dvds are cool aren't they? it's almost difficult remember a time without dvds. the things i love about dvds are:
- the crisp picture and sound (compared to vhs)
- the commentary tracks (hopefully insightful)
- the deleted scenes
- the director's cut
but does a director's cut make a better movie?
can a director's cut of a bad movie make it better?
these questions have been posed in newsgroups and on websites with vehement responses by purists and idiots alike.
when i saw underworld i though, eh ok vampire/werewolve movie. but the review on the link provided made it seem like a whole new more full movie experience then the previous version. boy, do i feel ripped off. it's a different feeling then say the lord of the rings triology where you knew longer versions existed. i just wonder why a movie studio would hesitate to put a better version of a movie out there for public consumption.
as for the exorcist: the beginning [paul schrader] originally directed a version of this movie that might/might not see the light of day. the movie studio (so i hear) thinks schrader's version is too thriller-type scary. i'm sure renny's version is more in-your-face-it's-so-obvious scary. man, what if that is a better movie. i mean, he is a better writer (taxi driver, affliction) and director (affliction, auto focus) than renny harlin (die hard 2, cutthroat island). i've heard they might release both versions on dvd. i hope so.