Director's Cuts

So I was watching the AFI's newest "Top 100" list (which I will comment on later) and I saw something that caught my eye in the commercials. A REALLY cool trailer for "Blade Runner: The Final Edit." Frankly, I have very mixed feelings about this.

Generally, I like checking out director's cuts. In some cases, the director got screwed by the studio, and he wasn't able to make the film he wanted to make. This was the case with Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" for example, and in this case the director's cut is vastly superior to the studio version. This is ALSO the case with Blade Runner. "Blade Runner: The Director's Cut" (the version I have) is an unbelievably fantastic and well-made piece of dark cinematic magic, and has a far more interesting and ambiguous ending than the version originally released in theaters.

Sometimes, the director wasn't screwed by the studio at all, but the "additional DVD versions" of the movies are still interesting and fun to check out. The extended versions of "The Lord of the Rings" I enjoy even more than the versions released in theaters, but that is partially because I am a die-hard fan. And Peter Jackson freely admits that the versions seen in theaters are the "preferred" versions, but that these extended versions are mainly for the fans, and just another interpretation of the movie. And I enjoyed George Lucas' special editions of "Star Wars" because they expanded the universe a bit more than he was able to do in 1977.

But that's where the buck sorta stops. I enjoyed Lucas' tweaking of the Star Wars movies once...but his second tweak for the DVD release really ticked me off (mainly due to Hadyn's addition at the end of ROTJ). It's fine if you want to touch-up your movies once for fun, but doing so over and over again until it is unrecognizable is uncalled for. ESPECIALLY if your movies are regarded as some of the greatest fantasy epics of all time, and historical LANDMARKS in the history of filmmaking. And ESB and ROTJ weren't even George Lucas' movies! It's like having Leonardo go and do touch-ups on Michaelangelo's David! And this was already after Lucas had somewhat cheapened his Star Wars universe with some slightly shoddy prequels. Please, if you absolutely MUST come out with an alternate version of your film, only do so ONCE.

I like to think that there is a definitive version of every movie that is made, and hopefully that version is the version that everyone gets to see released in theaters. If the studio screwed you over, go ahead and release the version you wanted on DVD. But do it once. These days, EVERY movie, including crap like "American Pie XIX," has multiple versions of it in the video store, and I don't like it. Figure out what you want in your movie (in the THEATER if you can!), and then leave it alone. Let it stand, including all of its flaws, as a piece of filmmaking for that year. Occasionally those flaws may even add a bit more life to it.

In cases like "Blade Runner" and "Brazil" I think director's cuts are highly encouraged. But in cases like "E.T." and "Close Encounters," all should be left alone. Let them stand as the movies they were--"E.T." works NOT because E.T. looks realistic as he runs (like a CGI doodad) through the forest. E.T. works because we love him and care about the relationship between him and Elliot, and are sad to see him go at the end. And no CGI trickery or walkie-talkies replacing guns is going to change that.

Now, for "Blade Runner," I'm waiting to judge, but I think Ridley Scott already hit his mark with his director's cut the first time around. I don't think he needs to do anything else. But I'll wait and see. I'm just saying that I think a movie that came out 25 years ago, and was retouched about 10 years ago, should be left alone. It's pretty damn good in the version I have in my DVD case right now.

Now, time to change gears. A brief bit about the AFI list itself. I thought the list was OK, but a bit redundant seeing as they already did this same thing ten years ago. And as I recall, there wasn't too much that was different about it (they did throw "Lord of the Rings" into the mix, which was nice). Generally, they went for films that had a lot of historical context, which was fine by me. I was also happy to see them respect a number of the classics. I expected ONE Charlie Chaplin film to make the grade, but I was excited to see them put all three of his best in the list. I DID think they included WAYYYYY to much Martin Scorsese stuff, because I've never been a big fan of him at all, but that's just the way things go. For some reason critics go ga-ga over him.

What IS a damn shame is that there weren't any foreign films on the list. This is the AMERICAN film institute, but since they bill this as "The 100 Greatest Films of All Time" they make it seem like only Americans make good Hollywood movies. And that is simply not true. Surely a Kurosawa film deserves a high spot on the list, or a Sergio Leone spaghetti western? Also, some genres are poorly represented on these sort of things, and there were a few movies I was sad to see not make the cut. And even for the movies that did make the list, some should have been ranked differently than they were (honestly, how do you not put "To Kill a Mockingbird" in the top ten? The fifteen-second CLIP they showed put lump in my throat!). But nobody is ever going to agree on these movie-ranking things, and they're mainly just for fun. So I guess all I can say is...whatever. It was fun to watch and remember some good classic films, and bitch and argue about a few that SHOULDN'T be classics. In another post I may write my thoughts on each individual movie, but for NOW...

A review of "Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer"!
I haven't seen the first Fantastic Four movie, and I was REALLY reluctant to see this one, but I got dragged to it by some friends. I actually had a good time. It was an incredibly by-the-numbers superhero flick, being full of cliches, totally predictable, and WAY too short (only an hour and a half?). But it was at least better than both "Pirates 3" and "Spidey 3" because it didn't TRY to be anything other than a popcorn flick, and it also had a story that was COHERANT. Both Spidey 3 and Pirates 3 suffered by taking themselves a little too seriously, and by having convoluted plots. Jessica Alba and Stretchy Man were pretty bland, but Rock Man and The Human Torch were really enjoyable to watch, and The Silver Surfer was really cool in the way he zoomed around on his board. Also, the Human Torch's love interest was pretty hot too. I'm not saying I am recommending this movie, but I am saying that I did find it to be some mindless fun, and if you catch it on TV in the future when you're bored, you might enjoy sitting through the rest of it.

Catch ya later, filmgoers!