I always thought that 'The Deer Hunter' could have lost the first hour easily.They are mates,we get it,no need for the long drawn out wedding stuff!
Agree on Peter Jacksons 'King Kong' too.First hour is wasted,not 'atmospeheric' and giving the characters a back story.Who cares,most of them are gonna die in a minute anyway!
I agree with others on Gone With The Wind, The Deer Hunter, Peter Jackson's King Kong and Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy.
But I've never felt that Django Unchained needed to be cut down. A lot of people point to the last half hour as being ripe for cutting, but I don't particularly understand this. Do they mean it should have ended with Django's capture at the end of the shoot-out at the Big House? Or do they just mean the journey it took between then and Django getting his revenge? But then how would they have filled in the gap? As I say, the length worked fine for me - all I would have cut was Quentin Tarantino's atrocious cameo.
Hmm, about 90% of the suggestions so far seem to be people simply not liking 'slow bits' or 'talky bits'. Or segments that wonderfully set the mood of a film without dialogue, etc. Not all films can be Speed with Keanu Reeves.
But I do agree a little bit about Malick, he perhaps goes beyond casual exposition a bit too often - and that's coming from someone who really likes his films. Also agree about the opening act of Deer Hunter, but not to the extent where I think it's actually a real fault of the film.
The Deer Hunter is a stonewall classic with or without that wedding scene.
But I've never felt that Django Unchained needed to be cut down. A lot of people point to the last half hour as being ripe for cutting, but I don't particularly understand this. Do they mean it should have ended with Django's capture at the end of the shoot-out at the Big House? Or do they just mean the journey it took between then and Django getting his revenge? But then how would they have filled in the gap? As I say, the length worked fine for me - all I would have cut was Quentin Tarantino's atrocious cameo.
I think everything after the massive fight, have Django win rather than being captured.
I agree with others on Gone With The Wind, The Deer Hunter, Peter Jackson's King Kong and Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy.
I can't see how Gone With the Wind could have been shortened. As it was, I think they did a fantastic job of retaining enough of the book to keep the movie coherent - and still about 60% of the content was unable to be included (such as some really good scenes and minor characters).
I completely agree with King Kong, though. There was absolutely no need for much of the dull, extraneous narrative in Jackson's film.
LOTR: Return of the King
The movie was great, but as mentioned it didnt know when to end.
The coronation - surely this is the end?
The grey havens - surely this is the end?
Sam goes off - is this the end?
FFS!
I can't see how Gone With the Wind could have been shortened. As it was, I think they did a fantastic job of retaining enough of the book to keep the movie coherent - and still about 60% of the content was unable to be included (such as some really good scenes and minor characters).
Hmm, well that's the thing - I haven't actually read the book.
We were studying civil rights in post-civil war America as part of our History A-Level, and my History teacher (knowing I liked films) gave it to me to watch in order to give me a feel of the period, and because it's widely considered to be a classic and all that.
But I wasn't particularly impressed by it, mainly due to the running time, I feel. I don't usually mind long films, but this one was a struggle even for me - almost four hours, for Christ's sake! I haven't seen it for a while, so I can't exactly pin-point what the cut-off point should have been. Perhaps if I read the book and then watch it again, I'd feel differently. But watching it for the first time (without any real prior knowledge of the story) it didn't really grab me. I'd be happy to give it another go though!
Hmm, well that's the thing - I haven't actually read the book.
We were studying civil rights in post-civil war America as part of our History A-Level, and my History teacher (knowing I liked films) gave it to me to watch in order to give me a feel of the period, and because it's widely considered to be a classic and all that.
But I wasn't particularly impressed by it, mainly due to the running time, I feel. I don't usually mind long films, but this one was a struggle even for me - almost four hours, for Christ's sake! I haven't seen it for a while, so I can't exactly pin-point what the cut-off point should have been. Perhaps if I read the book and then watch it again, I'd feel differently. But watching it for the first time (without any real prior knowledge of the story) it didn't really grab me. I'd be happy to give it another go though!
I'd definitely recommend giving it another go. The book is better - but be warned; it's 1,024 pages long! The movie, by contrast, skips through the major events at a great rate of knots - especially towards the end, when the timeline is somewhat telescoped. To me, it doesn't feel like an overly long film probably because so much is missing. That, and I never fail to be involved with the characters. It's a movie of two halves, though - the Civil War and Reconstruction. Make use of the intermission.
I always thought that 'The Deer Hunter' could have lost the first hour easily.They are mates,we get it,no need for the long drawn out wedding stuff!
Talking of Cimino, I recently seen the 4 hour version of Heaven's Gate...
While it looks fantastic and is more coherent than a lot of the other versions, it's easy to see why the studio wanted to do some cutting (not that they did a good job).
Apocalyse Now Delux - again looks and sounds great but there's at least 30 mins that while midly interesting really just slows the movie down.
I havent read the Gone with the Wind book either - I didnt realise the book was so long, if supposedly 50+ of it was cut and the movie is still 4 hours long!
I havent read the Gone with the Wind book either - I didnt realise the book was so long, if supposedly 50+ of it was cut and the movie is still 4 hours long!
It's a fantastic book and well worth the read but even the most sympathetic characters are racists which isn't shown in the film.
Comments
Hah! Beat me to it.:D
But I've never felt that Django Unchained needed to be cut down. A lot of people point to the last half hour as being ripe for cutting, but I don't particularly understand this. Do they mean it should have ended with Django's capture at the end of the shoot-out at the Big House? Or do they just mean the journey it took between then and Django getting his revenge? But then how would they have filled in the gap? As I say, the length worked fine for me - all I would have cut was Quentin Tarantino's atrocious cameo.
But I do agree a little bit about Malick, he perhaps goes beyond casual exposition a bit too often - and that's coming from someone who really likes his films. Also agree about the opening act of Deer Hunter, but not to the extent where I think it's actually a real fault of the film.
The Deer Hunter is a stonewall classic with or without that wedding scene.
I think everything after the massive fight, have Django win rather than being captured.
I can't see how Gone With the Wind could have been shortened. As it was, I think they did a fantastic job of retaining enough of the book to keep the movie coherent - and still about 60% of the content was unable to be included (such as some really good scenes and minor characters).
I completely agree with King Kong, though. There was absolutely no need for much of the dull, extraneous narrative in Jackson's film.
The movie was great, but as mentioned it didnt know when to end.
The coronation - surely this is the end?
The grey havens - surely this is the end?
Sam goes off - is this the end?
FFS!
http://youtu.be/AxAEo3CWeq8?t=2m19s
Hmm, well that's the thing - I haven't actually read the book.
We were studying civil rights in post-civil war America as part of our History A-Level, and my History teacher (knowing I liked films) gave it to me to watch in order to give me a feel of the period, and because it's widely considered to be a classic and all that.
But I wasn't particularly impressed by it, mainly due to the running time, I feel. I don't usually mind long films, but this one was a struggle even for me - almost four hours, for Christ's sake! I haven't seen it for a while, so I can't exactly pin-point what the cut-off point should have been. Perhaps if I read the book and then watch it again, I'd feel differently. But watching it for the first time (without any real prior knowledge of the story) it didn't really grab me. I'd be happy to give it another go though!
I'd definitely recommend giving it another go. The book is better - but be warned; it's 1,024 pages long! The movie, by contrast, skips through the major events at a great rate of knots - especially towards the end, when the timeline is somewhat telescoped. To me, it doesn't feel like an overly long film probably because so much is missing. That, and I never fail to be involved with the characters. It's a movie of two halves, though - the Civil War and Reconstruction. Make use of the intermission.
Talking of Cimino, I recently seen the 4 hour version of Heaven's Gate...
While it looks fantastic and is more coherent than a lot of the other versions, it's easy to see why the studio wanted to do some cutting (not that they did a good job).
Apocalyse Now Delux - again looks and sounds great but there's at least 30 mins that while midly interesting really just slows the movie down.
It's a fantastic book and well worth the read but even the most sympathetic characters are racists which isn't shown in the film.