BTTT with a request for a Director's Cut. Enough with the egos. Get this thing released.

Any news as of 4/09??? Is it available?

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.

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

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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)

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)

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

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.

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.

The Weinstein cut flopped, so I guess he should be fired then.

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)

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

This message has been deleted.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

This message has been deleted.