MovieChat Forums > Mallrats (1995) Discussion > Extended VS Theatrical

Extended VS Theatrical

posted 10 years ago by arbino-man
9 replies | jump to latest

So most have always said that the theatrical cut and I've always considered that the same until this week. Decided to watch them back to back. While I do think that the extended cut has an intro that goes on a little too long, I felt that it had more heart overall, and we really spend a lot more time with these interesting characters.

Plus the seen where the guy Broadie after TS punches him out and Broadie is saying "it wasn't me" always gets a big laugh out of me. Any thoughts?

[–] Star_blazer_9000 10 years ago

The 15 minute intro completely takes you out of the movie. They dont give you a hint that this film is a comedy and doesnt need to take that long to set up a premise as simple as this film

My momma loved me but she died
Hud Bannon

[–] zionnoizrecords 9 years ago

Yep, five minutes in I was horrified, the comedic rhythm that made the theatrical version great is completely gone from the extended version. I have to completely disagree with the OP, the extended version is an abomination.

[–] Multiglobal 10 years ago

There are some minor things in the extended that I like (such as Brodie and Rene's intro), but overall it is too dragged out. Two hours is too long for a comedy like this.

[–] shameofthejungle 10 years ago

Extended. It has more Michael Rooker. One of the best movies I've ever seen.

[–] shootthekitty 10 years ago

More Rooker is always good. Plus it shows how Trish met LaFours, which if you watch the theatrical version, it's never clear. I figure if some of the stuff from the extended version made it in the original version it might have been more well liked in the day.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Plus it shows how Trish met LaFours, which if you watch the theatrical version, it's never clear

It wasn't exactly a crucial plot point. Besides, not having it makes it even funnier.

The theatrical cut is just more polished. Quicker pace and quicker jokes. Plus, they get to the Mall sooner. It is called Mallrats after all.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] zionnoizrecords 9 years ago

So much this, the entire vibe of the movie is different, and less funny. Theatrical is a cult classic, the extended is just the studio putting out another DVD for the 10th anniversary. Kevin Smith himself talked *beep* on it, refusing to call it a director's cut, because in his mind the theatrical release IS the director's cut.

[–] KnightofLeo 8 years ago

Like in the TV version?

If there be a god...than hide from him our most evil enterprise!

[–] JaySherman7 9 years ago

I watched the theatrical and the extended the next day. couldn't do a back-to-back viewing. they're too similar.

But I have to go with the theatrical. as someone said, the opening is far too long and and terrible unfunny. sure, it sets up a recurring gag throughout the movie, but its a gag that has no payoff.

as far as all the other little few seconds of footage here and there, I can see why they made it to the cutting room floor. there's not a lot of good jokes among them. the theatrical just feels tighter.

plus, the cut to the Animal-House-what-happened-to-everyone ending works better after Mr. Svenning's "HIM!?!"

truth be told though, I watched the hell out of this movie when I was in high school and I know it very well. the alternate takes of many of the scenes (Rene 'breaking up' with Brodie) was enough to throw me and make the Extended seem awkward to me

No way Bells is bigger than Waimea, bro.