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.

my current rant on this is based on two upcoming dvds/films: [underworld] and [exorcist: the beginning] the latter has yet to be released theatrically ( i’ll get into that in bit).

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.