Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Results), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Vinyan, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

Which Version Should I Watch Thread

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Which Version Should I Watch Thread

#41

Post by joachimt » March 1st, 2016, 11:30 pm

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/margaret-2011-1/
Should I watch the theatrical version (150min) or the extended version (186min)?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#42

Post by funkybusiness » March 1st, 2016, 11:53 pm

joachimt on Mar 1 2016, 04:30:40 PM wrote:https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/margaret-2011-1/
Should I watch the theatrical version (150min) or the extended version (186min)?
I've heard good things about the 186min cut.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#43

Post by joachimt » March 2nd, 2016, 7:43 am

funkybusiness on Mar 1 2016, 04:53:27 PM wrote:
joachimt on Mar 1 2016, 04:30:40 PM wrote:https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/margaret-2011-1/
Should I watch the theatrical version (150min) or the extended version (186min)?
I've heard good things about the 186min cut.
Just checked if Rosenbaum specified a certain version, which he does sometimes, but the list of additional titles doesn't mention anything.

I think I'll go for the longer version then.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1180
Joined: Nov 03, 2014
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:

#44

Post by Hunziker » March 3rd, 2016, 6:25 pm

The Abyss (1989): The original 145 min version, or the Special Edition 163 version?
This is the voice of world control.

iCM -Twitter
ImageImage

Prequel
Posts: 91
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
Contact:

#45

Post by Prequel » March 3rd, 2016, 10:58 pm

Blackmail (1929)

Sound or silent version? -- I am inclined to watch the sound version (don't judge me), but might change my mind.

User avatar
monk-time
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mar 23, 2015
Contact:

#46

Post by monk-time » March 3rd, 2016, 11:15 pm

Prequel on Mar 3 2016, 03:58:50 PM wrote:Blackmail (1929)

Sound or silent version? -- I am inclined to watch the sound version (don't judge me), but might change my mind.
I forgot there are two. The sound version uses deficiencies of early talkies in a great way, making the suspense much more raw, and I believe it's the preferred version. Actually I'm sure its sound is half the reason it's one of my top-5 Hitch movies. From these paragraphs it looks like Hitch was eager to experiment with the new technique:
Wiki on wrote:The film began production as a silent film. To cash in on the new popularity of talkies, the film's producer, John Maxwell of British International Pictures, gave Hitchcock the go-ahead to film a portion of the movie in sound. Hitchcock thought the idea absurd and surreptitiously filmed almost the entire feature in sound (the opening 6½ minutes of the sound version are silent, with musical accompaniment, as are some shorter scenes later), along with a silent version for theatres not yet equipped for talking pictures.
The film was a critical and commercial hit. The sound was praised as inventive. A completed silent version of Blackmail was released in 1929 shortly after the talkie version hit theaters. The silent version of Blackmail actually ran longer in theaters and proved more popular, largely because most theaters in Britain were not yet equipped for sound. Despite the popularity of the silent version, history best remembers the landmark talkie version of Blackmail. It is the version now generally available although some critics consider the silent version superior. Alfred Hitchcock filmed the silent version with Sam Livesey as the Chief Inspector and the sound version with Harvey Braban in the same role.
Last edited by monk-time on March 3rd, 2016, 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ICM profile | My userscripts for IMDb/iCM | iCheckMovies Enhanced by themagician: call it direct, call it collect, but CALL IT TODAY!

User avatar
metaller
Donator
Posts: 2856
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
Contact:

#47

Post by metaller » March 3rd, 2016, 11:32 pm

Hunziker on Mar 3 2016, 11:25:38 AM wrote:The Abyss (1989): The original 145 min version, or the Special Edition 163 version?
I'm a friend of the extended version, which gives a whole different spin to the final segment of the film and makes it the best film Cameron ever made.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

User avatar
metaller
Donator
Posts: 2856
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
Contact:

#48

Post by metaller » March 3rd, 2016, 11:36 pm

I also advocate for the Blackmail sound version. It isn't like a lot of other early talkies, that give up more (camera movement) than they usually gain (actors that are still used to silent acting and not yet used to talking in films), but Hitch saw the new tech, and used it in creative ways to add another layer to the storytelling with it.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 3712
Joined: Jan 03, 2016
Contact:

#49

Post by weirdboy » March 4th, 2016, 1:33 am

Hmm I've only ever seen the sound version.

User avatar
tobias
Posts: 419
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#50

Post by tobias » February 15th, 2018, 10:09 am

I'm currently considering watching some more Stroheim. Which version of Queen Kelly should I watch? I assume the long one?

User avatar
tobias
Posts: 419
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#51

Post by tobias » February 15th, 2018, 10:16 am

As for some other questions in the thread:

-I haven't seen the silent version of Blackmail but I'll back up the praise for the sound version

-I haven't seen the cinematic version of Mysteries of Lisbon but the TV version was enough to make it my favorite film of the century (it also was the only version available here). I did watch it as a miniseries however, one episode each evening over a week. If you want to watch it in one go I assume the cinematic version is certainly preferable but that's still 4,5 hours in one sitting. I assume the cinematic version is somewhat more maze like because there is no stop whatsoever between the plot lines, probably makes it feel even more like a fever dream. The miniseries version is great though. If you want to split it up anyway, you should definitely consider it.

-The Fanny and Alexanders are both wonderful. The cinematic version lacks my favorite scene and also some other great ones but it's much better paced. Definitely the better option to watch it in one sitting.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7962
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#52

Post by maxwelldeux » February 17th, 2018, 10:49 pm

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway, in case I'm surprised...

I have Il gattopardo AKA The Leopard (1963) borrowed from the library and ready to watch. But it comes with both the 186m Original cut, and the 165 American cut of the film.

So *cue thread title* which version should I watch?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7611
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#53

Post by xianjiro » February 17th, 2018, 11:13 pm

both - taking copious notes on the differences and your reactions - then you should book a visit with cinematic psychologist to discuss your feelings in detail

though seriously, I generally default to the longer version. Don't know that I can think of film where the director prefers the shorter version though I'm sure there's been something rereleased on DVD where the distributor thought they could make a bit more cash with an extended cut or something. But usually the shorter runtime is the result of either censorial cuts or the studio/distributor fearing the film is too long.

And yes, occasionally I've watched both to see what the differences are. Twenty minutes is probably noticeable - I remember that dilemma when I got that disc from my library as well, Criterion Collection edition?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4528
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#54

Post by OldAle1 » February 17th, 2018, 11:17 pm

The main value to the shorter version is being able to hear Lancaster's voice, which might make a real difference or not - it did to me more when I hadn't yet gotten used to the way Italians dub everything. Now I'd only watch the longer version - and I've seen each probably twice and in the cinema. As is often the case the original, longer version is better-edited and doesn't feel as long despite actually being 20 m longer.
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7962
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#55

Post by maxwelldeux » February 17th, 2018, 11:25 pm

xianjiro on Feb 17 2018, 04:13:12 PM wrote:both - taking copious notes on the differences and your reactions - then you should book a visit with cinematic psychologist to discuss your feelings in detail

though seriously, I generally default to the longer version. Don't know that I can think of film where the director prefers the shorter version though I'm sure there's been something rereleased on DVD where the distributor thought they could make a bit more cash with an extended cut or something. But usually the shorter runtime is the result of either censorial cuts or the studio/distributor fearing the film is too long.

And yes, occasionally I've watched both to see what the differences are. Twenty minutes is probably noticeable - I remember that dilemma when I got that disc from my library as well, Criterion Collection edition?
Yep - this is the Criterion release. How'd you guess? :circle: :whistling:

Like you, I usually default to the longer option, especially when I don't know much about the film. And original is usually preferred over the cuts for various countries. But I figured I should take a shot and ask, in case there's any compelling reason to watch the American version.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7962
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#56

Post by maxwelldeux » February 17th, 2018, 11:28 pm

OldAle1 on Feb 17 2018, 04:17:36 PM wrote:The main value to the shorter version is being able to hear Lancaster's voice, which might make a real difference or not - it did to me more when I hadn't yet gotten used to the way Italians dub everything. Now I'd only watch the longer version - and I've seen each probably twice and in the cinema. As is often the case the original, longer version is better-edited and doesn't feel as long despite actually being 20 m longer.
Oh the Italian dubbing...

I'm not a Lancaster fan or anything, so I can't imagine hearing his voice will have any noticeable effect on me. But good point on the editing. Thanks!

User avatar
tobias
Posts: 419
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#57

Post by tobias » February 19th, 2018, 9:06 am

I checked the version on my Blu ray shelf and can safely tell you to watch the longer version now because not a single minute in there is superfluous. In fact cutting anything would probably be a crime.

On another note: Can nobody say anything about Queen Kelly?

User avatar
Cynical Cinephile
Posts: 2251
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Contact:

#58

Post by Cynical Cinephile » March 17th, 2018, 11:16 am

I haven't checked through the thread to see if someone already asked, but which version of Win Wenders' Until the End of the World should I watch?
The truth is you're Donny, and I'm Walter. But I'm tryin', Ringo, I'm tryin' real hard to be The Dude.

:ICM: :letbxd: :imdb:

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#59

Post by funkybusiness » March 17th, 2018, 11:29 am

Cynical Cinephile on Mar 17 2018, 05:16:08 AM wrote:I haven't checked through the thread to see if someone already asked, but which version of Win Wenders' Until the End of the World should I watch?
the longest one you can find. The one I watched ~5 years ago was in three parts ~4.5 hours. There's a new restoration out there (french BD I think) that's slightly different apparently ("tweaked" a bit) from the original release, but still the preferred long version, not the apparently nonsensical 2h:38 version.

Criterion is apparently going to release it (the long cut) eventuallyTM. ('til then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1UF_63KSCE )
Last edited by funkybusiness on March 17th, 2018, 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cynical Cinephile
Posts: 2251
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Contact:

#60

Post by Cynical Cinephile » March 17th, 2018, 11:36 am

funkybusiness on Mar 17 2018, 05:29:25 AM wrote:
Cynical Cinephile on Mar 17 2018, 05:16:08 AM wrote:I haven't checked through the thread to see if someone already asked, but which version of Win Wenders' Until the End of the World should I watch?
the longest one you can find. The one I watched ~5 years ago was in three parts ~4.5 hours. There's a new restoration out there (french BD I think) that's slightly different apparently ("tweaked" a bit) from the original release, but still the preferred long version, not the apparently nonsensical 2h:38 version.

Criterion is apparently going to release it (the long cut) eventuallyTM. ('til then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1UF_63KSCE )
Thanks, I might as well wait, in that case. The only version I could get my hands on was 2 1/2 hours one.
The truth is you're Donny, and I'm Walter. But I'm tryin', Ringo, I'm tryin' real hard to be The Dude.

:ICM: :letbxd: :imdb:

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#61

Post by funkybusiness » March 29th, 2018, 2:09 am

Das Boot?

User avatar
tobias
Posts: 419
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#62

Post by tobias » March 29th, 2018, 8:41 am

@Cynical Cinephile - I've only seen the 4,5 hour version which was on german TV 2 or 3 years ago. It's handily half an hour or an hour too long but I imagine the short version would be 1 hour too short then. Also the part that is imo too long is consecutive. In the 2nd half there's a long stretch of just nothing happening. The rest is actually pretty great as is.

@funky - Only seen the directors cut which I found too long but then again, I'm overall baffled people like this film so much.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7962
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#63

Post by maxwelldeux » April 4th, 2018, 7:02 am

I know this has been answered, but I can't find it. For the Three Colors trilogy, the order is Blue, White, Red, right?

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#64

Post by funkybusiness » April 4th, 2018, 7:26 am

maxwelldeux on Apr 4 2018, 01:02:37 AM wrote:I know this has been answered, but I can't find it. For the Three Colors trilogy, the order is Blue, White, Red, right?
it's a thematic trilogy, rather than a narrative trilogy, so you don't have to watch them in any specific order, but yes, BWR is the order in which they were released.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7962
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#65

Post by maxwelldeux » April 4th, 2018, 7:30 am

funkybusiness on Apr 4 2018, 01:26:11 AM wrote:
maxwelldeux on Apr 4 2018, 01:02:37 AM wrote:I know this has been answered, but I can't find it. For the Three Colors trilogy, the order is Blue, White, Red, right?
it's a thematic trilogy, rather than a narrative trilogy, so you don't have to watch them in any specific order, but yes, BWR is the order in which they were released.
Many thanks! :thumbsup:

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 1213
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#66

Post by Ivan0716 » April 20th, 2018, 6:42 am

Going through (most of)Wong Kar Wai's filmography again, which version of Ashes of Time should I watch? I don't remember which one I watched the first time when I ended up borderline disliking it.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 9193
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#67

Post by Lonewolf2003 » May 11th, 2018, 12:55 pm

I got the BFI of blu ray of Night and the City, which got both the (theatrical) US version and the longer (100 min) British version. Which should I watch?

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#68

Post by Gershwin » May 15th, 2018, 1:43 pm

Zhantai (Platform): can I watch the 154 minutes cut, which I happen to have available, or should I look for the director's cut?

Edit: found this on IMDb, but no idea what's the source:
"Director 'Jia Zhangke' has said that he prefers the shorter, more widely-seen version of his film to the first three-hour version, which was completed under duress."
Last edited by Gershwin on May 15th, 2018, 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11870
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#69

Post by Armoreska » May 15th, 2018, 2:06 pm

Found another mention in an RT review/comment:
"The shorter, two-and-a-half hour cut is tighter and better. The longer version is actually an earlier cut done in a rush."

What about the image quality? That could be the decider.

Another review on IMDb:
This is one of my all-time favorite films for all the reasons identified by other reviewers. Until recently, I had only seen the 154 minute version, which was released in theaters and on DVD. I just saw the original, uncut version, which is 193 minutes long, and it is markedly superior. Not only does it fill in many of the gaps that make the shorter version seem somewhat disjointed, it has several brilliant scenes that had me shaking my head wondering why they were cut from the theatrical/DVD release. I understand that Jia Zhangke is working on a director's cut of the film, which will hopefully do some necessary trimming, but also restore these scenes.
Last edited by Armoreska on May 15th, 2018, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#70

Post by Gershwin » May 18th, 2018, 8:03 pm

I don't think the uncut version is around any more. It's not on KG. :shrug:
I've watched the shorter version now, but it's somewhat disjointed at certain points indeed. I'd certainly like to know which scenes that were cut the writer of this review was talking about.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6365
Joined: Jul 04, 2011
Contact:

#71

Post by sebby » May 19th, 2018, 4:47 am

Going Places--

I can watch the 120 min cut on Fandor, but there's also a 150 min version. Is one definitive?

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 4023
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#72

Post by Fergenaprido » May 30th, 2018, 9:17 am

Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage is playing on Mubi now. It's the theatrical version. Worth watching, or should I stick to the miniseries one?

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#73

Post by funkybusiness » May 30th, 2018, 9:50 am

Fergenaprido on May 30 2018, 03:17:35 AM wrote:Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage is playing on Mubi now. It's the theatrical version. Worth watching, or should I stick to the miniseries one?
I think I posted about this earlier in the thread but I watched the miniseries and "enjoyed" it. I'm pretty sure that's the original, and the theatrical version was for international audiences. It's kind of unpleasant to watch as it's the disintegration of a marriage, so, maybe 2-ish hours is enough for you but it's meant to take place over a long period of time and that is reflected in the miniseries structure.

I can't tell you what bits are the focus of the theatrical cut and what was cut but I imagine it would be the more comedic moments (it's not entirely a downer), and the portions dealing with the extended family.

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11870
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#74

Post by Armoreska » May 30th, 2018, 10:15 am

Gershwin on May 18 2018, 02:03:43 PM wrote:I don't think the uncut version is around any more. It's not on KG. :shrug:
I've watched the shorter version now, but it's somewhat disjointed at certain points indeed. I'd certainly like to know which scenes that were cut the writer of this review was talking about.
Bummer, what's with a disappearing version. Guess it's unreleased.
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#75

Post by joachimt » August 16th, 2018, 5:56 pm

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World
IMDb says it's 205 minutes, but I see several copies of 160 minutes out there. I'm currently watching the extended 205 min version, but it's a bad rip (colors often changing, and just now the image froze while the audio continued)
Which should I watch?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 3036
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#76

Post by GruesomeTwosome » August 16th, 2018, 6:14 pm

Don't overly punish yourself with that turd of a movie, just watch the general release 160-minute version (163 minutes to be exact, referring to the Criterion release) if you really must.
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1463
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#77

Post by flaiky » August 16th, 2018, 6:21 pm

I don't know which one I watched, but I can't imagine anyone needing 3.5 hours of that film.
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

User avatar
Minkin
Posts: 522
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
Location: Ventura County, CA
Contact:

#78

Post by Minkin » August 17th, 2018, 8:57 am

joachimt wrote:
August 16th, 2018, 5:56 pm
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World
IMDb says it's 205 minutes, but I see several copies of 160 minutes out there. I'm currently watching the extended 205 min version, but it's a bad rip (colors often changing, and just now the image froze while the audio continued)
Which should I watch?
There's some good info about the extended version here - scroll down to "extended reconstruction" part in the supplements section.

Its how the film was initially shown - going from theater to theater as an "event film" - since each screening required alot of set-up. For instance: during the intermission, the theater's bathrooms had speakers which played a conversation between two of the police officers from the movie! (this is available on the Criterion disc). When the film hit general audiences, it was cut down to 165 minutes. So its all a matter of whether you want what most people saw back in the day vs how the film was originally shown / meant to be seen.

I'm not sure about your source - but it could be accurate to the present state of the roadshow version - which is partially lost.. Criterion attempted to recreate the original roadshow version, since alot of the footage is lost - and its a mix of different sources -as most of the film is from the 70mm 4k restoration, but then some scenes only exist from Laserdisc recordings, or some footage is completely gone - thus they used production stills to fill in the gaps (I think all of the audio still exists though). So if it looks weird, this may be the culprit.

As to the film: I agreed with the above two posters the first time I saw it (on a computer screen) - and really disliked the film. But I rewatched it on a large tv screen with some company and popcorn - and it just worked great. I had exactly the same initial vs second experience with Playtime. I've discovered over the past few years that film isn't meant to be watched on a 5-inch Smart phone all by yourself - but to be a communal experience with different audience reactions. Plus a 70mm film really needs the full breadth of appreciation - as all of the landscapes really look spectacular. Seems like most of you watch on small (computer) monitors - and usually in shit compressed torrent quality - which really does a disservice to every film. Since 99.99% of films weren't made to be seen that way. I know you can still appreciate it to an extent, but sometimes you need to fully experience the film on as large a screen as possible. At they very least, do that for 70mm films! (I'm guilty of watching 2001 on a small computer screen the first time I saw it).

Its also better when you start recognizing more of the cameos thrown in (which there's a ton). Also probably helps that I live near where many scenes were filmed - so its fun to recognize a road; or that Don Knotts stops for gas at what is now our favorite BBQ restaurant. There's a lot of basic and idiotic humor on display here (was advertised as "everything and the kitchen sink too!") - but that's part of the charm. I think one can still enjoy the frenetic pacing, the cinematography, the large cast & cameos, and the general mid-60s innocence going on here.

Its no masterpiece by any means, and I can see why people shit all over the film - but it does have some merits - and is aided by the circumstances of your viewing.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#79

Post by joachimt » August 17th, 2018, 10:54 am

Thanks, Minkin.

In the meantime I figured out the freezing image was not a broken rip, but just how it is because of the lost footage. I ended up continuing the extended version which I was already watching. So far I'm enjoying it.

I don't watch movies on my smartphone. Yes, I do watch on a laptop and some on a (not very big) TV. In a perfect (movie)world, I would be able to watch everything on a big screen. But that's not the case.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 448
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#80

Post by Tasselfoot » August 17th, 2018, 11:57 am

This is a good resource... any chance the 1st post could be maintained with a list of films and the group collective response on definitive version?

Post Reply