I'm surprised. I thought it was great.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19730619/REV IEWS/306190301/1023
----
Movie News, trailers, etc:
http://nukethefridge.com/
[deleted]
In his defense, he was presented with the butchered version. He mentions a narrator just randomly popping out of nowhere, but in the full-length film there are enough of these narrations to not be random. Ebert gave the same rating he gave to Ludwig to The Damned (1/4 stars); I'd say that somebody needs to re-watch a few films, eh?
shareYeah, he mentions several things that give away that he saw some cut version: the narrator, the thing about the news of the war coming out of the blue, and Elizabeth's arrival and departure towards the end. I just saw the 235-minute version, and you would think that's what he saw, too, because that's what he's marked down as the running time. So, on top of everything, I guess he's lying.
shareEbert mentions in the first line of his 1973 review that the version he's reviewing is a heavily edited one. The detail of the 235-minute running time is more likely to be a mistake made by someone a few years ago when his old reviews were uploaded than him lying about anything. The four-hour version wasn't released in America until 1983.
share[deleted]