From the cutting room floor: an examination of Director’s Cuts

I decided to take a break from the sequel theme and focus on another “type” of sequel: the Director’s Cut.  It’s not uncommon for a landmark film to be re-released in a “better” version that meets the director’s vision.  Often these new cuts feature unseen footage and clearer, crisper sound and picture quality.  Sometimes the director’s cut is better than the original, sometimes it’s worse and sometimes it doesn’t make a difference at all.

I decided to watch a few director’s cuts and their original versions and review them in shorter, mini-reviews.

Apocalypse Now (1979) / Apocalypse Now Redux (2001)

Original: 153 min. / Cut: 202 min.

The original version of “Apocalypse Now” is perhaps one of the greatest masterpieces of the psychological impacts and horrors of war.  Director Francis Ford Coppola (director of “The Godfather” films) took major risks and endured more than most filmmakers would during the production.  He faced everything from budget problems, a civil war in the filming country, his main star having a heart attack and his other main star being disruptive and uncooperative.  The film was the biggest challenge of Coppola’s career but in the end, it paid off.

“Apocalypse Now” is based on Joseph Conrad’s novel “Heart of Darkness” and takes place during the Vietnam War.  The movie stars Martin Sheen as Captain Benjamin Willard who is sent on a mission deep into the jungles of Cambodia in search of a Colonel who went rogue in a remote village.  Willard’s mission:  to “terminate” the Colonel…“terminate with extreme prejudice.”  The movie is a journey into the deep depths of the chaos of war and slowly the Captain and his crew reach the remote village, but the losses along the way are extreme.

The movie is entertaining as a war film but it takes a deeper, more symbolic stance on war.  Willard not only travels into the depths of the jungle but he also has a personal journey into the depths of the darkness of his heart.  It is a masterpiece with many memorable sequences, including one where an airborne infantry attacks a Viet Cong settlement to the tune of Richard Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries.” The cinematography is eerily realistic and impacting.  The editing, sound, costumes are all believable.  The acting is flawless.

The original was released in 1979 and received two Academy Awards for cinematography and for sound.  It also received a total of eight nominations, including Best Picture.  “Apocalypse” is, in my view, one of the great filmmaking achievements of all time.  It never misses a beat and that’s why when director Francis Ford Coppola released a new cut of the film in 2001, entitled “Apocalypse Now Redux,” I was adamant about watching it.

The updated version features over 45 minutes of additional scenes that were left out of the original.  A few of these scenes do add to the film but the majority of the scenes, including a 20 minute sequence with a French plantation, are not necessary and do not add to the greatness of the film.  However, the newly cleaned up footage even more stunning than before.  “Redux” is by no means a bad movie, in fact it’s just as mesmerizing as the original, but some of the new footage may feel a bit drawn out and when you’re dealing with a three and a half hour movie, longer isn’t always better.

THE GRADES:

Apocalypse Now: A+

Apocalypse Now Redux: A-

Das Boot (1982) / Das Boot: The Director’s Cut (1997)

Original: 149 min. / Cut: 209 min.

In 1982, director Wolfgang Peterson released a motion picture that revolutionized the way war films are made.  His stunning and claustrophobic film “Das Boot” is a brilliant war film that focuses on the mission of a German U-boat crew during World War II.  Almost the entire duration of the movie is filmed in a tiny, closed off submarine, giving the viewer a real sense of closed-in paranoia that the crews of these ships felt.  Also, the fact that it’s filmed entirely in German with English subtitles makes it so authentic that I often forgot I was watching a movie…it’s that good.  The original 1981 film received six Academy Award nominations and rave reviews from the critics.

The film opens as a crew of German sailors prepares to depart on a dangerous voyage in the Atlantic Ocean between England and the mainland of Europe.  Many sequences of the film are completely silent as the crew nervously sits in deafening silence in order to avoid being heard on the sonar of the Allied ships.  The footage of battle sequences is intensely powerful and makes the heart race.  The acting is extremely convincing and with a shocking ending that the audience didn’t see coming, “Das Boot” is a great filmmaking achievement.

The original version of the film was two hours and 30 minutes long, but in 1997, Peterson released a three and a half hour version of the film that included more than an hour of unseen footage.  This is one of the rare instances where the Director’s Cut is actually better than the original.  The 1981 version is great (and extremely rare to find without being accompanied with the 1997 version in a two-disk DVD set) but it lacks much of the drawn out suspenseful sequences that the 1997 version has.  The new version  used the footage that benefited the storyline and left out even more footage that Peterson saw as detrimental to the final version of the film.  I suggest the newly restored 1997 version of the film over the 1981 version but either way, I don’t think anyone will be disappointed.  The ONLY challenge: reading subtitles for over three hours.  However, it sounds harder than it is.  The German language really creates a genuine atmosphere and the film benefits from it.

THE GRADES:

1981 Version: A

1997 Version: A+

Dances with Wolves (1990) / The Director’s Cut (2004)

Original: 181 min. / Cut: 236 min.

One of my earliest memories of films was going to see “Dances with Wolves” with my parents and sister in our living room.  The film had been out on “VHS” for many years but my parents thought I was old enough to handle the mature themes and that I would enjoy it.  They were right.  After I saw Kevin Costner’s film (of which he starred, directed and produced), I wanted to be a renegade Union soldier traveling through the Great Plains.  Needless to say, this “dream” did not come true, but the movie had a lasting impact on me.  I may have seen “Dances with Wolves” over ten times in the course of my life.

“Dances” is the story of a Union soldier during the Civil War, named John Dunbar, who abandons his post and travels westward in search of something else.  Along the way, he meets up with a Native American tribe and slowly becomes a welcomed member of that tribe.  He falls in love with a white woman who was found by the Sioux tribe.  The movie deals eloquently with the conflict between white settlers and Native American tribes and the consequences that came from those events.  It is also a personal story of one man’s self-discovery.  Costner’s film features a memorable and stunningly powerful buffalo hunt sequence that cannot be missed.  The 1990 version went on to win seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Director for Costner.  It was a landmark motion picture in modern epic filmmaking.

Then, in 2004, Costner decided to release a definitive and complete version of the film with over an hour of added footage.  The original movie was about three hours long, which means that the new version was about…four hours long.  Epic films are notorious for being long and often drawn out, but this is not always a bad thing. However, I’ve always felt the original “Dances” was complete and long enough.  The added material is good but not great.  It sometimes feels drawn out and makes it seem like there’s a forced effort to make the picture longer.  It’s not a terrible Director’s Cut but the original is significantly better.

THE GRADES:

1990 Version: A

2004 Version: B+

FOR MORE INFORMATION, click on the links below:

Apocalypse Now

Das Boot

Dances with Wolves

Revenge is a dish best served cold…

Quentin Tarantino is one of the most controversial and most unique and visionary filmmakers of the last 20 years.  His films have such range and originality and they establish themselves as “clearly Tarantino.”  “Pulp Fiction,” “Reservoir Dogs” and “Inglorious Basterds” are some of my favorite films (all directed by Tarantino).  All of his movies stand alone as their own films.  All but the “Kill Bill” films, of which there are two.

The “Kill Bill” movies have a basic premise: revenge.  A woman (played by Uma Thurman), whose name is not completely known until the end of the second film, was wronged on her wedding day.  Actually, she was pregnant and while exchanging vows with her husband-to-be, a squad of assassins obliterates the attendees, the groom and many others in the church.  This entire scenario is not part of the film as a scene in and of itself, but rather it is told through flashbacks and dialogue between the characters.  Thurman’s character, referred to as “the Bride” in the first film, awakes after years in a coma to discover that her unborn child is gone and her life that she had known was no more.  She escapes a sadistic chain of events at the hospital she resided at for years and makes a list of the “assassins” that killed her loved ones.  And so, the story of “Kill Bill” really begins.

The two movies are titled “Kill Bill: Volume I” and “Kill Bill: Volume II” and even though they are the same story continued over the course of two films, they are in no way the same movie.  The styles are so completely different between the two that one may mistake them for being two different directors, but that’s the genius of Tarantino.  He’s able to make an homage to the kung fu films of the 1970’s (“Volume I”) and an homage to classic revenge westerns (“Volume II”).  These two styles and different films make the viewer attentive to the details and keeps them focused on the chain of events in the story, which is a tribute to the filmmaking style of Tarantino.

VOLUME I:

This film is the starting point of “the Bride” and her quest for revenge.  For this first installment, she makes a rendezvous at the house of Vernita Green (played by Vivica A. Fox).  The “meeting” soon turns into a kung fu fight that is nothing short of over-the-top stunts, but that plays to the effect and tone of this particular film.  My favorite scene in this “chapter” (the movie breaks up the scenes into clearly distinctive chapters, making it more involving for the viewer), is when Green and “the Bride” are in the middle of a sword/fist/table fight and a school bus pulls up in front of the house.  Green’s daughter walks into the house and the two women immediately try to act as though nothing is happening.  This is an example of Tarantino’s use of humor in intense scenes to break the tension.

Eventually, Green is killed and “the Bride” is off to kill the next person on her list: O-Ren Ishii (played wonderfully by Lucy Liu).  This confrontation takes the remainder of the film and the overly graphic, blood splattering showdown is so over-the-top that it’s not believable but almost laughable.  Again, this is the intentional style of director Tarantino.  The original 1970 kung fu films were not realistic and the violence was so fake that it was laughable.  This entire sequence between the showdown of O-Ren Ishii and “the Bride” features gravity-defying stunts and fast shot cinematography which gives the viewer the feeling they are right there among this chaotic blood bath.  As was the case with Vernita Green, O-Ren Ishii is defeated and “the Bride” continues her rampage of revenge, making her way closer and closer to the man that orchestrated the killings of her loved ones: Bill.  This is the end of “Volume I” and some may find this film to be so violent and so campy that the second film was not even an option.  However, I believe that this homage to kung fu films works.  The story is that of revenge and the characters, “the Bride” included, are so focused on their own personal gain.  The viewer must realize this and with this in mind, the movies become more of an enjoyable experience.

VOLUME II:

The second installment of the “Kill Bill” movies takes a complete turn and becomes an homage to western movies.  The name of “the Bride” is revealed as Beatrix Kiddo or “Black Mamba.” Beatrix continues her quest to take down Bill, the orchestrator of the mass killings on her wedding day.  But first, she has to take down Budd (or “Sidewinder”…played by Michael Madsen) and Elle Driver (played by Daryl Hannah).  Driver is the first to go in a shootout/fight scene similar to that of the Green/Beatrix showdown in the first film.  However, instead of taking place in a suburban home, it takes place in a hotel room and is more “western” looking in the shooting style.  Driver (perhaps the most sadistic of the killers) is taken down and Beatrix moves on to her next victim: Budd.

Budd is perhaps the “hippie” of the group in his laid back style.  He realizes that what he did was wrong, but he doesn’t feel remorse for his actions.  Budd also realizes that Beatrix is going to take him and everyone else down and that she “deserves her revenge.”  This doesn’t mean that he’s going down without a fight.  She shows up at his trailer house and obliterates him, leaving one target left on her list:  Bill (brilliantly acted by the late David Carradine).

Beatrix’s showdown with Bill is epic and the deep connection between the two is revealed.  I’m going to spare the details on this particular fight and the story developments that ensue, simply because I’ve exposed so many key points to the films that there should be some incentive to see these films.  Is Bill killed in the end?  Does Beatrix avenge her loved ones?  Is her daughter still alive?  Watch the movies and see…

The second film is not nearly as violent in the gory, bloody sense, but it still is graphic.  The use of violence by Tarantino is intense and the viewer should be aware that it is shocking at times, but it’s use is part of the cinematic effectiveness of his style.  Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” films are two distinctively different films but are the same story.  They are not his greatest films, but are definitely his most unique.  The acting is flawless.  Thurman is so convincing that we, the audience, actually want her to kill all these people.  Carradine is great with a subtle intensity and the chemistry between him and Thurman is really believable.  The supporting players, Madsen, Liu, Hannah and Fox, are all sadistically convincing.

The style is unique.  The soundtracks are great.  The “Kill Bill” movies are simply Tarantino.

THE GRADES:

Volume I: A-

Volume II: A

For more information, check out the IMDb.com pages for the films:

Kill Bill: Volume I

Kill Bill: Volume II

And for more information on Quentin Tarantino, click on this link to see a list of his films and accolades.

Austin Powers…the third time’s not always the charm.

One of my favorite trilogies is the Austin Powers series.  These movies are raunchy but still hilarious.  As a proud fan on the James Bond movies, I had a particular appreciation for the “Powers” movies.  The first one was my favorites in the series, mostly because it was released in theaters when I was younger and is one of those movies that stick around for a long time.  I thought it was cheesy but in a good way.  The James Bond references were hilarious and instead of making fun of the old Bond films, they almost paid tribute to them.

The first movie, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, was over-the-top fun and I still laugh at it when I catch it playing on TBS or some other channel on TV.

The second movie, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, was more raunchy than its predecessor but I still thought it was pretty hilarious.  It wasn’t as much of a tribute to the old Bond/spy films as it was about the development of the Austin Powers character.  I went to it in theaters when I was younger and loved it then, but after seeing it again now that I’m older, I realized that it’s mostly dependent on bodily function jokes and not on smart humor (as was the case with the first movie).

A few years after the first two movies were released, the Powers series added a third installment, Austin Powers in Goldmember.  This film was meant to make fun of the most famous Bond film, Goldfinger.  It had its funny moments and it upped the star power by adding Michael Caine and Beyonce, but something was really missing with the third film.  Granted, I laughed many times, but Goldmember showed that the series sort of lost its way after the successful first movie and even the second one.

Despite my lessened interest in the second and third movies in the Austin Powers installments, I think that they are all great when viewed together.  However, if you want to watch the best of the series, watch the first, original movie.  It’s humor and style is clearly different than that of the other two movies.

The Grades:

International Man of Mystery:  A

The Spy Who Shagged Me:  B

Goldmember:  B-

The Series:  B+

For more information on these movies, check out their IMDB.com sites:

International Man of Mystery

The Spy Who Shagged Me

Goldmember

A long time ago…

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…

In the late 1970’s, those words became etched in pop culture history with one of the largest movie series of all time:  Star Wars.  In 1977, George Lucas’ movie exploded into the theaters and became one of the highest grossing films of all time.  The movie, entitled “Star Wars,” won six Academy Awards and launched two sequels within eight years of its release.  These three films are commonly known as the Star Wars trilogy.  Then, in 1999, over 20 years later, George Lucas released another set of movies for the Star Wars franchise.

I think it’s best to divide up these movies into a set of two separate trilogies: the first three films being the better set and the second series of movies being the less enthralling.

The first set of films, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, were revolutionary films of the time.  The groundbreaking special effects, use of drama and humor simultaneously, action-packed battle sequences and unforgettable and intriguing characters (such as Yoda, Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, Han Solo, Princess Lea, C3PO, R2D2, Darth Vader…the list goes on and on).  They were among the first genuine science fiction films and defined the genre as more than movies about space wars.

They are brilliant separate but when viewed together, they are truly unforgettable.  They have made billions in profits since their release and were even re-released in theaters in the late 1990’s.  I was fortunate to see them on the big screen when I was in grade school and the impact has stuck with me ever since.

I highly recommend the first three installments in this series to any movie-goer.

On the other hand…

George Lucas made the movies in a backward order.  He started the series with the “4th through 6th” episodes, even though they clearly told the entire story without three prequels.  However, Lucas decided to launch the “first” three movies (but I’m going to refer to them as the second three films in the series to avoid confusion) in 1999.  It all started with the highly unprecedented smash success of the “Phantom Menace” in 1999 and followed with “Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith” in later years.  They are visually astonishing, but about 95% of these three movies are computer generated and it shows.  Yes, the effects are amazing, but I felt as though I was watching a cartoon sometimes, whereas the first series relied on puppets and sets to make the impression on the viewer.

In addition, the acting is terrible.  I’m a huge fan of Liam Neeson and Ewan McGreggor but the other members of the cast are so unbearably bad.  It was painful to watch and I didn’t believe there was any chemistry between Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman.  And then there’s Jar Jar Binks.  All I have to say about this “delightful” character is that listening to nails scratching a chalkboard is more pleasing than his slapstick one-liners.

It’s apparent that I’m not a fan of the newest Star Wars movies.  I think that they are not necessary to the storylines of the original films.  The do not add anything to the storyline.  The first three movies explained all that happened (a testament to the great storytelling) and the repetition of the events in the newest installments are boring.  It was like watching Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”: we all know how it was going to end.

I may be critical on the second films, but I think I’m justified.  Star Wars is a tough act to follow and the second films were ambitious but they weren’t enough.  Are they worth watching?  Of course, but I recommend watching them in the following order:  Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi.  This way, the viewer ends on a good, if not AMAZING, note.

The Grades:

Star Wars: A New Hope:  A

The Empire Strikes Back: A

Return of the Jedi: A

The Phantom Menace:  C-

Attack of the Clones:  C

Revenge of the Sith:  B-

All Six Films:  B

For more information, check out IMDB.com’s website:

Star Wars

The Empire Strikes Back

Return of the Jedi

The Phantom Menace

Attack of the Clones

Revenge of the Sith

The “New” Batman Movies…

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight

The Batman genre has had its ups and downs, but when director Christopher Nolan took charge in bringing Batman Begins to the screen in 2005, the often dull and frequently campy series was reborn in a darker, intensely entertaining film.  Batman Begins featured an all-star cast and state of the art effects.  In addition, the story was profoundly sophisticated and character driven (something that is almost non-existent in most action films).

Batman Begins is a great film, but its sequel, The Dark Knight, is even better than the first.  It’s hard to find anyone who hasn’t seen the second movie, since it was the highest grossing film of 2008 and one of the most popular sequels of all time.  Besides feature Heath Ledger’s final and Oscar-winning role as the Joker, the movie is a masterpiece on superhero caper films.

Both of these movies redefined the genre of Batman movies after four mediocre films that were slapstick and campy, featuring everyone from Jack Nicholson to Arnold Schwarzenegger.   However, Nolan’s newest movies are strong films that stand alone as great movies.  I recommend both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight but I think these two should be viewed alone, without their “predecessors.”

The Grades:

Batman Begins:  A

The Dark Knight:  A

Click on the links for more information:

Batman Begins

The Dark Knight

The Lord of the Rings

Most of the movies in Hollywood are adapted from previously published books, short stories, short films or other venues.  Most film adaptations are failures when it comes to preserving the message and vision of the book, but in rare instances, movie adaptations are better than the book.  The Lord of the Rings movies did just that.  I’ve read the books and about 60 percent of the time, I was confused and frustrated by the books.  Much of the story of the Lord of the Rings is based on visual storytelling and the books, although extremely descriptive, are difficult to envision.  So, when the books were adapted into major motion pictures, I was skeptical about watching them.

The films are great and visually flawless.  There is no argument that the visual effects used in the movies are top notch and the acting is also on the same level.  However, I thought that the writers of the screenplays took too many details when adapting the story.  The films are three hours long (and longer for the third) and often drag on.  The action scenes are great, but sometimes they get old.  However, the films are masterpieces of their time and visually astonishing.

I’m not a major fan of the fantasy genre, so that may have contributed to my frustration with the series.  Another thing that frustrated me was the Hobbits.  I’m not sure why, but they really annoyed me.  There’s no real reason behind this; it’s just how it is.  I was fascinated by the human and elf storylines, but the focus was too often on the Hobbits.  I also was more interested in the enemy (those grungy creatures and their sadistic tactics).  I overanalyzed the story and wanted to know the origins of the evil soldier creatures.  Why are they there?  Why are they evil?  We understand the stories of the protagonists and the heroes/heroines, but what were the circumstances that brought the evil characters to where they were?  I guess it’s the journalist in me for wanting a balanced portrayal of the characters in the books and film, but this is something I’m willing to look past.

Despite my cynical problems with the films, they are brilliantly composed and flawless.  The films won numerous Oscars and the third film, The Return of the King, won 11 awards (being only the third film in history to win 11 Oscars,  followed by Ben-Hur and Titanic).  I suggest that movie buffs (if they haven’t already) watch these movies for their technical achievements.  But if you’re looking for a substantial story of character development, I’d choose a more independent film.

The Grades:

The Fellowship of the Ring:   B+

The Two Towers:  B

The Return of the King:  B+

Trilogy Grade:  B+

For more information, click on the links below:

The Fellowship of the Ring

The Two Towers

The Return of the King

The Godfather Trilogy

I’m starting a blog about movie sequels and trilogies because I’ve always been fascinated by the hype that comes with a sequel to a very successful movie…and so often, the sequel is a huge disappointment.  So, I thought the best way to start a review of popular movies and their sequels is to review one of my favorites: The Godfather trilogy.

The Godfather is arguably one of the greatest films of all time.  It changed the way mafia movies (and movies in general) are made by elevating movies about organized crime to a level of art.  The first film, released in 1972, was a huge success and won three Oscars, including Best Picture.  Two years later, director Francis Ford Coppola made a bold career move by making the Godfather Part II.  The release of Part II wasn’t well received, at least initially, but after slowly gaining critical acclaim, that movie went on to win Best Picture and a total of six Oscars.

The first two Godfather movies worked so well together, they created a complete story of a very dysfunctional family.  So, why would Francis Ford Coppola, Al Pacino, Diane Keaton and others make a third movie…twenty years later?  That’s something I’ve been trying to figure out for years.  Yes, the second film was amazing but taking a huge chance on a third film did not pay off.  Part III looked good (cinematography, sets, etc.) but it was weak in every other area, especially in acting.  It also recycled the stories of the first two films and changed the details only slightly.  Also, the story was almost creepy at times with Pacino’s daughter’s relationship with her cousin.   Creepy.

The Godfather is a perfect example of how directors and filmmakers shouldn’t try to meddle with movies that are already great by themselves.  Parts I and II are one story told in two films.  They have a clear beginning and ending, but when Part III is thrown in, it leaves unanswered questions and throws in extraneous storylines.  I suggest to people who have not seen the Godfather movies to watch the first two movies and pretend that the third one doesn’t even exist.

The Grades:

The Godfather:  A+

The Godfather Part II:  A+

The Godfather Part III: C-

Trilogy Grade:  A-

For more information, click on the links:

The Godfather

The Godfather Part II

The Godfather Part III