movies
Dark City Director's Cut
(+) concept
(+) story
(+) characters
(+) dialog - Although worse than the original cut.
(+) pacing
(+) cinematography
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music
(+) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - I don't really see the cause for making a director's cut. Most of the changes are little, adding a line or two of dialog here and there that contributes nothing and sometimes makes the flow of the scene awkward. There's a lot more explaining in this version, of things that never needed explaining; just sort of introducing details for the sake of explaining them.
There are only two significant differences that I noticed: the opening narration is removed and the prostitute character has a daugher. Both of these changes were improvements, although you could make an argument against them. The narration was unnecessary, and not having some reference point for what's going on at the start of the movie makes the first hour or so very different -- unless you've seen the movie already, in which case it makes no change at all -- not really better or worse, just different. The daughter character has two effects. First, you don't know if Murdoch left the apartment because he's not a murderer, or if he left because he was startled by the kid. In this version, you never have anything but Murdoch's word that he's not a murderer, which I think is a bad change to make since Sewell's performance never really gives you room to doubt it anyway. Second, she witnesses Mr. Hand killing her mother, so Bumstead has a concrete reason to think Murdoch is innocent, which is definitely a change for the better; and seeing a child's drawing of the strangers is a nice touch.
There aren't any really big changes, so my annoyance at the whole increasingly-difficult-to-see-movies-in-their-original-form business asside, it's still a great movie. Why don't they make directors cuts of bad movies? Instead of fucking with something people already like?
Total: 10/10
- - -
from IMDb's Top 250:
#223. In the Heat of the Night, Norman Jewison (dir.), Stirling Silliphant (wr.), Sidney Poitier, 1967.
(+) concept - If you don't know anything about this movie, watch it without reading any synopses.
(+) story
(+) characters
(+) dialog
(+) pacing
(-) cinematography
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music
(+) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - Nice movie.
Total: 9/10
#218. Anatomy of a Murder, Otto Preminger (dir.), Wendell Mayes (wr.), James Stewart, 1959.
(-) concept - Guy shoots somebody, Jimmy Stewart is his lawyer; doesn't sound like much when you describe it.
(+) story - Somehow they managed to make a three hour legal drama that's good enough to hold my interest continuously.
(+) characters
(+) dialog
(+) pacing
(-) cinematography - Very good, but it's just not a visuals sort of movie.
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music - Duke Ellington.
(+) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - Nice movie.
Total: 8/10
#217. Dial M for Murder, Alfred Hitchcock (dir.), Frederick Knott (wr.), Ray Milland, 1954.
(+) concept - A man's intricate plots to kill his wife unfold. Yeah, that's right, I just used the word "unfold."
(-) story - I hate stage writing. It's a great plot, but it's written with zero craft. Have I mentioned that I hate stage writing? Because I hate stage writing. Hey, Alfred, you want to film a play? THEN ADAPT IT!
(-) characters - Meh.
(-) dialog - Long monologues describing things that happened off stage/camera might be lazy storytelling for a play, but in a movie? Seriously?
(+) pacing
(+) cinematography - This movie was filmed well enough that most people don't seem to even notice the horrible quality of the writing.
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music - Not great, but used effectively enough in a few places to get a point.
(-) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - It's watchable. Nowhere near as bad as Rope. Really, it's just the one point of very obviously and awkwardly not being written for the screen that ruins it. I'd almost even say it's a good movie, but when there's a fault so glaring that came about purely out of laziness, I just can't bring myself to do it.
Total: 6/10
(+) concept
(+) story
(+) characters
(+) dialog - Although worse than the original cut.
(+) pacing
(+) cinematography
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music
(+) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - I don't really see the cause for making a director's cut. Most of the changes are little, adding a line or two of dialog here and there that contributes nothing and sometimes makes the flow of the scene awkward. There's a lot more explaining in this version, of things that never needed explaining; just sort of introducing details for the sake of explaining them.
There are only two significant differences that I noticed: the opening narration is removed and the prostitute character has a daugher. Both of these changes were improvements, although you could make an argument against them. The narration was unnecessary, and not having some reference point for what's going on at the start of the movie makes the first hour or so very different -- unless you've seen the movie already, in which case it makes no change at all -- not really better or worse, just different. The daughter character has two effects. First, you don't know if Murdoch left the apartment because he's not a murderer, or if he left because he was startled by the kid. In this version, you never have anything but Murdoch's word that he's not a murderer, which I think is a bad change to make since Sewell's performance never really gives you room to doubt it anyway. Second, she witnesses Mr. Hand killing her mother, so Bumstead has a concrete reason to think Murdoch is innocent, which is definitely a change for the better; and seeing a child's drawing of the strangers is a nice touch.
There aren't any really big changes, so my annoyance at the whole increasingly-difficult-to-see-movies-in-their-original-form business asside, it's still a great movie. Why don't they make directors cuts of bad movies? Instead of fucking with something people already like?
Total: 10/10
- - -
from IMDb's Top 250:
#223. In the Heat of the Night, Norman Jewison (dir.), Stirling Silliphant (wr.), Sidney Poitier, 1967.
(+) concept - If you don't know anything about this movie, watch it without reading any synopses.
(+) story
(+) characters
(+) dialog
(+) pacing
(-) cinematography
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music
(+) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - Nice movie.
Total: 9/10
#218. Anatomy of a Murder, Otto Preminger (dir.), Wendell Mayes (wr.), James Stewart, 1959.
(-) concept - Guy shoots somebody, Jimmy Stewart is his lawyer; doesn't sound like much when you describe it.
(+) story - Somehow they managed to make a three hour legal drama that's good enough to hold my interest continuously.
(+) characters
(+) dialog
(+) pacing
(-) cinematography - Very good, but it's just not a visuals sort of movie.
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music - Duke Ellington.
(+) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - Nice movie.
Total: 8/10
#217. Dial M for Murder, Alfred Hitchcock (dir.), Frederick Knott (wr.), Ray Milland, 1954.
(+) concept - A man's intricate plots to kill his wife unfold. Yeah, that's right, I just used the word "unfold."
(-) story - I hate stage writing. It's a great plot, but it's written with zero craft. Have I mentioned that I hate stage writing? Because I hate stage writing. Hey, Alfred, you want to film a play? THEN ADAPT IT!
(-) characters - Meh.
(-) dialog - Long monologues describing things that happened off stage/camera might be lazy storytelling for a play, but in a movie? Seriously?
(+) pacing
(+) cinematography - This movie was filmed well enough that most people don't seem to even notice the horrible quality of the writing.
(+) special effects/design
(+) acting
(+) music - Not great, but used effectively enough in a few places to get a point.
(-) What does Mr. Comfypants think? - It's watchable. Nowhere near as bad as Rope. Really, it's just the one point of very obviously and awkwardly not being written for the screen that ruins it. I'd almost even say it's a good movie, but when there's a fault so glaring that came about purely out of laziness, I just can't bring myself to do it.
Total: 6/10