Directors Cut reveals too much….
-
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.
-
nimmy1 — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 06:10 PM)
It's called the director's cut for a reason, it's what the director intended, that's why it is much more superior and has a better flow.
Theatrical cuts are done by studio's for financial reasons, they think a lot will turn away due to the ling running time.
Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar. -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(November 21, 2014 10:54 PM)
It's called the director's cut for a reason, it's what the director intended, that's why it is much more superior and has a better flow.
Directors can be self indulgent at times. It is also only for the novelty value, of having an alternative version made available. The DC of AMADEUS, is not the film that ended up winning best picture and while I enjoy the extended scenes of Salieri in the sanatorium, everything else added in was superfluous. They ruined the tempo of the original, theatrical cut.
-
triplegrim — 9 years ago(July 10, 2016 05:38 PM)
Just watched the theatrical version today, and it is far superior. It drags already, and we know what the story is about enough. No need to add another 20 minutes of nonsene. The nude constanze scene is perhaps all that could have been left in, to explain her hostility towards Salieri at the end.