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
albajos
Posts: 6880
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Which Version Should I Watch Thread

#81

Post by albajos » August 17th, 2018, 12:23 pm

Well, that would always be subjective. I would clearly prefer the versions of Blade Runner where Ford isn't an android, but do also prefer the version without narration. With Blade Runner Scott really have gone the George Lucas route of tweaking things that he personally didn't like even if everyone else hates his changes.

At least with Blade Runner we still have access to the original so we can pick whatever. Lucas on the other hand have removed them from history (Hopefully Disney will release them again now that they own them)

So put it blunt, there is never a definitive version, there are always a reason why they exist. Normally I would go with what is closest to the director's vision, but sometimes the director is an idiot :p

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

#82

Post by OldAle1 » August 17th, 2018, 1:30 pm

The best version of the Worst Film Ever Made is of course the shortest, but better still is just imagining how bad it could be in your mind, for maybe a minute or so, and then deciding to accept that sometimes it's best not to confirm what you already know or what smart people with good taste urge on you...

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

#83

Post by OldAle1 » August 17th, 2018, 1:33 pm

albajos wrote:
August 17th, 2018, 12:23 pm
Well, that would always be subjective. I would clearly prefer the versions of Blade Runner where Ford isn't an android, but do also prefer the version without narration. With Blade Runner Scott really have gone the George Lucas route of tweaking things that he personally didn't like even if everyone else hates his changes.

At least with Blade Runner we still have access to the original so we can pick whatever. Lucas on the other hand have removed them from history (Hopefully Disney will release them again now that they own them)

So put it blunt, there is never a definitive version, there are always a reason why they exist. Normally I would go with what is closest to the director's vision, but sometimes the director is an idiot :p
Pretty much this, and to add to the last line, "or dead, and we can't ask him/her what version is best anymore". Orson Welles, Erich von Stroheim, John Cassavetes, innumerable others who didn't necessarily get their visions on the screen the way they wanted to - and who (particularly in the first case) may have changed their minds several times over a lifetime as to what version suited their visions.

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

#84

Post by joachimt » August 17th, 2018, 7:21 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
August 17th, 2018, 1:30 pm
The best version of the Worst Film Ever Made is of course the shortest, but better still is just imagining how bad it could be in your mind, for maybe a minute or so, and then deciding to accept that sometimes it's best not to confirm what you already know or what smart people with good taste urge on you...
I already noticed your rating on Criticker. :whistling:
Which was very surprising, because you normally are a frisky rater (I don't mean that in a negative or disrespectful way), so I was preparing for the worst. I haven't finished the movie yet, but so far I'm kinda enjoying it, although I think the IMDb-rating is waaaaaaay to high., so I'm somewhere in the middle. Ah well, maybe I'll change my mind one way or the other when I finish it.

If you call this the worst movie ever made, you clearly haven't seen enough Vogel-shorts. ;)
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

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

#85

Post by OldAle1 » August 17th, 2018, 7:54 pm

That's at least the second time somebody's mentioned my rating on Criticker - a site that as far as I can recall I never registered at. I think somebody lifted my ratings several years ago and plopped them there, or else I did register at some point when I was drunk and forgot everything about it. Better to look at my IMDb ratings which are up to date.

I think rather than "frisky" a better word is "generous" - I try to look for the good in everything and tend rarely to deliberately watch films I think I might hate (apart from brand-new stuff where I take more risks), and so really low ratings are rare for me. But some things deserve it and this just ticked off everything I hate in big-budget comedies AND action films, and I can honestly say that I've never had a film experience I enjoyed less.

As to the Vogel stuff, well most of those aren't 2 1/2+ hours long, and I also tend to be somewhat generous with experimental stuff even when I don't really enjoy it, though I do have a few such films rated 1-3 so who knows? I'll probably make a project of getting to bronze on that list before long, but there are probably at least 74 films left too see that I would actually want to see anyway, so the real pain would only start in if I attempted to get closer to completion there. And I'll never watch some of that stuff, I'm just not a masochist like so many people are for the sake of a check.

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

#86

Post by joachimt » August 17th, 2018, 8:05 pm

Well, the username is the same and the ratings seem to be correct. Everytime you respond to me on the weekly thread, it fits with your rating on Criticker compared to mine.
Looking up a rating on Criticker is easy, because you can go to a movie-page and immediately see the ratings of your kumpels (= friends). I add every forummember I come across there to my list of kumpels. Really helpful if I'm trying to decide whether to watch a movie or not.
Anyway, we've talked about your ratings before and indeed "generous" might be a better word. I actually want to be a bit more generous sometimes like you are. I always find it weird to see a lover of movies with mostly low ratings. I sometimes think "get another hobby". On the other hand, I don't think I should change the way I rate. It's been working fine and I already have a higher average than most people I think. My average for features is around 7/10. On moviemeter.nl I can quickly compare my average with others and I'm one of the highest there (at least among the big users).
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

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

#87

Post by OldAle1 » August 17th, 2018, 8:17 pm

Oh I know those are my ratings, I just don't remember ever going there until somebody mentioned my ratings - I had a LOT of trolls attacking me pretty regularly on IMDb so I assume that maybe one of them took my ratings over there just to fuck with me in some way? Doesn't make sense but a lot of trolling doesn't make sense to me anyway. Or like I said, I could have registered when drunk (though I'm rarely drunk these days or in 2015 when that account was set up), but I can't find any record of passwords or anything for the site, and I use a different password everywhere and keep a file of them on a computer that isn't connected to the internet so as to minimize issues. Weird, anyway.

Actually my average isn't THAT much higher than yours, it's around 7.4, though part of the reason it isn't even higher is that I watch a lot of action films and am pretty hard on them generally, it's the only genre that I can say I love where the rewards aren't that great on a film-to-film basis, though I suspect as I keep watching more HK and east Asian action in general my ratings there will go up. But yeah, I'm with you in wondering why people continue to devote a lot of time to a hobby if the rewards aren't there - or at least I used to wonder it. I see it often enough among people that otherwise seem nice/sane/normal that I have to assume they just think very differently either about ratings or about the actual concept of "enjoyment" than I do. And it's one of the reasons why I rarely post my ratings anymore, they simply don't mean the same thing to any two people, whereas a paragraph about what I liked or disliked about something is a bit easier to comprehend I think.

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

#88

Post by funkybusiness » October 6th, 2018, 4:08 am

The Phantom of the Opera (1925), the 1925 edition (untinted, longer, rougher quality) or the 1929 edition (tinted, shorter, much better quality)?

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

#89

Post by Fergenaprido » December 8th, 2018, 12:44 pm

Crime Wave (1985)

I have two versions of similar length, and I'm not sure which one to watch.
1. Original Cut - 1:18:49
2. Director's Cut - 1:20:38

It seems that the director didn't like the original ending and reshot it. Has anyone seen both versions? Is the original worth watching at all?

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

#90

Post by maxwelldeux » May 29th, 2019, 11:20 pm

Dawn of the Dead (1978, Romero)

I have the following available to me:

1. Original cut
2. Extended Cannes edition
3. Dario Argento's European edition
4. Ultimate Final Cut

Any thoughts on which I should go for?

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

#91

Post by funkybusiness » May 30th, 2019, 12:00 am

I think I watched the Theatrical cut (Romero's preferred?), years ago, but if I was going to rewatch it I'd try out the Cannes cut. but I'm no expert.
4k release is coming tout de suite, supposedly of 3 cuts, not sure which tho.

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

#92

Post by joachimt » August 5th, 2019, 9:16 am

What about Maciste all'inferno (1925)?
Runtime on IMDb says 95 minutes. There is a version on Youtube with English intertitles that is 65 minutes long. There's also a version of 102 minutes on Youtube (with a soundtrack by Gojira) with Italian intertitles and French subs. So is 102 min the most complete version surviving? Then maybe I shouldn't watch the 65 min version, although this seems to be an "official" chopped release. The album by Gojira is actually less than an hour long.
This page tells a bit about both versions and it seems 103 min is the longest cut available, but I don't think any English subtitles exist.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

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

#93

Post by joachimt » October 11th, 2019, 4:03 pm

According to IMDb Dario Argento's Inferno is in Italian. I've got an English spoken version, but to me it seems the English matches the lips-movement of the actors. So which language is this movie?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6880
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#94

Post by albajos » October 11th, 2019, 4:12 pm

Silent and dubbed afterwards, I guess.

As most italian at the time.

User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2049
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#95

Post by peeptoad » October 11th, 2019, 4:14 pm

joachimt wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 4:03 pm
According to IMDb Dario Argento's Inferno is in Italian. I've got an English spoken version, but to me it seems the English matches the lips-movement of the actors. So which language is this movie?
I am pretty sure it was filmed in both English and Italian due to the leads being native English speakers and the supporting cast being mostly Italian. The original cinema release (in Italy) had the Italian track, but the direct to video release in NA only had an English track.

User avatar
72aicm
Donator
Posts: 3251
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#96

Post by 72aicm » December 9th, 2019, 5:16 pm

What’s the deal with Soupçons/The Staircase? Is it an eight episode long miniseries or thirteen? The file I have contain only the first eight episodes.

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

#97

Post by maxwelldeux » December 10th, 2019, 4:12 am

72aicm wrote:
December 9th, 2019, 5:16 pm
What’s the deal with Soupçons/The Staircase? Is it an eight episode long miniseries or thirteen? The file I have contain only the first eight episodes.
Yes. :P

The original was 8 episodes. There was a 2 episode follow-up in 2013, and 3 more episodes in 2018.

It's all on Netflix, if you can swing that.

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

#98

Post by weirdboy » December 10th, 2019, 5:38 am

maxwelldeux wrote:
December 10th, 2019, 4:12 am
72aicm wrote:
December 9th, 2019, 5:16 pm
What’s the deal with Soupçons/The Staircase? Is it an eight episode long miniseries or thirteen? The file I have contain only the first eight episodes.
Yes. :P

The original was 8 episodes. There was a 2 episode follow-up in 2013, and 3 more episodes in 2018.

It's all on Netflix, if you can swing that.
Yes, watch the full 13 episodes!
I just finished this one over the weekend. Great series!

Plus with the follow-ups later on it almost feels like a Linklater film.

User avatar
72aicm
Donator
Posts: 3251
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#99

Post by 72aicm » December 10th, 2019, 6:05 am

After one day, I’m seven episodes in already. I’ll watch the remaining six today. :)

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6880
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#100

Post by albajos » December 10th, 2019, 2:00 pm

weirdboy wrote:
December 10th, 2019, 5:38 am
Plus with the follow-ups later on it almost feels like a Linklater film.
That awful? I'll stay away then

User avatar
outdoorcats
Posts: 1042
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Contact:

#101

Post by outdoorcats » December 25th, 2019, 12:10 am

Should I watch the theatrical cut or director's cut of Midsommar first?

[a LION eats GOD. Gunshots ring out. MATT turns around]
MATT: That's the guy I was telling you about.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13535
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#102

Post by brokenface » June 9th, 2020, 7:46 pm

Mughal-E-Azam. I noticed it's in Mubi's library, but only a colourised version from 2004. Now, I'm naturally suspicious of colourising, but from checking the wiki this sounds like a pretty significant restoration effort as well as digital colorising, so I'm wondering if this is actually the way to go here - anyone have thoughts?

https://mubi.com/films/mughal-e-azam-color-version-2004

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

#103

Post by Fergenaprido » June 9th, 2020, 8:17 pm

brokenface wrote:
June 9th, 2020, 7:46 pm
Mughal-E-Azam. I noticed it's in Mubi's library, but only a colourised version from 2004. Now, I'm naturally suspicious of colourising, but from checking the wiki this sounds like a pretty significant restoration effort as well as digital colorising, so I'm wondering if this is actually the way to go here - anyone have thoughts?

https://mubi.com/films/mughal-e-azam-color-version-2004
I avoided the Mubi version when it came available for me last year because of that, and the fact that it seems to be missing 15 minutes (unless that's a frame rate difference), plus someone recently commented that aspect ratio is also wrong. (Color version also appears to have been recently uploaded to YouTube by Cinecurry Classics (without subtitles), so they may have their own restoration as well. I have the "the ORIGINAL version of the film (85% black and white and 15% Technicolor)" from Shemaroo Collector's Edition, though I still haven't watched it yet because it's so long. :sweat:
Mubi user reviewShow
This version of the film is terrible, besides each frame being painted over (giving it a fake color look, which is noticeable when you see the original color portions) the film is shorter only running 173min (the 2004 color dvd version runs 184min) instead of the original 197min runtime and worst of all the picture is presented in an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (16:9) pan and scan style removing part of every frame.
Specs from my copyShow
General
Container: AVI
Runtime: 3h 17mn
Size: 2.05 GiB
Video
Codec: XviD
Resolution: 640x480
Aspect ratio: 4:3
Frame rate: 23.976 fps
Bit rate: 1 290 Kbps
BPP: 0.175
Audio
#1: Hindi 2.0ch MP3 @ 192 Kbps
Technical Specs from imdbShow
Runtime 3 hr 17 min (197 min) (1960)
3 hr 4 min (184 min) (2004 colorized)
Sound Mix Dolby Digital (2004 re-release) | Mono
Color Black and White | Color (Technicolor)
Laboratory Famous Cine Lab, Bombay, India (black and white scenes)
Technicolor, London, UK (color scenes)
Negative Format 35 mm
Printed Film Format 35 mm

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13535
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#104

Post by brokenface » June 9th, 2020, 9:37 pm

Okay thanks, duly warned. I'll skip that one. 3 hr Bollywood ain't really my thing but if I'm going to watch one i might as well at least try to watch a decent version. Wrong aspect ratio is definitely a line in the sand.

Post Reply