.

I missed the theatrical version of American Gangster. What was added to the end of the extended cut that made the movie worse off? Was it the meeting of Crowe and Denzel after he got out of jail? Cuz that seemed a little out of place.

I've never seen it, but I heard from multiple people that the Daredevil director's cut is worth watching.

The special edition of Aliens hurts that film so badly. It adds absolutely nothing of consequence and weighs the movie down at points where it needs to be moving as quickly and fluidly as possible.

One of the more curious for me is The Outsiders complete novel edition or whatever it was called. I want to like it because the extra scenes are all great and add a lot to the story, but the new rock n' roll score turns the whole movie into a joke shaped like a turd. The Rumble is especially ridiculous when fused with 50's rock music.

That was in the original cut.

Alls I know is that The Warriors Director's Cut made the movie into complete clown shoes.

It fucked up the Baseball Furies introduction but otherwise, I can take or leave the comic transitions. Doesn't murder that movie for me like it does for some.

"Dwayne."
"....Ellen."
"Don't be gone too long, Ellen."

There's plenty of grievous errors in that cut, but that scene ain't one of 'em.

No it wasn't.

The original cut ended on the Public Enemy song. Frank Lucas steps out of prison and over hears the song from a car passing by I believe.

It said more in that simple setup than the whole conversation in the DC could spell out for the audience.

That alone is enough to greatly hinder the quality of the movie. That's one of the coolest moments in the whole thing. But besides that, yeah, it doesn't really hurt the movie, but it certainly doesn't add anything and never really should have seen the light of day.

I watched Kingdom of Heaven: DC again tonight, and that has to be the best example of a non-theatrical cut making the biggest difference in quality, as said so many times before. I think the next closest cuts that make the biggest difference are probably the LotR extended cuts.

I didn't notice this mentioned above, but did Almost Famous: Untitled get mentioned? I only saw the theatrical cut once, but I absolutely love Untitled.

I would love to hear about the grievous errors in the Aliens: Director's Cut, because honestly I've seen the theatrical cut once and maybe I need to again from the sounds of it but the Director's Cut is one of my favorite films.

Jet Li in FEARLESS. The Director's Cut is the only version I've seen, and aside from the bullshit Michelle Yeoh modern-day scenes, I wouldn't cut a frame. A great movie, where Jet Li gives a great performance. The two different short versions that played in theaters (HK and US) are missing 40-something minutes. I cannot imagine that film even being watchable. If that's the only version you've seen, then you haven't seen the movie at all. This one's Hong Kong distributor Edko's fault... they wanted an additional screening per day.