patientzero I really like your way of describing the movies you've seen by their defining moments. It's super interesting. I might adopt something similar for my reviews :)
isn't the 150 minute cut the one that was originally released theatrically? I thought the whole story with the thing was that the longer version didn't even get a widespread release until the restoration several years ago and that's why it got a critical reevaluation.Whoever picks the old movie selection for Showtime/The Movie Channel must be absolutely insane. Scrolling through my channel guide late last night to see what's playing on the Showtime channels and notice that TMC is playing Heaven's Gate. Thinking to myself "wow, they really showing that". Turns out, it's not the original 3+ hour version, but a version that's only 2hr 30mins. Two things popped into my head: 1) What the fuck, there's a shorter version? and 2) Why the fuck would you bother airing this if it isn't the original version?
Checked Showtime on Demand and sure enough, they had the movie listed until the end of the month. I don't have TMC, but do have Showtime so I decided to give the short cut a quick peek. Immediately, I'm already puzzled by this version. You cut a movie that was already long down to 150 mins and you thought it would be a good idea to add a fucking overture. WHY? Even Cimino with his over-sized ego didn't include an overture in the original. I didn't stick around to watch the entire Harvard sequence, but it looks like some voiced dialogue was added in. The person in the carriage says something to Averill as he runs past it and later Averill asks Billy if he'll come with him to Wyoming. Pretty sure those weren't in the original (been a while since I've seen it)
There's no way in hell I'll even bother to watch the short cut. Even if I don't think the movie is particularly great, I'll stick with the original cut.
Interesting that this film was the one that popularized the concept of the director's cut.The version screened at the November 1980 premiere ran three hours and 39 minutes. Bridges joked that Cimino had worked on the film so close to the premiere that the print screened was still wet from the lab. After the aborted one-week premiere run in New York, Cimino and United Artists pulled the film...Cimino's second edited version, a 149-minute version, premiered in April 1981 and was the only cut of the film screened in wide release.
...
In 1982, Z Channel aired the 219-minute 1980 premiere version of the film on cable television – the first time that the longer version was widely exhibited – and which Z Channel dubbed the "director's cut." As critic F.X. Feeney noted in the documentary Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession, Z Channel's broadcast of Heaven's Gate first popularized the concept of a "director's cut."
...
The 216-minute version shown in Venice is quite similar to the 219-minute version, but with no intermission...In 2012, MGM released yet another version, digitally restored and 216 minutes long. It premiered at the 2012 Venice Film Festival as part of the Venice Classics series.[66][67]
The Criterion Collection released the restored 216 minute version on Blu-ray Disc and DVD on November 20, 2012. This "Director's Cut" was personally supervised by Michael Cimino and Joann Carelli. Cimino explains in the special features portion of the DVD that this is his preferred version of the film, and he feels it is the complete version he intended to make.
It was the one that wound up hitting theaters, but the one that was screened for critics that received Vincent Canby's most notorious line in a review (the "unqualified disaster" bit) was the longer version.isn't the 150 minute cut the one that was originally released theatrically? I thought the whole story with the thing was that the longer version didn't even get a widespread release until the restoration several years ago and that's why it got a critical reevaluation.
During that one-week preview? Gotcha. Quite a timeline and bevy of cuts to make sense of with that movie!It was the one that wound up hitting theaters, but the one that was screened for critics that received Vincent Canby's most notorious line in a review (the "unqualified disaster" bit) was the longer version.
I think I have my 31 Days of Horror list ready, any of you maniacs or horror aficionados might taking a look and telling if there are any big no-no's on there? Thanks!
Baby Face (1933): Early Barbara Stanwyck vehicle where she plays a down-on-her-luck bootlegger's daughter who gets a lecture on using Nietzschean philosophy from a cobbler and decides to use her sexuality to manipulate men and climb the socio-economic ladder. The film is notable mainly for how brazenly sexual it is; starting about a year later, a lot of this stuff would have been unimaginable in an American film until the 1960s. Despite Stanwyck's strong performance (as you'd expect, she digs into this character), her rise is depicted in a pretty repetitive format otherwise (and she finds and discards men so easily that there's no real drama or stakes). But the biggest problem comes in the final third, where an unconvincing redemption arc occurs; the filmmakers hang way too much on the boring-as-hell George Brent.
One of the guys that Stanwyck manipulates is a young John Wayne, incidentally -- playing a boyish office drone, so quite unlike how you're used to seeing him.
Thanks! Addams Family is just for some light breezy day when I need some relief from all the horror and despair, and The Girl Who Knows Too Much is mostly just because I want a Bava movie on my list.
Hereditary gets pretty gory at points, but it's not really a jump scare kind of movie. Still, it's worth a shot. Not too well-versed in horror so I don't have many suggestions. A Quiet Place is alright.What's a good horror flick that's pretty easy on jump scares and the gory stuff?
I'm currently eyeing Hereditary, The Quiet Place and The Ritual.
Hereditary is very character-focused, but it can get quite gory at times. A Quiet Place is PG-13, so it relies more on jump scares than violence. The Ritual is not crazy violent but knows when to step on the gas when appropriate, though if you're someone that's seen backwoods monster movies before, you might be a bit annoyed at how dutifully it hits every single trope for that particular sub-genre. That one has a fantastic monster, though!What's a good horror flick that's pretty easy on jump scares and the gory stuff?
I'm currently eyeing Hereditary, The Quiet Place and The Ritual.
IMDB says it was filmed in 1.66:1 though? From Russia To Love looks right to me.Come on TCM, you've shown the Sean Connery 007 movies before in letterbox. Why the hell you showing the first two in fullscreen?
This sounds dope, want to check it out.Baby Face (1933): Early Barbara Stanwyck vehicle where she plays a down-on-her-luck bootlegger's daughter who gets a lecture on using Nietzschean philosophy from a cobbler and decides to use her sexuality to manipulate men and climb the socio-economic ladder. The film is notable mainly for how brazenly sexual it is; starting about a year later, a lot of this stuff would have been unimaginable in an American film until the 1960s. Despite Stanwyck's strong performance (as you'd expect, she digs into this character), her rise is depicted in a pretty repetitive format otherwise (and she finds and discards men so easily that there's no real drama or stakes). But the biggest problem comes in the final third, where an unconvincing redemption arc occurs; the filmmakers hang way too much on the boring-as-hell George Brent.
One of the guys that Stanwyck manipulates is a young John Wayne, incidentally -- playing a boyish office drone, so quite unlike how you're used to seeing him.
You're telling me the Man Bites Dog people made a problematic film??it's hard to know just how well one particular running joke plays given the obvious problematic qualities to it
To be fair, I did feel that they never were above the material in Man Bites Dog and it was a rather canny move on their part to acknowledge that they themselves were as much a part of the problem through casting themselves in their respective roles. Hell, I'll just link my review I did almost two years ago.You're telling me the Man Bites Dog people made a problematic film??
🐐This is a truly wonderful film. Going through Agnès Varda's catalogue of films has been incredible so far. Can't wait to watch more.
Imagine Jesse James with a good actor instead of Casey. It could have been something else.
Good writeup, the editing/sequencing in the film really is perfect.One Sings, the Other Doesn't
One Sings, the Other Doesn't is both heartwarming and melancholic. With beautiful, colorful photography and whispered folk songs, Agnès Varda and the rest of the filmmakers tell a story that is very moving and is just as involving as it probably was back when it was first released. The two women who anchor this film start their friendship through tragedy, but this film is smart enough to go beyond that. Their friendship is strengthened though the editing; the film makes associations between their separate experiences through short interludes highlighting the postcards they send each other. This technique helps their friendship transcend physical boundaries into an emotional, ephemeral connection. One Sings, the Other Doesn't portrays Pauline/Apple and Suzanne's experiences as nuanced and complicated; they are not static characters. They struggle to find what they want out of life and why they want it. Valerie Mairesse and Therese Liotard's performances do justice to the writing, and imbue their characters with a great sense of emotional weight.
This is a truly wonderful film. Going through Agnès Varda's catalogue of films has been incredible so far. Can't wait to watch more.
Imagine Jesse James with a good actor instead of Casey. It could have been something else.