Directors Cut reveals too much….
-
rascal67 — 13 years ago(February 15, 2013 06:00 PM)
Enjoyed the extra scenes the first time I saw the DC; it was the novelty value of seeing more of one of my top 5 films of all time.
Upon repeated viewings there is stuff that I didn't feel was all that necessary and a few things that I did likemostly the extra stuff with Salieri in the sanatorium. The DC did clear up Stanzie's cold reaction towards seeing Salieri when she returned from the spa near the end, although I didn't feel it was absolutely necessary. Much preferred the original cut when Salieri is reading through Mozart's compositions and spills them on the floor and then bluntly walks out on herit made his jealously appear more abstract and arcane.
A couple of other extra scenes were just silly I thought.the howling dogs for example..though it did show how Mozart got the bottle of wine he was drinking when walking down the street. I'd go for the original Theatrical Cut on this onesame with 'Apocalypse Now'. -
reaseltbim — 13 years ago(February 16, 2013 09:44 PM)
I guess I must be crazy then,
I don't know the way I see it is I get to take a longer look at the world portrayed in the movie, I get to experience the actors more and take a longer look at the story.
I get to appreciate the work that went into making these extra scenes, I get to learn more, I get to be in this world of the movie a little longer.
Maybe I am just being naive but I would choose Director's cut over regular cut Any day, Like I Said in my first Example. Watchmen becomes almost a 4 hour movie with the director's cut, I couldn't be happier with it. I love that movie so much, and I love that is longer.
And don't even get me started on aliens. One of my favorite movies, the director's cut is beyond better, I mean, Like I Said, you get to open new doors sort of speak. Is like going to your favorite park and finding all these new spots and parts of the park you didn't know existed before.
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. -
VermilionCat — 13 years ago(February 16, 2013 10:50 PM)
I enjoy and appreciate those extra scenes as well.
But I think a film should be kept as compact as it could be. You know usually poor man cannot concentrate on a film that long
What's necessary or unnecessary probably depends on personal tastes but for Amadeus, I prefer the original and think the editor did extraordinary job. It must be hurt to cut those scenes though. They are quite entertaining. -
kaiser100 — 12 years ago(November 03, 2013 12:24 AM)
Well, I love the world of LOTR and the Director's Cuts of Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers (to the point where I can't imagine the films being otherwise) but I think the DC of Return of the King is too long. Too much extraneous material that didn't contribute enough to the narrative of a film that already clocked in at two and a half hours theatrical. In the same way, Amadeus is one of my favourite films, but is perfect the way it is and I don't feel a single note is out place. For a two and a half hour film it is amazing how the theatrical cut never feels slow and nothing is wasted.
-
strntz — 12 years ago(July 16, 2013 03:17 PM)
But I Can't never understand how more of your favorite movie could ever be a bad thing,
I mean, the movie is longer, so what if it shows you stuff you don't like?
Totally agree ^^^^^
I've seen my favorite movies so many times that any added footage is like finding an extra cookie at the bottom of the bag.
I've seen this film a couple dozen times, and prefer the DC. -
reaseltbim — 12 years ago(July 16, 2013 11:38 PM)
lol haha
That cookie comment is cute, I Love it!
I can understand director's cuts annoying someone if they don't like the movie.
Like I didn't really like Alien 3 that much so I didn't care for the extended edition.
But with your favorite movie? I don't think I will ever get it.
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. -
mkohary — 12 years ago(August 30, 2013 12:54 AM)
Disagree. More does not necessarily equal better, and this is especially true in the case of movies, where less is often more. The audience does not need to be told every little thing, and economy can go a long way in lending a film its power. Consider the scene where Mozart brings his wife up on stage, only to have his mistress, who was performing in the opera, throw her flowers in his face and walk off in a fit of jealousy. In the theatrical version, the scene ends there, and it says everything it needs to say without dragging on too long or explicitly stating the obvious. In the director's cut, this scene is continued backstage, where the audience is essentially told what the scene on the stage was all about. It adds nothing, is entirely redundant (it's just restating in words all that we gleaned from the actions of the previous scene) and by stating the obvious, it functions as an anticlimax and frankly an insult to the audience's intelligence. Don't spell it out for me! It's a powerful feeling to take away from a film what it's trying to tell you without having it spelled out.
I would call it entirely opposite from what you did: the casual moviegoer enjoys extended cuts simply because more = better. That's casual viewing all the way. The discerning viewer will want a bit of mystery and thought provocation. Great editing involves economy, and it's a testament to the great editing of this film that its 3 hour runtime simply sails on by. The director's cut ruins this economy and makes the film drag.
The theatrical version is a rare "perfect film". It is flawless and superbly edited. The director's cut is indulgent and repetitive, and where it does offer brand new material, it unfortunately makes Salieri's character entirely repugnant and unsympathetic. As is usually the case, the theatrical version is far superior to the extended version. -
PsychoDingo — 13 years ago(February 25, 2013 04:01 PM)
I didn't need to hear all that Mozart music, as I've heard those pieces before.
that said, I'll take the director's cut. this is a case where I think more is more
I'm proud to say my poetry is only understood by that minority which is aware. -
joe-959-194889 — 12 years ago(September 17, 2013 12:35 PM)
I saw the film on BBC Iplayer for the first time today and i had no idea it was actually the director's cut. Still a fantastic film. Now I wouldn't watch it any other way
IMDB's Overrated:
"I didn't like it, but everybody else liked it, so it makes me really mad." -
richardbreading — 12 years ago(September 30, 2013 02:21 AM)
I have seen a couple of "Directors Cuts" where a mild improvement was made but most have been irrelevant. In this case it was a total waste of time and made worse by the fact that the new cut seems to be promoted as the only cut. Despite the technology, the Blu-ray is this new version (with no option for the theatrical cut) and so I will cherish and look after my original "flipper" DVD of the original cut (with its amazing isolated score in 5.1) until such time as I can get this on a hi-def format.
Just another note. The original cut is referred to as a theatrical cut. Surely a more respectful title for it would be "the cut that won the Oscar for Best Picture"!!!!!
Silly and bewildering that this film is treated in this way. -
Alexia24601 — 12 years ago(December 25, 2013 03:50 PM)
I recently watched the Director's Cut of this movie and did not like it at all. Somewhere in the movie Salieri says of Mozart's music something along the lines of "displace one note and there would be diminishment."
That's how I feel about the Director's Cut of Amadeus. The theatrical version was perfect. When you mess with perfection, you diminish it.
This is not meant as a judgement on the Director's cuts of other movies, only this one. -
rmontro — 12 years ago(December 28, 2013 08:51 AM)
This was my favorite film growing up. I don't know how many times I have seen it. Being able to see the Director's Cut has breathed new life into the film for me, so that's nice.
I have no problem with most of the extra scenes. They shed some new light on things. For instance, at the end of the movie, when Constance says "I regret we have no servants to show you out, Herr Salieri" that refers directly back to his having his servant see her out when she arrived for their rendezvous.
I didn't like the scenes with the guy with the dogs, that just seemed a little annoying. Although it did show another way in which Salieri messed with Mozart. -
TheWormAndOnly — 12 years ago(January 04, 2014 03:31 PM)
I really don't know what to think of the director's cut, since that was the version I saw when I saw Amadeus for the first time. I can see why some scenes are downright unneeded, and explains the obvious a bit too much.
Unfortunately I haven't even seen the theatrical release, because I cannot find it anywhere, because this movie only seems to be released as a ''The Director's Cut only'' version on DVD and Blu-Ray.
But I found the movie amazing, and now that I know of the other scenes, I can see why the theatrical release is preferred by many. The Director's Cut doesn't make the movie any worse though. -
Jleiwei — 12 years ago(February 03, 2014 04:25 AM)
I only watched the director's cut. Now I started to wonder if it has kind of diminished what would have been a perfect film. Pray somebody tell me if in the original cut there is this scene that a drunken Mozart goes to the "dog" gentleman's house and asks for money. This scene has been haunting me since it is so out of place, against not only the personality of the real Mozart but even that of the fictitious Mozart in the movie. I would be so relieved if the original cut left this scene out.
-
kaleevanthompson — 12 years ago(February 03, 2014 12:38 PM)
YES, the original theatrical film left that scene out. The directors cut added everything from the point where Salieri asks Constanze to come back later that night, to Mozart leaving the dog gentleman's house in anger. About 15 continuous minutes I think. It also added another 7 minutes of other unneeded stuff.