I saw the theatrical cut first and thought it was flawless, but I noticed there were some unexplained things. Regardless, it was still perfect.
The DC, while still good, reveals way too much about Mozart and Saleri's life. I didn't need to know he was broke, that was evident towards the end. I didn't need to know more about Saleri's anguish and distrust of God, it was more evident as the film went along.
It demystified the movie for me.
Totally agree with this post. Just watched DC last night. Why do filmmakers ruin their work by putting stuff back they cut in first place. Redux and blues brothers DC are case in point. All the added scenes for Amadeus add nothing and actually dilute the power of original cut. With the piss exception of Mrs.Mozart offering herself to salieri, all the extra scenes add nothing but length... I love this movie and saw in 3 times during it's 2 year London run in 70mm. It's flawless as it was. Now I'm going to track down the real directors cut on 1984. Please, please no more bloody so called directors cuts!
shareWhy do filmmakers ruin their work by putting stuff back they cut in first place?
i agree theatrical is better.
My 120 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What would you add?
[deleted]
This is one of my favorite movies of all times and I prefer the director's cut.
Visit The Plasma Pool: http://PlasmaPool.50webs.com/
All I can say is, Thank God for Director's cuts.
If you are a casual moviegoer sure, Theatrical is better all the time.
But I Can't never understand how more of your favorite movie could ever be a bad thing,
I mean, the movie is longer, so what if it shows you stuff you don't like?
For a casual fan, I get it, For someone that doesn't want to own it but just rent it and see it, sure, longer director's cut will not be good.
But if someone likes a movie enough to want to buy it, how is a longer version a bad thing?
that really baffles me, I can't understand it.
I Loved Lord of the Rings and Watchmen, OF COURSE i have the longer director's cut versions. I would be crazy if I had the theatrical version of the movies LOL.
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
I think it's all about clever editing.
Aliens DC also suffers this issue.
Not everything needs to be explained.
Enjoyed the extra scenes the first time I saw the DC; it was the novelty value of seeing more of one of my top 5 films of all time.
Upon repeated viewings there is stuff that I didn't feel was all that necessary and a few things that I did like—mostly the extra stuff with Salieri in the sanatorium. The DC did clear up Stanzie's cold reaction towards seeing Salieri when she returned from the spa near the end, although I didn't feel it was absolutely necessary. Much preferred the original cut when Salieri is reading through Mozart's compositions and spills them on the floor and then bluntly walks out on her—it made his jealously appear more abstract and arcane.
A couple of other extra scenes were just silly I thought....the howling dogs for example.....though it did show how Mozart got the bottle of wine he was drinking when walking down the street. I'd go for the original Theatrical Cut on this one......same with 'Apocalypse Now'.
I guess I must be crazy then,
I don't know the way I see it is I get to take a longer look at the world portrayed in the movie, I get to experience the actors more and take a longer look at the story.
I get to appreciate the work that went into making these extra scenes, I get to learn more, I get to be in this world of the movie a little longer.
Maybe I am just being naive but I would choose Director's cut over regular cut Any day, Like I Said in my first Example. Watchmen becomes almost a 4 hour movie with the director's cut, I couldn't be happier with it. I love that movie so much, and I love that is longer.
And don't even get me started on aliens. One of my favorite movies, the director's cut is beyond better, I mean, Like I Said, you get to open new doors sort of speak. Is like going to your favorite park and finding all these new spots and parts of the park you didn't know existed before.
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
I enjoy and appreciate those extra scenes as well.
But I think a film should be kept as compact as it could be. You know... usually poor man cannot concentrate on a film that long :)
What's necessary or unnecessary probably depends on personal tastes but for Amadeus, I prefer the original and think the editor did extraordinary job. It must be hurt to cut those scenes though. They are quite entertaining.
[deleted]
Well, I love the world of LOTR and the Director's Cuts of Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers (to the point where I can't imagine the films being otherwise) but I think the DC of Return of the King is too long. Too much extraneous material that didn't contribute enough to the narrative of a film that already clocked in at two and a half hours theatrical. In the same way, Amadeus is one of my favourite films, but is perfect the way it is and I don't feel a single note is out place. For a two and a half hour film it is amazing how the theatrical cut never feels slow and nothing is wasted.
shareBut I Can't never understand how more of your favorite movie could ever be a bad thing,
I mean, the movie is longer, so what if it shows you stuff you don't like?
lol haha That cookie comment is cute, I Love it!
I can understand director's cuts annoying someone if they don't like the movie.
Like I didn't really like Alien 3 that much so I didn't care for the extended edition.
But with your favorite movie? I don't think I will ever get it.
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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."
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.