Sprocket it depends on the film. When I review a film I'm unfamiliar with, it's usually the theatrical cut (unless I've read otherwise) because that's the film that the public by and large saw and either accepted or didn't. These days we get too many "Unrated Extended Versions" of films where they throw a few seconds or minutes of material in, just as a selling point to get people to buy it.sprocket wrote:Andy, I just read you latest Aisle Seat. Can you recommend which version of a movie to watch when there are multiple versions (the theatrical cut, the director's cut, the special edition...).
I always get confused as to which to watch.
Of course, there ARE some Director's Cuts that are better than the theatrical versions -- and sometimes they're not radical "rethinkings" but rather the original version of the film before the studio got involved and meddled with it (like Ridley Scott's LEGEND). On something like I AM LEGEND, the ending of the Director's Cut (or extended cut, whicheever they called it) was hugely different and it sounds like the sequel they're planning is going to use that as a base for its concept (which would be a first!).
It really just depends on the film, but 90% of the time when faced with a choice, and especially if it's a first-time viewing, I choose the theatrical version. I mean, I still prefer the theatrical cut of BLADE RUNNER because that's the one I grew up with and am most familiar with, but it's all up to the individual viewer.