Extended Cut Vs. Theatrical Cut
Extended Cut 7/10
Theatrical Cut 6/10
WHAT ARE YOUT THOUGHTS?
Rated too high on both accounts.
sharePersonally, I've never watched the Theatrical Cut.
I bought the movie on Blu-Ray which has both versions.
If I get a movie that has more than one version I always watch the Director's Cut. The Theatrical cut can sometimes 'butcher' a movie and the added running time can make a big difference to a movie. A typical example is Kingdom of Heaven which allowed some of the characters to be 'fleshed out' a lot more.
You make a good point simonkevnorris, although most viewers would be familiar with the Theatrical Cut, and there is where the Box Office success is determined. Many others will be only familiar with a third version: Edited for Television, the truly 'butchered' version sometimes.
It’s worth watching all of the different versions of films when possible; regardless of whether or not all the versions end up being entertaining, their changes and additions will tell you a lot about the politics of filmmaking, and how one or two small changes can transform the entire tone or purpose of a film.
[deleted]
So, reverting to the OP, what is your rating for each?
shareI've seen both versions and as usual I much preferred the extended cut. IMO, it is a great movie for this genre. It is a 10 for me.
shareI agree. I felt the Extended Cut helped the story, even though it made things a little slower. The extra scenes developed the relationship between Affleck and Halls' characters which I felt added to the movie (9/10)
The theatrical cut certainly isn't bad though and I thoroughly enjoyed it the first time I saw it in the cinema (8/10)
But is The Town ACTUALLY a 'director's cut'? Everywhere I have seen refers to it as 'extended edition'. I ask because I'm unsure.
Me, I actually tend to prefer theatrical cuts 75% of the time, mostly because the stuff that was cut was done so for good reason (usually pacing, and that is a VERY good reason to cut something). Of course, sometimes great material simply has to go because a director is obliged to deliver a film of a certain length. It used to be 130 minutes, but this may have changed.
Some films are better in their extended versions, no doubt, like The Abyss, and as you mentioned Kingdom of Heaven, where significant parts of the entire point of the story were cut out, but then there are some like Amadeus, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and the Exorcist (yes, I know I'm citing some elderly examples) where nothing significant is added except length. And sadly the original - highly acclaimed - versions of these films remain unavailable on home video.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
Yeah.
shareAnother example is Donnie Brasco and LOTR, prefer the extended cuts.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
So you came on the board of a movie you hate and trolled around until you could find a spot to trash it? Is your life that empty? Do you at least spend time discussing things you like? Ah, never mind. I don't care.
share[deleted]
Saying a movie should be rated 5 or lower is not a compliment.
sharein your scale, man. in mine means watchable. trashing is a one, hence a waste of time. AIGF
shareA five is worth watching? Okay then.
shareUm yeah, a five is worth watching. Otherwise what is the point of a 1-10 rating scale? You're being a douchebag, dude. Just admit you're wrong and are overreacting, it's not that hard (well, it shouldn't be that hard)
shareRight, a lot of stuff is rated too highly, there is no way this is a 10, a 10 is a perfect movie in every single possible way a movie can achieve, and for personal top 10s. I gave the extended version of this a 7 and I think sometimes I rate movies too high.
shareI admittedly gave The Town a 1 rating first because I thought that the Doug-Claire romance scenes were positively sickening, and secondly because I thought that, on the whole, the story was way too far-fetched.
share