Which Version Should I Watch Thread

[Armoreska]

Can we vote it onto 500<400? hahaha
I wonder if versions of popular movies can be DSQed

[OldAle1]

I saw only the theatrical version of Underground, because I saw it when it was released in cinemas here - of course the TV version wasn't available in the USA or probably most places for many years. I can't say anymore whether I found it overly confusing or what - I do remember being very impressed with it overall. But I probably also read some reviews which helped make more sense at the time also. Been meaning to watch that for a long time but there are only so many 5-hour works I can fit into life.

[Armoreska]

I saw only the theatrical version of Underground, because I saw it when it was released in cinemas here - of course the TV version wasn't available in the USA or probably most places for many years. I can't say anymore whether I found it overly confusing or what - I do remember being very impressed with it overall. But I probably also read some reviews which helped make more sense at the time also. Been meaning to watch that for a long time but there are only so many 5-hour works I can fit into life.

it's closer to 5:30 without skipping

[weirdboy]

I had no idea that Underground was a series. Now I want to see that.


But no idea how to see it...

[Fergenaprido]

I just started watching Aguirre on Kanopy, but that site lags a lot for me so I'm going to switch to something else. I do want to try and watch it this weekend (seated on the couch right next to the router ), but I noticed they have both the English and the German dubs of the film.

Which version should I watch?

Wikipedia says it was filmed in English because the actors spoke English, but the German audio is better quality. Has anyone seen both and can speak to the difference?

I had no idea that Underground was a series. Now I want to see that.


But no idea how to see it...

It's available in the usual place.

[weirdboy]

There is an English version of Aguierre?????

I have only ever seen the German version. I would think since all the actors are native German speakers, that would be the definitive version anyway.

[Armoreska]

comments found on Aguirre der Zorn Gottes (which I havent seen):
Revisited this movie again, this time in the German dubbed version. I found it a bit weird that Aguirre's voice didn't sound like Kinski's, and apparently the voice was dubbed by someone else because Kinski was asking too much money for the dub.

I asked Herzog about this, and he told me that the reason it was shot in English is because English was the one language they all spoke (the cast being a mix of German, Spanish, and Quechua speakers). The reason it was dubbed over in parts is because it was impossible to eliminate background noise in certain scenes (e.g. the scenes with rapids). Herzog used another voice actor for Kinski's part because Kinski wanted $1M to do it (the original budget was $360,000, 1/3 of which went to Kinski). Herzog tells me that the new voice actor was "far superior" to Kinski anyway.
He also said that, in his opinion, the definitive version is German audio with English subtitles, because Aguirre comes out of the German filmmaking tradition (rather than the American one).

Like i understand it, Kinski was speaking german, while the others were talking english.
In the "Trilogy" of Aguirre - Fitzcarraldo - Cobra Verde, only Fitzcarraldo was shot with kinski speaking english.
At least that's what the internet told me

[Fergenaprido]

Thanks for that Armo, that's enough for me to decide to continue with the German version.

[RolandKirkSunglasses]

The English version sounds awkward and flat judging by this trailer.

[xianjiro]

OK...my lower-rated IMDb Top 100 films...

MOVIES FOR DUMB TEENAGED BOYS

13. Inception - 4 - this one I want to see again, and suspect may improve... a little. I don't love any Nolan films and the two I've re-watched didn't improve
16. The Matrix - 5
26. Saving Ryan's Privates - 5
27. The Green Mile - 5
31. Léon - 3
34. The Lion King - 3 - seen twice; used to be rated 1
40. Gladiator - 5
64. Avengers: Infinity War - 5
71. The Dark Knight Rises - 3
76. Avengers: Endgame - 5
83. 3 Idiots - 3
85. Inglourious Basterds - 4
88. Taare Zameen Par - 5
97. Dangal - 5

not seen: Intouchables, Hamilton

you seem to have forgotten 300

[xianjiro]

I just started watching Aguirre on Kanopy, but that site lags a lot for me so I'm going to switch to something else.

Yeah, I had to refresh the page multiple time while watching a movie yesterday. I find I usually have better luck watching in the mornings during weekdays, but that's not possible for most. I don't think they have enough bandwidth at their end - I know I do on mine!

[OldAle1]

OK...my lower-rated IMDb Top 100 films...

MOVIES FOR DUMB TEENAGED BOYS

13. Inception - 4 - this one I want to see again, and suspect may improve... a little. I don't love any Nolan films and the two I've re-watched didn't improve
16. The Matrix - 5
26. Saving Ryan's Privates - 5
27. The Green Mile - 5
31. Léon - 3
34. The Lion King - 3 - seen twice; used to be rated 1
40. Gladiator - 5
64. Avengers: Infinity War - 5
71. The Dark Knight Rises - 3
76. Avengers: Endgame - 5
83. 3 Idiots - 3
85. Inglourious Basterds - 4
88. Taare Zameen Par - 5
97. Dangal - 5

not seen: Intouchables, Hamilton

you seem to have forgotten 300

It's not on the IMDb top 100 (though I think it was, when new). BUUUUTT, Zack Snyder's new/old 4-hour monstrosity is now on the list, which I would bet money will get no higher than a 5 rating from me, although there's a very good chance it will drop out of the t100, and maybe off the t250 altogether before I bother with it. Or not, maybe I'll watch it tonight.

[Torgo]

you seem to have forgotten 300

It's not on the IMDb top 100 (though I think it was, when new).

Since you guys seem to be so interested in the work of Zack Snyder : Yup, had been in the Top 250 for 4 months after its release; also quite the hyped movie back then. Before the age of streaming, everything related to action but also fanboyism (everything with comics, but also Star Wars, Harry Potter etc.) was safe to earn higher ratings during the first 4 weeks or so when only fans would walk into theaters to watch all that. You could set your watch for the drop to start after 3 or 4 months when these films became available on DVD/BR/torrents and seen by less enthusiastic people. Ratings settle after a year or two, when the theater - DVD - TV cycle is complete. (This is why 300 holds only a 7.6 at 700,000 votes now )

[OldAle1]

Still about 4.5 points too high...

[xianjiro]

you seem to have forgotten 300

It's not on the IMDb top 100 (though I think it was, when new).

Since you guys seem to be so interested in the work of Zack Snyder : Yup, had been in the Top 250 for 4 months after its release; also quite the hyped movie back then. Before the age of streaming, everything related to action but also fanboyism (everything with comics, but also Star Wars, Harry Potter etc.) was safe to earn higher ratings during the first 4 weeks or so when only fans would walk into theaters to watch all that. You could set your watch for the drop to start after 3 or 4 months when these films became available on DVD/BR/torrents and seen by less enthusiastic people. Ratings settle after a year or two, when the theater - DVD - TV cycle is complete. (This is why 300 holds only a 7.6 at 700,000 votes now )

and the funny thing, I didn't even pay attention to who directed it - I was too busy laughing through most of it

Spoiler

I still think it's probably the 'gayest' movie ever made (ironically) - I mean 2 hours of a bunch of heavily depilated, oiled, buff men running around in leather underpants ... and the fanboys just didn't get the joke!

[Torgo]

Spoiler

I still think it's probably the 'gayest' movie ever made (ironically) - I mean 2 hours of a bunch of heavily depilated, oiled, buff men running around in leather underpants ... and the fanboys just didn't get the joke!

Hehe, you're certainly not the first person to point that out. Though similar things could be said about some of the macho action heroes of the 80s & 90s (where Rambo might be just the popular and definitely not only example). Things where masculinity has to be proven over and over again, you know.

OK...my lower-rated IMDb Top 100 films...

MOVIES FOR DUMB TEENAGED BOYS

13. Inception - 4 - this one I want to see again, and suspect may improve... a little. I don't love any Nolan films and the two I've re-watched didn't improve
16. The Matrix - 5
26. Saving Ryan's Privates - 5
27. The Green Mile - 5
31. Léon - 3
34. The Lion King - 3 - seen twice; used to be rated 1
40. Gladiator - 5
64. Avengers: Infinity War - 5
71. The Dark Knight Rises - 3
76. Avengers: Endgame - 5
83. 3 Idiots - 3
85. Inglourious Basterds - 4
88. Taare Zameen Par - 5
97. Dangal - 5

not seen: Intouchables, Hamilton

OldAle, sometimes I'm beginning to suspect you're not exactly happy with the developments the popcultural mainstream has made since the 1990s.

/offtopic

[Armoreska]

I don't care what you rate Inception, but anyone who has The Matrix at less than an 8 is dead to me

[Torgo]

Most people seem to agree on preferring Drishyam (2013) to Drishyam (2015).
How about you folks? For someone starting off completely fresh.

[OldAle1]

Most people seem to agree on preferring Drishyam (2013) to Drishyam (2015).
How about you folks? For someone starting off completely fresh.

I really think that to get the full experience you need to watch the 2013 (Malayalam) film, followed by the 2014 (Kannada) remake, the 2014 (Telugu) remake, the 2015 (Tamil) remake, the 2015 (Hindi) remake, the 2017 (Sinhala) remake, the 2019 (Chinese) remake, and the 2021 sequel. You must have a heaping helping of lamb vindaloo or eggplant biryani, depending on your dietary preferences, with plenty of garlic naan, samosas and pakoras, and mango lassi to wash it all down, between each film. Anything less is just not living the Drishyam experience to it's fullest.

[Torgo]

[Armoreska]

[kongs_speech]

Most people seem to agree on preferring Drishyam (2013) to Drishyam (2015).
How about you folks? For someone starting off completely fresh.

I really think that to get the full experience you need to watch the 2013 (Malayalam) film, followed by the 2014 (Kannada) remake, the 2014 (Telugu) remake, the 2015 (Tamil) remake, the 2015 (Hindi) remake, the 2017 (Sinhala) remake, the 2019 (Chinese) remake, and the 2021 sequel. You must have a heaping helping of lamb vindaloo or eggplant biryani, depending on your dietary preferences, with plenty of garlic naan, samosas and pakoras, and mango lassi to wash it all down, between each film. Anything less is just not living the Drishyam experience to it's fullest.

This might be the funniest post I've seen on the ICM forum. I'm dying over here.

[RolandKirkSunglasses]

Ludwig (1973)

Going to watch the 4 hour version just not sure which language: German, Italian or English?

[Fergenaprido]

Ludwig (1973)

Going to watch the 4 hour version just not sure which language: German, Italian or English?

According to wikipedia, the film was recorded in English, and then dubbed in both Italian and German. But then, because the film was extensively cut/censored, the reconstructed 4-hour English version had missing sections, so some of the dialogue was re-recorded or used the original Italian dub for sections.

I'm not sure if that helps with your decision. I haven't seen the film myself.

[RolandKirkSunglasses]

Here a poster says the 3+ hour version was originally screened in English.

You'd assume a film about a Bavarian King warrants a German dub but the German trailer doesn't inspire confidence.





I think switching between English and Italian would become jarring over the course of 4 hours so Italian it is.

[tobias]

As for Ludwig II (1973) the German dub is definitely okay, perhaps a bit sleepy but overall quite suitable. I would also expect many of the German actors dub themselves. The Italian also looks allright. In cases like this I would just about always avoid the english dubs (even if it's supposedly the original shooting language) which tend to suck ass. Watching Mario Bava films in english taught me that much.

[Fergenaprido]

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/a+zori+zdes+tikhie/

The Dawns Here Are Quiet (1972) - The 2.5 hour version or the 3.0 hour version? Both are readily available, but since it's so long I'd rather only watch one version instead of two.

[72aicm]

So, Othello (1951)… Three different versions.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/the ... of+venice/

Should I watch the US/UK one, the European or the 1992 version?

[Fergenaprido]

So, Othello (1951)… Three different versions.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/the ... of+venice/

Should I watch the US/UK one, the European or the 1992 version?

I saw the whichever version Mubi had a few years ago, and was content with it. Not sure which of the three versions it is, though. Even reading about the differences I'm not sure.

[72aicm]

Thanks for the reply Ferge. I went for the European version. It was not ‘it’ for me. But I seriously doubt the other versions would have enhanced my viewing experience.

[Fergenaprido]

The Cat and the Canary (1927).

The version I have is only 1h12m, which I think is the "restored photoplay" version. The original one was apparently 1h48m, and the 36m difference seems like more than just framerate, but I'm not sure. There are 1h20m and 1h40m copies floating around, though of poorer video quality, so I'm wondering which one I should watch. Thanks.

[gunnar]

The Cat and the Canary (1927).

The version I have is only 1h12m, which I think is the "restored photoplay" version. The original one was apparently 1h48m, and the 36m difference seems like more than just framerate, but I'm not sure. There are 1h20m and 1h40m copies floating around, though of poorer video quality, so I'm wondering which one I should watch. Thanks.

I watched one of the 1h24min versions available at the internet archive and was satisfied with it. If you have access to the 1h40min version and the quality isn't too bad, that would probably be a good way to go, but any of them should work. I checked and my library has the restored photoplay version, though it lists the runtime as 80 minutes.

[blocho]

Rarefilmm has a version of Deveti Krug that's 92 minutes.

https://rarefilmm.com/2018/04/deveti-krug-1960/

But IMDb lists it as a 107-minute movie. Does anyone know which is correct?

[gunnar]

Rarefilmm has a version of Deveti Krug that's 92 minutes.

https://rarefilmm.com/2018/04/deveti-krug-1960/

But IMDb lists it as a 107-minute movie. Does anyone know which is correct?

I don't think that a 107 minute version exists now, if it ever did, at least not one that is accessible. The version that I have is also 92 minutes and I've come across several other copies which each have the same runtime. The film hasn't had a proper video release as far as I can tell. A university in Germany has a dvd copy that is supposedly 98 minutes and Harvard has a vhs copy that is supposedly 90 minutes, but I'm guessing that those were made from other sources - perhaps transferred from 16mm copies.

[Fergenaprido]

The version I have from The Weighty Place is also 92 minutes. It was taken from a Croatian TV screening, from what I can tell.

[blocho]

Thanks, gunnar and Ferg. I watched the 92-minute version.

[Lakigigar]

I have the same question as Torgo had 10 years ago, for It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012) by Hertzfeldt.

But reversed, is it legit to check the shorts if you've seen the feature film, given the shorts are all 3 official on IMDb shorts.

[maxwelldeux]

I have the same question as Torgo had 10 years ago, for It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012) by Hertzfeldt.

But reversed, is it legit to check the shorts if you've seen the feature film, given the shorts are all 3 official on IMDb shorts.

I asked the same question when I watched it, and the answer was yes. So I did so.

[Torgo]

Why do I get so many downvotes ;_;

Yes, they're completely the same, check them vice versa

[Torgo]

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) eventually^TM. ('til then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1UF_63KSCE )

Indeed, Criterion did release this long DC in 2019.
2:38h vs. 4:48h - quite the difference.

According to IMDb trivia:
"Wim Wenders' original rough cut for this film was twenty hours long."
"It took 14 years and $23 million for Wim Wenders to bring his vision to the screen, shooting in 15 different cities in seven different countries on four different continents."