Ah, found it. In the director’s cut of Army of Darkness, “Good, bad, I’m the guy with the gun” becomes “I’m not THAT good.”
The director’s cut of The Professional is vastly superior to the theatrical release.
In Waiting for Guffman there’s a deleted scene, which, IMHO, is better than anything which appeared in the film (not that it’s a bad film, at all). One of the female actors comes in for her audition, and does this scene where she’s visiting her brother on life support. She begins telling him all that’s gone right with her life, and telling him what’s wrong with his, then she starts in on this tirade about being locked with him in the attic when they were kids, and she ends it screaming, “Who’s on top and who’s on bottom now, Billy?” Before yanking the cord to his life support system out of the wall as she walks out the door.Totally unhinged a buddy of mine when I showed it to him. 
Number Six
Not having seen the original, I can’t comment on the effectiveness of the ending sequence or the moral lesson therein. But if its moral is as integral to the plot as you claim, then Vanilla Sky must be an incredibly different movie up until that point, as the “moral dilemma” the character faces at the end has nothing to do with what’s happened to him thus far. In the original, the moral may have been an essential part of the movie. In the remake (or at least in the American version, though it doesn’t sound like the Spanish version is terribly different), it feels tacked-on and unnecessary.
Oh, and please keep in mind that everything I’m saying is just my opinion. I’m not stating this stuff as fact, just giving my perspective on the matter. I felt (and still feel) pretty strongly that this ending sequence nearly ruined the movie, but if others disagree, no skin off my back.
By the way,
I notice you didn’t mention anything about the guy who redundantly explains the entire plot. Is this the same thing he does in the Spanish version, and if so, do you agree that it’s utterly useless (not to mention insulting)? And since you’ve clearly seen the original, is this present in that movie too? If so, does that guy tell you anything useful that you don’t already know, unlike the guy in the remake? Just wondering about your take on that 
Rightright. Now, see, isn’t that lame in comparison?
[spoiler]Yeah, the guy explains exactly what’s going on, but he does give a lot of information about exactly what happened that I hadn’t figured out already. We find out exactly when the vr part of his life started, what happened in real life the first time through, why the simulation malfunctioned in exactly the way it did, how long it’s been since he originally died, that they have the technology to repair his face now, and that he has, and has always had, the choice of whether to remain or leave. This choice is essential because it ties back into a conversation he had at the beginning of the movie with his average looking friend about how things always come easily for him because he’s rich, good-looking and charming, and thus doesn’t have to work for things in the same way most people do. This theme is woven throughout the movie in a variety of ways and to end it earlier would be to leave in incomplete.
I don’t see it as any more redundant than a detective explaining who the murderer was and how he did it. God is in the details.[/spoiler]