4 Hour Director's Cut?
-
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) -
the_gage — 18 years ago(January 27, 2008 12:46 AM)
I saw the four hour version at a test screening in the valley. Everyone but a few had walked out by the end (though part of the reason was that the film broke a couple times, etc.). It was very esoteric, yet good. The soundtrack was amazing. You have all missed a real treat. I would love to see it again.
-
robdixon — 18 years ago(March 11, 2008 12:19 PM)
I'm currently listening to Billy Bob speak at the SxSW 2008 Film Festival. He says that the first version was a 3hr 50 min "assembly" that he showed only to the execs. That means it contained all the footage, unedited, before the editor's and director's cut. The studio guys had said it could be a 3hr movie, and they also said they really liked the footage. After editing, the director's cut weighed in at 2hrs 42 minutes 18 minutes less than they were giving him. But by then there had been some kind of falling out between Billy Bob and the producers. Billy Bob had insisted a little too forcefully on doing things his way creatively, especially in the casting where he insisted on having Hispanic actors play the Hispanic roles. So the studio recut the thing down to 1hr 59 minutes, taking out a LOT of important story elements.
I'll try to ask about the chances for a director's cut of All the Pretty Horses and post his answer after. -
robdixon — 18 years ago(March 11, 2008 12:29 PM)
Billy Bob was a great conference speaker. Funny with lots of anecdotes and filmmaking insights.
His answer to the question about a director's cut:
He would really like to do it. He has it on VHS at home and calls it "Pretty damn good." The studios are even open to the idea. In some ways it would let them 'off the hook' for the first version. The problem is that the original score by Daniel Lanois, a friend of Billy Bob's, was thoughtlessly rejected by the studios. Billy Bob will not release a director's cut without Lanois' score, which he calls one of the most haunting scores he has known. Lanois owns the rights to the score, and he was understandably insulted when the studios rejected it in the first place. Billy Bob doesn't want to push him into anything, but one day if Lanois agrees there could well be a director's cut.
So all hope is not lost. -
rsatrf — 17 years ago(June 08, 2008 07:22 AM)
I just finished reading the book this morning, and really enjoyed it. I had never seen the film, but would like to now. I can definitely see, however, how it might not be that great since it is only two hours. The book spanned so much, and there is far too much going on for a two hour film to encompass all of it. I will watch it anyways, but now I am truly hoping for a director's cut release also.
-
mwking1 — 17 years ago(July 31, 2008 09:58 AM)
I just finished this book recently and I was wondering if anybody had any new info about this cut coming out soon? I've read the whole thread and I'm dying to know.
Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons, and necking in the parlor -
TylerDurden13 — 16 years ago(September 16, 2009 09:24 PM)
I hope so too. When I first saw this movie, I thought it was terrible. I just saw a Bio profile on BBT and they mentioned how Weinstein forced him to cut it up and ruined the story as it's not intended to be a romantic drama but a very dark and bloody film.
For those that have read the book or even seen the longer version of the film, please give details as to what was left out of the theatrical version (the only one I've seen).
The things you own end up owning you.