Comments on: Fearless: Director’s Cut. This movie just got lots better. Out Tuesday. (********8/10)

By: eric

eric — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:27:46 +0000

Not only that - I didn’t mention this in the review, but Michelle Yeoh, one of the few Asian actresses North American audiences might recognize, actually shows up in this version for about three minutes at the very beginning. Why cut that three minutes? Put it in the trailers so thirty extra people will be deceived into attending your film!

By: eric

eric — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:25:53 +0000

I completely agree. Every now and then, you find something like this where the difference is huge. The thing is - more often than not, the director’s cut is irrelevant. Just some kind of vanity thing for the director, whether he’s any good or not. (Check out my review of the director’s cut of “Alone In The Dark”.) Even “Apocalypse Now” was no better when the “full” version was released. But with films like “Fearless”, the problem is that they are edited for time, not content. The movie comes overseas to North America, and the studio says “people don’t watch movies that are more than 105 minutes” and they make sure that they have a movie that’s less than two hours. All they have to do is cut out enough stuff while still making sure it makes sense. Asian films that make it to theatres here in Canada and the States are the ones where you should look for director’s cuts most often.

By: peijin

peijin — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:30:31 +0000

if the director’s cut is as good as you say, it really makes me wonder why things are so “inverted”–of course, theatrical releases have to follow more rules and appeal, in some sense, to the lowest common denominator. I don’t mind hunting director’s cuts, but sometimes i wish they’d save me some hassle and just release the better film first, in the theaters, where its most accessible to me and other people. ok done whining.