When it comes to DVD releases, it seems the conventional wisdom is that "Director's Cuts" are always somehow superior to the original release. Packaging and publicity touts that the film is at last presented in the way which the filmmaker always intended, as opposed to what happened when the studio or producers took the movie out of his hands. And to be fair, there are plenty of films where the Director's Cut is superior, as well as a few where the director's cut comes up about even.
But how many cases can you think of where this Director's Cut is actually far inferior to the theatrical release? (Cue the legion of Star Wars fans rushing in to complain about Greedo firing first, "Jedi Rocks" and needless CGI.) Are there any cases where you recall seeing the "intended" version of a film, only to come away thinking that it was better before the director got his way?
I'll get the ball rolling with Death Proof. I rather enjoyed it as part of Grindhouse and given that even in his worst film (Jackie Brown), Tarantino managed to keep me entertained in places, I was interested in seeing the uncut version of the movie. Big mistake. If you thought the first version was too talky and slow in some places, do yourself a favor and steer clear of the complete cut. It adds 25 minutes that feels like 40. Sometimes, Tarantino works better when he has to kill his darlings.
Your thoughts? What films got ruined by their director?
Representations and warranties
6 days ago