The theatrical release here did feature score by Eric Serra, which I think plays a larger part than most score do. However the soundtrack released on CD had slightly different and IMO weaker versions. However that release was only two hours. It wasn’t until I got my hands on the DVD that I saw the full version.
I also understand that Once Upon a Time in America was cut for the theatrical release in the US, from four to three(?) hours. I can’t imagine how different that experience would be, and if you haven’t seen the original version (which then is not a DC), do take your time. It’s a masterpiece. The slow pace fits the movie perfectly.
There is a quite disturbing rape scene in the movie. I don’t know it that was cut in the U.S. version, but beware if this is a no-no for you.
Re: Once Upon a Time in America, I could have done without the lengthy “child eating a cupcake to dramatic music” scene. Or the “kids banging another kid” scene either, for that matter.
But otherwise, yeah DC seems pretty good. Never seen the original.
Going to disagree-disagree. The theme of the movie is Salieri’s jealousy of Mozart’s talent as expressed via his (Salieri’s) religious beliefs. The entire Constanze-Salieri subplot subverts this theme, reduces Salieri’s motivations to “oh, he just wanted to fuck Mozart’s wife and got pissed when she said ‘no’.”
The movie was far better off with it removed. Her dislike of Salieri, in the theatrical cut, comes from his not helping them when she begged. Plain, pure, and it dives natually into the larger overall theme.
Introduce sex and it just becomes a mess, another soap opera. Thank GOD those scenes were removed!
That’s not how I interpreted the scene at all. He wanted to humiliate Mozart’s wife and so inject further hardship into Mozart’s life. Hurting Mozart’s wife would, by proxy, hurt Mozart. Only a little bit, but that’s the point: he was just that petty.
And when did she say no? She literally stripped down in front of him. That was what she was willing to go through to help her beloved husband (who, by the way, had himself had… knowledge of a woman Salieri had himself lusted after). And Salieri set it up just to humiliate her.
ETA: I have never seen anything but the DC of Amadeus, and cannot imagine the film without those added scenes. They seem integral to the story to me.
I’m not seeing it. To my knowledge, it’s okay to be able to have a specialist ability to do things and to be disappointed that more can’t. I have not written anything to imply otherwise. I didn’t write that said person is BAD or WRONG, I just said that such a person exists and that he holds a view that, clearly, is not shared by others. Again, I haven’t said that, that’s bad or wrong, just that his certainty isn’t determinative for everyone.
Likewise, there exist people with hairy legs, people with shaved legs, people with tanned skin, people who like cerulean hues, and people who enjoy fast cars. None of those descriptions are or should be interpreted in a pejorative manner. It’s okay for people to be different from others.
My understanding was that you were saying that the city is dark because it’s in space. I was saying that, that doesn’t hold. Everything is in space and almost nothing is dark. Describing that the city is in space does not resolve the mystery of why it’s dark.
You described this person as “cursing God for putting him on the same planet as all the other heathens,” but don’t understand how that makes him sound snobbish?
The big mystery in the Director’s Cut of Dark City is not, “Why is this city so dark?”
In the Director’s Cut of the movie, several mysteries are set up through the first half of the movie: who is John? Why does he have amnesia? Who are the strange men who are following him? Why does the city keep changing? Why does no one seem to notice? Why is it impossible to leave the city? We experience the journey of discovering and resolving these mysteries with the protagonist. One of the key reveals of this process is when John and the police detective played by William Hurt, finally reach the edge of the city, and find the passage bricked up. Hurt smashes through the wall with a sledge hammer, and is sucked into the vacuum of space, at which point the camera turns around and pulls back, revealing that the entire city, which up to this point we were meant to assume was located somewhere on Earth, is actually floating in space.
In the theatrical release, this reveal is stepped on by the changed opening, which included not just narration explaining most of the answers to the questions I listed in the last paragraph, but an establishing shot of the city floating in space. Instead of experiencing the mystery of the setting with the protagonist, we simply watch him uncover the answers we already have, and the pivotal scene with William Hurt goes from being a total mind-fuck to being the expected consequence of trying to knock a hole in the side of a space station.
It’s a radically different experience of the film.
I’ll be honest with you. I started watching what must have been the director’s cut a few months ago, having never seen the movie before and heard only good things, and it just could not keep my interest. Pretty sure I fell asleep halfway through. Which puts it on par with La La Land and a second watching of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Special Extended Edition. So maybe you didn’t miss too much after all?
She did not. Salieri rejected her after she basically abased herself. All Salieri really wanted was Mozart’s notes. He didn’t particularly care about Constanze at all, as you say humiliating her was just one more cruel twist of the knife against Mozart. Salieri promised Constanze he would help Mozart, but he never had any intention of following through.
I saw the theatrical cut first and found Constanze’s strong hostility towards Salieri at the end a little out of left field. The director’s cut was an “aha!” moment.
With its extensive underwater scenes and languid score (as with nearly all of Besson’s films, the soundtrack was composed by Éric Serra, the film has been both praised as beautiful and serene, and in equal measure criticized as being too drawn out, overly reflective and introspective. While popular in Europe, the film was a commercial failure in North America. The American version was recut to include a simplified “happy” ending, and Serra’s score was replaced with a soundtrack composed by Bill Conti.
I definitely remember a different score when I watched the short version on video…much more rah-rah athleticism than the original.
I recently discovered my digital copy of Mad Max: Fury Road now includes the “Black & Chrome Edition.”
As far as I can tell it’s exactly the same in every way except it’s in black and white, which apparently is what George Miller originally wanted it to be (the studio would never agree to this). I’m not sure it made all that much difference to my enjoyment of the movie, but it still looked cool.
I had to grab and quote this one now, even though I usually read through a thread to find out if someone else has already said it…
If you liked in the theater version, you’ll LOVE the Director’s cut.
The inclusion of the extra footage (and characters) helps to paint the protagonist as that much more noble.
I rented the Director’s cut first, loved it, and bought the Ultimate Edition (Theatrical + Director’s + Roadshow versions) to keep. The “Roadshow Edition” just includes a bit of time for an intermission within the Director’s Cut. But the Director’s cut is like day to the original’s night: There’s just so much clarity to perceive with the heightened illumination.