Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Director’s Cut: 10 Theatrical Versions Vs. The Filmmaker's Final Vision

Features
by The Playlist Staff
April 2, 2014 2:55 PM
61 Comments
  • |

Blessed/cursed with one of the most confusing and prolonged release strategies in recent memory, (blessed in that it has kept the movie in the conversation longer; cursed because that’s longer for everyone to get bored and irritated with it too) the second part of Lars von Trier’s “Nymphomaniac” opens in the U.S. this weekend (our ‘Vol II’ review is here). Our stock of sex puns may have been well and truly plundered (note how we couldn’t even bring ourselves to say “this coming weekend”) but that’s still not the end of it, as ‘Vol II’ also has a director’s cut on the way (the director’s preferred version of ‘Vol I’ played Berlin some weeks after the theatrical cut had already opened). Adding to the whole sorry soup is that the theatrical cuts played certain territories long before others, while screenings for press were sometimes of the two ‘Volumes’ together as one film. So at this stage we’re not entirely sure any two of us have seen the exact same combination of cuts of “Nymphomaniac.” 

But why should that matter? Well, it’s because we, like many enthusiastic cineastes have a hankering to get the “definitive” experience of a film, and in these auteurist times that tends to be the one upon which the director sets his or her seal of approval. Von Trier is just the latest in a long line of directors who’ve taken issue with the theatrical cut of their film to the tune of retooling a version more in line with their original vision. His preferred version is not a years-later revisitation timed to coincide with some anniversary or a new Blu-ray reissue, however that is the route often taken by directors who’ve always had a niggling desire to revisit their past compromises. In any case, it got us thinking about the whole culture of director’s cuts—the instances in which they’ve redressed a terrible injustice that was done to a butchered masterpiece, the instances in which their version is the one doing the butchering, and all points in between.

And so we thought we’d take this chance to launch an occasional series in which we look at a few films in depth, and compare their Theatrical versions to their subsequently-released Director’s Cuts. Today our sampler is of ten titles from the more classic end of the spectrum, the stories behind their reissues, the changes made and, of course, which is superior. [Sneak preview: this particular contest comes out in favor of the Director's Cuts overall, but by no means in every case… ]

"Heaven's Gate" (wide theatrical release, 1981) vs. "Heaven's Gate: Director's Cut" (2012)
Synopsis: One of the more notorious productions in Hollywood history, "Heaven's Gate" is loosely based on the Johnson County War, a violent frontier dispute between land barons and European settlers in the 1890s. Of course, it was largely re-contextualized as a sprawling forbidden romance, with the syrupy tagline for the movie reading (on the poster, at least): "The only thing greater than their passion for America… was their passion for each other."

Background: If we're talking historically (and we are), there were actually four different cuts of "Heaven's Gate" in circulation at various times. The first cut that director Michael Cimino showed the studio supposedly ran a gargantuan 325 minutes. The version screened at the premiere (after hasty editing by Cimino) ran for 219 minutes. After this version ran in New York for a week, Cimino and United Artists yanked the prints from distribution. Supposedly the studio hired a different editor to try to whittle down the epic sprawl of the movie, with even less success. Cimino recut the film into a 149-minute version, which came out the following spring and differs wildly from the one that ran for a week just a few months earlier. Not only is it much shorter but many sequences have been reorganized entirely. (This version, it should be noted, never came out on home video.) When United Artists folded, largely due to the cost overruns and creative concessions made during "Heaven's Gate," MGM acquired its library and released the 219-minute version on home video. This was, more or less, the original 1980 version. But Cimino still claimed that the film was unfinished. In 2005 the so-called "Radical Cut" was screened internationally, which utilized sections of the film that had to be repurposed because the original negative was so badly damaged (it still ran 219 minutes). It wasn't until 2012 though, that the definitive "Director's Cut," which actually ran shorter than the 1980 cut, at 216 minutes, was screened at the Venice Film Festival and New York Film Festival before being released on DVD and Blu-ray in a deluxe package (by the prestigious Criterion Collection—a sure sign of the notorious flop's critical reevaluation).

Differences: The biggest difference is between the 1980 219 minute cut and the 1981 cut that ran 149 minutes. (The three minutes difference between the 1980 cut and the 2012 reissue, plus all the minor nips and tucks, are better left for Cimino historians). There are a number of major moments left on the cutting floor in the 1981 version, most notably much of the Harvard prologue section (including John Hurt's amazing speech and the line dancing that immediately follows) and, later in the movie, the entire roller skating dance sequence. This is absolutely shocking: that roller skating sequence isn't just one of the best moments of the movie; it's one of the best moments in any movie. There's also a fairly large chunk of the second battle sequence that had been deleted altogether (another pivotal moment full of rich emotional beats that should have been maintained). It's the difference between "Heaven's Gate" the movie and "Heaven's Gate" the experience.

Which is Better and Why: The longer cut is obviously the better one to go with. "Heaven's Gate" is a sizable historical epic, one that luxuriates in its time period, in its explosive violence, and in its forbidden love. The movie is messy and ungainly and a lot of the negative attention that surrounded it wasn't exactly unfair (although it was somewhat misplaced). This is a movie that deserves to have lengthy roller skate dance numbers and a historically recreated prologue set at Harvard. There are a thousand characters, each with their own thornily complicated backstory, and the moments that make up these characters, and this film, are vital through and through. "Heaven's Gate" was widely lampooned as a self-indulgent nightmare, and to a degree it is a work of obsessive monomania. But it's also sort of a masterpiece, and one that should be viewed in the way its author intended—whether you like it or not.

"Blade Runner" (U.S. Theatrical release 1982) vs. "Blade Runner: Director’s Cut” (1992) vs. “Blade Runner: The Final Cut” (2007)
Synopsis: A futurist film noir (now distinctly retro-futurist with all the 80s brands it features, and the Vangelis score), the story is an adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and follows Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) whose job it is to hunt down and kill rogue replicants (genetically engineered humanoid robots.) Except of course, like all good sci fi (and this is great sci fi), it’s really about what it means to be human.

Background: There are, to date, seven different versions of “Blade Runner” that have seen the light of day in some form, but we’re only really concerned with three of those. There's the original 116 min U.S. Theatrical cut (which only differs from the 1982 International cut in terms of being a minute shorter and having slightly less graphic violence, and from the 114 U.S. TV version in having a little more cussin’ and boobs) and the 1992 so-called “Director’s Cut” which is now seen as something of a halfway house on the way to the 2007 “Final Cut,” certainly according to director Ridley Scott who only actually had total control over the last of those. In fact, the 1992 “Director’s Cut” was something of a rush job, spurred by a sudden spike in interest following the limited theatrical release of a newly-rediscovered work print that was erroneously named the “director’s cut” without Scott’s approval. Since that work print actually was missing some scenes and had an unfinished guide soundtrack in parts, Scott distanced himself from it. But the screenings sold out, and the film had already been experiencing a surge in cultish interest, so Warner commissioned preservationist Michael Arick to collaborate with the film’s original editor, Les Healey, and with Scott on assembling what was to be a definitive “Director’s Cut.” This was released in 1992, and was widely regarded to be much closer to the original intent and superior to the original, though subsequently Scott, who had been simultaneously finishing up on “Thelma and Louise," claimed to still be a little dissatisfied with the end product. This in turn led him to start work in 2000 on a really-and-truly final Final Cut, which had to be halted while legal issues were untangled, but eventually saw the light of day in 2007, just a year after the “Director’s Cut” had been reissued (the 1992 version had been one of the first DVD releases, but suffered from a poor-quality transfer).

Differences: The differences between the three versions (not to mention interim states) are myriad and exhaustively detailed here but what are most striking, and most eternally debated about the recut versions are the changes to the interpretation of the story, and especially of Deckard’s character, that they imply. The biggest leap in those terms is from the theatrical to the 1992 version, in which the loathed (by Ford and Scott) voiceover and tacked-on happy ending were both dropped, and the famous unicorn dream sequence made its first appearance. That sequence, exhibit A in the “Deckard is a replicant” argument (and which was apparently in the original shooting script, doubters), is longer and less ambiguous again in the Final Cut version, which cuts to the scene directly from a close up of Ford’s face and back again, very clearly implying that it’s his head we’re in at that moment. Other differences in the Final Cut include various improvements made to background scenery and visuals, and a few nips and tucks made in order to remove the confusion around the number of rogue replicants on the planet (which was sometimes pointed to as evidence of Deckard’s origins but was in fact simply a continuity error from an earlier version of the script).

Which is Best and Why: For anyone coming new to “Blade Runner” now, “The Final Cut” is definitely the one to go for, being closest to Scott’s original idea, and also having the benefit of more modern transfer and CG techniques that give it a distinctly “fresh coat of paint” feeling. That said, while it’s almost heresy these days, we still do have affection for the Theatrical version, as that was the first one we saw, and frankly, “Blade Runner” is just such a brilliant film that even in a compromised form it works like gangbusters. We might not get the Deckard/replicant ambiguity in that version, but the essential ontological questions remain the same, even with the dorky VO (though do switch off the second the elevator doors close). In any case, the Theatrical version is worth checking out after the Final Cut if only for Rutger Hauer’s hissing, vicious delivery of the line “I want more life, fucker” which is changed to “I want more life, father” in one of the Final Cut’s more pointless alterations.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

61 Comments

  • Max Fraley | May 14, 2014 1:26 PMReply

    I recently was "blown away" with William Freidkin's 70's existentialist film, THE SORCERER.
    Freidkin presented it at the TCM Festival in the Hollywood Grauman's IMAX theater. The near capacity audience was quickly caught up in this refined edition and their serious appreciation for this "rediscovered" gem was quickly circulated throughout the festival's many activities. It deserves a recognition long overdue. I know a Blu-Ray edition has recently been released with many enhancements over the original DVD.

  • ROBIN | May 11, 2014 8:14 PMReply

    What about Das Boot? The Counselor? Blood Simple? I almost said Godfather 3, but forget I said Godfather 3. Legend? Dawn of the Dead? Amadeus? Terminator 2? And if anyone's seen them, All The Pretty Horses and Wild At Heart?

    Wonderful article by the way. Thank you.

  • Kyle | May 10, 2014 11:03 PMReply

    Fascinating article and I'm very glad you went with the original cut of Apocalypse Now, I was mightily disappointed to see that extra footage had sapped the life from one of my favourite films.
    As far as suggestions go for the next one...
    1) Alexander - I deliberately sought out the 'Final Cut', bypassing the theatrical and director's cuts, and found it to be a sprawling historical epic that sufficiently entertains...as long as you can get past Colin Farrell's blonde wig.
    2) Gladiator - I can't even remember the theatrical cut since I only own the extended one!
    3) Donnie Darko - Haven't seen the director's cut but any version of that film sounds intriguing.
    4) Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 - Some of my favourite sci-fi films, although the more interesting story for Alien 3 is the initial wooden monastery-planet idea. That would have been brilliant!
    5) Daredevil
    6) Kingdom of Heaven - Another Scott extended cut which felt more like an epic to me with slight hints of Lawrence of Arabia.
    7) King Kong - Is PJ over-indulging? Almost definitely yes, but is it better?
    and finally...
    8) The Lord of the Rings trilogy - Hard to say anything about these films that hasn't been said but even though I adore them and I only watch the extended editions now, the added footage seems to run the gambit from enthralling narrative addition and insight, all the way to bizarre cheerful comedy (Aragorn and the soup!). Still love it though.

  • JK1193 | May 9, 2014 8:06 PMReply

    Personal Favorites (Alphabetical Order):
    The Abyss
    Aliens
    American Gangster
    Blade Runner
    Kingdom of Heaven
    Legend
    Robin Hood
    Sucker Punch
    Terminator 2: Judgment Day
    Tombstone
    Watchmen
    Zodiac

  • JK1193 | May 9, 2014 8:14 PM

    Forgot the Alexander directors cut, which is a huge one in my opinion.

  • Eric M. Van | May 6, 2014 3:33 AMReply

    I have to chime in, in advance, on Donnie Darko, an easy choice for your next round of this fabulous feature. Richard Kelly's Director's Cut has aspects that are unquestionably superior: the restoration of a bunch of great and valuable scenes, and of the originally intended pop-music cues. It's also true that the DC gives answers to the film's mysteries; only the original cut has Lynchian ambiguity and is open to multiple interpretations, and a lot of people value that, and for good reason, and mourn its absence from the DC. Hence the common opinion that the original cut is better.

    The unasked question, by too many, is: how good are the answers Kelly provides? Kelly didn't want to make a Lynchian ambiguous film; he wanted to make a fairly rigorous time-travel-paradox sf film that would serve as a metaphor for (and examination of the nature of) free will. And the thing is, the answers are brilliant: next to DD/DC, "Twelve Monkeys" (a very good film) is the work of a small child on an Etch-a-Sketch.

    So we have a strange pair, where the Donnie Darko DC is unquestionably less satisfying than the original as ambiguous weirdness, but perhaps makes up for it by being the best science fiction film ever made -- if you're willing to do the work. (It's closer to Shane Carruth's Primer than to anything by Lynch.) I've been meaning to write a blog post unpacking the film's literal and thematic meanings, and maybe this is a good excuse to finally do so.

  • Rick | May 1, 2014 4:22 AMReply

    What's with 'Star Trek' and especially 'Dance with Wolves'?!

  • jaime | April 29, 2014 1:30 PMReply

    I could have used the Blade Runner piece a few years ago when I desperately searched and inquired as to which version was best. Finally went for the Final Cut, thankfully.

  • Benny Profane | April 25, 2014 9:56 AMReply

    US and European versions who co-exist : "The Shining" by Kubrick and "Dawn of the dead" by Romero.

  • Chris Renaud | April 24, 2014 12:05 PMReply

    My memory of the Sid Sheinberg cut of Brazil is that nearly every edit in the movie seems to have been revisited, and becomes more awkward - even in simple dialogue scenes. I'm not sure that would make sense (it would certainly be more work and $$$) nor would it make sense from a technical (negative cutting) standpoint (separating glued negative, potentially losing frames of image) - but I do remember being confounded by hamfisted editing rhythms. Time to sync those things up again. Summer project.

  • AddictedAICN | April 9, 2014 8:26 PMReply

    Here's a few ideas:
    1. Donnie Darko
    2. Kingdom of Heaven
    3. The Abyss
    4. Mimic
    5. Payback
    6. Almost Famous
    7. Zodiac
    8. Anchorman versus Wake Up Ron Burgundy
    9. Watchmen
    10. Margaret
    11. Little Shop of Horrors
    12. Dark City
    13. Alien
    14. Terminator 2
    15. Aliens
    16. Osterman Weekend
    17. Touch of Evil

  • Glint | April 8, 2014 11:49 AMReply

    I'd be interested in the first three Alien films' theatrical versus directors cut/special edition.

  • Raul | April 7, 2014 5:15 PMReply

    How about a writer's cut? Quentin Tarantino's True Romance was supposed to have a jumbled story line just like Pulp Fiction. The studio didn't trust him enough for directing duties and Tony Scott ended up taking the helm. Sometime before the movie was released he panicked and put it all in chronological order unfortunately. I was able to find the script and edited the scenes in their right order though! Even took a while to find alternate scenes that worked better with Tarantino's vision!

  • Bill | April 6, 2014 9:27 AMReply

    Daredevil. The theatrical version is dreadful, but the directors cut is a wholly different film and vastly superior.

    Payback, another one wher the director's cut is a different film. The entire second half is replaced, even some of the cast.

  • hank | April 4, 2014 3:27 AMReply

    The Paul Seydor cut of Pat Garrett & Billy The Kid is an abomination. As you said, completely speculative and more in line with what a studio stooge of an editor would want to see rather than Peckinpah.

  • Chris138 | April 4, 2014 1:12 AMReply

    Heaven's Gate is a mess. The longer director's cut is unbearably long. The film represents the full blown self-indulgence that Cimino only flirted with in the first hour of The Deer Hunter.

  • Alex | April 15, 2014 2:24 AM

    Heaven's Gate is odd. There's a lot of great in it and those parts are really great but there's also a lot of bloat and dullness. The Directors cut is better but even then it could benefit from a lot of fat trimming. Overall it would've benefitted from the director/editor/screenwriter doing the unthinkable and that's dumbing it down.

  • MistaTMason | April 5, 2014 12:54 AM

    I haven't seen heaven's gate in either form, but maybe one day I'll give it an afternoon. As for The Deer Hunter, the first hour plus, before they go to Vietnam is the best part of the film. Everything feels real and tragic. The wedding scene is gorgeous, without feeling like a Hollywood set piece. It's like the cathedral is this shining temple in their run down industrial PA town. The characters are fleshed out as the kind of friends who are almost brotherly. They can be complete drunken assholes to each other, playing off one another's emotional weaknesses, but they stick together because they are a family.

    While the second half is still good, a lot of the Vietnam stuff goes off the rails. The first battle scene with Green Beret De Niro running while firing a machine gun and throwing a grenade in to the hideout bunker of a Vietnamese family is so unrealistic and obnoxious it's reminiscent of some twisted Chuck Norris Movie. And the Russian roulette really works at first, but that final scene with the "just one shot" line is pretty melodramatic. Cimino was much more effective on the story at home.

  • dan | April 3, 2014 10:53 PMReply

    Once upon a time in America. The theatrical version was a joke, incomprehensible. The director's cut is a masterpiece--in my opinion the greatest gangster movie ever made (even better than The Godfather).

  • Theo | April 15, 2014 9:09 AM

    I love that movie! It makes me angry that the theatrical version ruined its reputation and so it isn't considered the brilliant epic that it should be, but at least the director's cut was released eventually.

  • Alex | April 15, 2014 2:15 AM

    Omg. You are so right. I remember as a kid trying to watch the original version and being really lost and confused. Years later I got to watch the extended cut and saw a beautiful masterpiece that makes sooo much more sense. When I tell people how great that movie is people don't believe me or blow my opinion off because it's not one of those movies with a "must see" reputation.

  • My life in movies | April 3, 2014 2:58 PMReply

    The 1992 "director's cut" of Blade Runner is the best one. The Final Cut is cut too tight and the Final Cuttish color correction is unnecessary. 1992 version has the best rhythm and atmosphere too.

  • MAL | April 3, 2014 1:15 PMReply

    I have never seen the "newer" version of Cinema Paradiso because of all the reasons you mention. There were such perfect mysteries in that film that I knew would destroy the emotional impact if ever revealed. That said, I originally had reservations about viewing the full television version (almost 5.5 hours) of Fanny and Alexander. But Bergman is a much more controlled filmmaker than Tornatore, so when I finally did, I was even more in love with the film. In fact, I can't watch the theatrical version anymore because of all the added richness and depth that would be missing. (And it would be great to have your take on Fanny and Alexander in your next essay on this subject!)

  • Josh O | April 3, 2014 7:46 AMReply

    The 'Kingdom of Heaven' director's cut is a masterpiece; it's a completely different movie and far superior than the theatrical edition.

  • Steven Applebaum | April 3, 2014 6:24 AMReply

    I would like to see you guys discuss the various cuts of David Lynch's Dune film, but it probably wouldn't fit the scope of this article as he never produced a "director's cut." Hopefully one day he will.

    Ridley Scott's Legend of Kingdom of Heaven (especially the latter) would both be great films to delve into.

    Probably the strangest would be Highlander II.

  • Alex | April 15, 2014 2:18 AM

    I have the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven but I actually really like the extended cut of Dune better. The beginning is not as slick and artistic but overall it explains the movie much better. As someone who hasn't read the book it's a more satisfying experience.

  • bohmer | April 6, 2014 3:59 PM

    Yes for Dune and Kingdom of Heaven. I might had Oliver Stones' Alexander also.

  • fabian | April 3, 2014 6:23 AMReply

    Kingdom of heavan. Or any other new Ridley Scott epic. Ie. american gangster, robin hood, Gladiator. All these have director's cuts. Especially kingdom of heaven, is amazing.

  • JK1193 | May 9, 2014 7:58 PM

    Ridley Scott is the modern day master of director cuts. For the life of me, I've yet to see the Gladiator cut, but the others are top-notch. Haven't watched The Counselor directors cut (haven't had time), so I really want to see that one.

  • ED | April 2, 2014 10:30 PMReply

    "“I want more life, f8cker” which is changed to “I want more life, father” in one of the Final Cut’s more pointless alterations."

    God, that is so painful. Thanks for the reminder. God, horrible.

  • MMS | April 2, 2014 7:01 PMReply

    Re: THE NEW WORLD

    "the movie's 65 mm splendor" is largely, if not exclusively limited to the "mushroom sequence" (only present in the Extended Cut) where Ms. Kilcher's character sees eye-to-eye with a near-suicide, until being distracted by beautiful bird singing from the adjacent tree above her.

  • FRANK | April 2, 2014 6:26 PMReply

    Donnie Darko

  • Steven Applebaum | April 3, 2014 6:07 AM

    Definitely. The two cuts are radically different in execution. Most people I've encountered seem to prefer the original.

  • droop | April 2, 2014 6:10 PMReply

    Miami vice theatrical vs. extended cut for next feature?

  • Donella | April 2, 2014 5:39 PMReply

    I'm interested in your thoughts on the theatrical release of Aliens vs the version with about twenty-five minutes added back.

  • joel | April 2, 2014 5:03 PMReply

    once upon a time in america

  • Bruce 100 | April 3, 2014 5:45 AM

    Just what I was thinking. Though isn't the non-chronological version more of a European cut rather than, strictly, a directors cut?

  • Jamie | April 2, 2014 4:30 PMReply

    I really hope that someday Hooper will let us see the four hour version of Les Miserables. The flow of a great film was hurt by edits to get it down to distribution size and I would love to see some of the scenes that were chopped.

  • DaemonX | April 2, 2014 4:13 PMReply

    BTW, the article is great, but i very miss Dark City from this list. But it's good to see the Richard Donner's Supe is here. In my opinion, this is the best Superman movie ever. Oh, and sorry about my bad English.

  • DaemonX | April 2, 2014 4:11 PMReply

    So where the hell is Dark City (Director's Cut) ?
    It is one of the best sci-fi movies ever made.

  • Mark | April 2, 2014 4:08 PMReply

    The Abyss. STILL unavailable on Blu. I mean, what the hell?

  • Alex | April 15, 2014 2:21 AM

    The directors cut is a better movie that actually improves the story and adds more suspense.

  • Xian | April 2, 2014 6:05 PM

    Cameron is too busy playing on Pandora (the planet, of course). Sigh.

  • burt | April 2, 2014 4:19 PM

    Seriously

  • drawing | April 2, 2014 4:02 PMReply

    You guys have, per uge, got your facts wrong on The New World. The theatrical cut is still very easy to find on DVD, and can be had through Amazon for 8 bucks, new. Plus a million used and new copies on eBay. So, yeah, one does have the choice. Both extended and theatrical are readily available in the US (150 minute cut is another story). I prefer the first act of the extended cut, but the second and third acts of the theatrical. Both are wonderful

  • Frank | May 7, 2014 4:40 PM

    The 150 minute cut (PAL = 144 mins) is (or was) available on DVD in Italy (I own it).

  • James | April 2, 2014 4:00 PMReply

    I only nitpick out of love:) The New World 150 min cut is on DVD in Italy. It's a two disc set with the wide release cut.

  • James | April 2, 2014 4:02 PM

    You also got it for a few months as a digitl down load with the US extended cut DVD, but I suspect that was an accident. You've accidentally combined those two facts.

  • rhunt | April 2, 2014 4:00 PMReply

    If I remember correctly, Cimino had nothing to do with the shorter, theatrically released "Heaven's Gate". As for "Pat Garrett", I prefer the "Turner" version, but I'm not convinced that it can truly be called a "Director's cut". It's missing the scene with Garrett's wife, which was added to the 70s tv cut,.. but more mysteriously, it's missing Dylan's "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" , which Peckinpah reportedly loved.

  • yer | April 2, 2014 3:59 PMReply

    The New World has to be one of the most reversed opinion films from release to post-release ever. I remember it being on every other 'best of the decade' list when those lists were being made a couple of years ago. Brilliant film.

  • James | April 2, 2014 3:59 PMReply

    I was lucky enough to see the 150 min version of The New World twice on the big screen in Los Angeles. It's by far the superior version, in my mind. The shorter one eviscerates the movie and removes an absolutely KEY shot of an eskimo girl on a beach in Iceland in the final portion, who looks just like Pocahontas, showing how much John Smith still thinks about and loves her. The extended cut adds most everything back, but also adds some unnecessary stuff and also some jarringly modern jump-cuts.

  • Spoiler alert! | April 2, 2014 3:50 PMReply

    Better get ready for a new cut of the New World... coming soon on a Criterion blu-ray near you.

  • MMS | April 2, 2014 7:22 PM

    Very good to know. Oh, and so am I.

  • SPOILER ALERT! | April 2, 2014 6:54 PM

    MMS, not joking. Too old for April Fools.

  • MMS | April 2, 2014 6:48 PM

    SPOILER ALERT! --

    Seriously, you better not be joking. If this is true, both TNW and ToL re-cuts out on Criterion Blu-ray's in the near future - well, I'll be one goddamned happy guy.

    "Coming soon" - like, before years end..?

  • James | April 2, 2014 4:53 PM

    April 1 was yesterday.

  • Spoiler alert! | April 2, 2014 4:21 PM

    Nope, no joke. It'll be announced alongside the extended edition of the Tree of Life.

  • halb | April 2, 2014 4:05 PM

    Joke I'm not getting?

  • James | April 2, 2014 3:47 PMReply

    Great article! However there's no Criterion release of "Touch of Evil", though Universal is releasing it on Blu-Ray next week.

  • James | April 2, 2014 3:47 PM

    Oops, I meant in two weeks.

  • Sebastian | April 2, 2014 3:43 PMReply

    Great article. I loved reading it so much. Great job!

    Here are some cuts that might go into a follow up: (1) The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (2) Once Upon a Time in America (3) Payback, the Mel Gibson movie (4) True Romance (5) Sin City

Email Updates