4 Hour Director's Cut?
-
Yorick_Brown — 18 years ago(September 05, 2007 06:27 PM)
You know perfectly well that we can list at least two to three 2 hr. long movies for every 3 hr. long movie you can throw at us.
"Paradise and hell both can be earthly. We carry them with us wherever we go."
-1492 (1992) -
ilon — 11 years ago(October 16, 2014 08:25 AM)
May be true, but I think that there's an unconscious feeling that the longer the movie, the better it must be. I can't think of any considered to be bad 3 hour movie. There must be some, I'm sure, but I think I would've remembered that kind of overlong boring experience.
-
markvoyager — 19 years ago(August 20, 2006 05:06 AM)
It may have felt cut up, but that's because Thornton was making a 4hr film that was chopped down. If he had set out to make a 2hr film in the first place, it would have been all there. Trust me, I've read the book as i am sure you have, there was no need for this to conceivably ever have been 4 hours. The version we got is pretty much all there.
-
markvoyager — 19 years ago(August 21, 2006 01:06 AM)
Honest question - did you think the relationship in the book worked? I didn't as there was no internal monologue so from his POV this didn't matter as much but from hers you never really knew what she was thinking or feeling. It felt hollow.
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 19 years ago(March 06, 2007 03:53 AM)
I would say that to people who like things all bundled up and see cinema as a diversion then the film, as it is, is fine. For those of us who view cinema as something more than simply a way to spend an hour and a half who consider films (the good ones) to be useful and exciting examinations of the human condition we don't mind about the length. What we want is for the filmmaker to use as much time as is needed to tell the story well. That could be an hour, or it could be ten. The only time a film feels too long is when it IS too long, or when the story it is telling is flawed i.e., boring, or stupid or not worth telling in the first place.
The love story between Damon and Cruz is WAY too short. There isn't enough time to tell their story. They have chemistry and there are moments of real intimacy and romance, but there isn't enough time devoted to them falling in love. Also, I would have enjoyed more screen time alloted to the friendship between Damon and Thomas. They both did such an excellent job, particularly Thomas who truly tapped into the Texas personality, or rather the west Texas, country, small town personality. Considering the fact that he basically grew up in Hollywood, it was a truly amazing thing and a damn fine performance.
Here's hoping they'll release the film as Billy Bob intended and if that version happens to include a bit more with a scantily clad Cruz, well you won't catch me complainin'.
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
Yorick_Brown — 18 years ago(September 05, 2007 06:33 PM)
A film should be long or short enough to tell it's story properly but it also needs to consider the audience's time and patience and the studios revenue.
Yes folks. Moviemaking is a business and not a charity and people do have to make money. Go knock yourself out and try to change the world and whatever but it's really not fair for studios to bank on a potential moneymaker and for a paying audience to waste endless hours or feel cheapened by watching a too short film.
"Paradise and hell both can be earthly. We carry them with us wherever we go."
-1492 (1992) -
dollyarbogast — 18 years ago(July 16, 2007 02:02 PM)
Harvey Weinstein is an abomination of a producer. Yes, he helped kickstart the independant movement, allowing auteurs such as Soderbergh and Tarantino the creative freedom necessary to make outstanding cinema. Yet, his insistence at cutting films has affected many of their outcomes profoundly. Case in point is "All The Pretty Horses." Being a huge fan of the novel, I was interested to see how a cinematic translation would hold up. Well, first off, the screenplay was so faithful to the source material, it sounded more of a transcription than a script, but after an hour, I had to turn it off, because it felt more like an extended trailer. Many scenes were skimmed over quickly, numerous important character moments were passed up, and the attempts to cover these injustices by playing them out like a Malick-esque montage were downright insulting. I only hope that the true Director's Cut of this film will see the light of day, but I'm sure Weinstein's much too embarassed to ever let that happen. The same thing happened with "Gangs of New York." Though not Scorsese's finest hour (or three, as intended), it did feel a bit rushed towards the end, and that was once again due to Weinstein's finagling. Yet, he bends over backwards for whatever Tarantino demands to do, including releasing "Grindhouse" as a 3-hour double-feature. Yet, the brains behind that operation poorly chose Easter Weekend as the release date. "Say Grandma, do you want to go to a movie after church? I hear 'Grindhouse' is all the rage. What? You don't want to watch three hours of gratuitous violence right after celebrating Christ's resurrection? I understand."
Someone needs to have some cajones in Hollywood and point out three film titles to Mr. Weinstein. The first 2 are "Titanic" and "LOTR: Return of the King." What do these 2 films both have in common? Well, besides holding the #1 and #2 spots as the highest grossing films ever worldwide (both with over $1 billion in gross), they also have over 20 Oscars between them, including 2 for Best Picture. The other film is "Gone With The Wind," which, with grosses adjusted for inflation, is still the all-time box office champion, even surpassing "Titanic." And the running times of the films are as follows: "Titanic" (3 hrs, 17 minutes); "LOTR: ROTK" (3 hrs, 21 minutes, theatrically; 4 hrs, 10 minutes extended); "Gone With The Wind" (3 hrs, 45 minutes).
The evidence is plain as day: Harvey Weinstein will kill your picture faster than a bullet to the brain. Why anyone would even consider letting him near their next great epic is beyond me. -
5jdjc_tilly — 18 years ago(August 02, 2007 06:02 PM)
UPDATE: Last night(8-1-07), while on Letterman promoting "Bourne Ultimatum" Damon said he really liked the "Director's Cut" of "All the Pretty Horses". He specifically noted the "Director's Cut" version. This certainly validates the above posts.
-
armo1 — 18 years ago(August 02, 2007 08:07 PM)
I saw Letterman last night as well, and although I remember enjoying All the Pretty Horses as it was released, I came on here hoping to find that there was a director's edition available. I would like to see what was initially intended, how ever long that happens to be. It seems however, that unless there's a theatrical re-release, there won't be a director's cut
-
wayofthefuture — 18 years ago(August 13, 2007 11:59 AM)
So I had the chance to ask Billy Bob Thornton in person a week ago about a possible directors cut. I told him that I saw Matt Damon on David Letterman and he reminded me about the apparently amazing version of this film that hasn't seen the light of day.
Billy Bob laughed and said, "Matt and I had some major problems with the studio." He said that they had been at a standstill in terms of giving the studio the rights to release an extended cut, but said that now that things have died down a bit it may happen. Billy left it with "We'll see what happens".
"I know a thing or two about a thing or two!" -Robert De Niro (This Boys Life) -
Yorick_Brown — 18 years ago(September 05, 2007 06:21 PM)
Makes sense. I got the same feeling while watching "The Thin Red Line" while watching this movie. I couldn't put my finger on it. There was just something missing while watching "Horses." I figured that this movie was much longer than originally intended.
"Paradise and hell both can be earthly. We carry them with us wherever we go."
-1492 (1992)