Is there an interview with him in which he tells how he feels about his own film? I've seen some interviews with directors who made a bad movie and realize it.
And this was pretty bad. I wonder what he himself thinks of it.
In his defense...
"Against the wishes of director Kurt Wimmer, the film was completely re-edited by the studio after they saw the original version which they apparently did not like; they saw it as 'too emotional' for the action film they were expecting and re-edited it so there would be more of an emphasis on the action and to cut it down to a PG-13 rating. The edition shortened the film from its original length of 120 minutes to 88 minutes. The director was quite angry about the edition, and many fans agree that it lowered the quality of the film significantly."
(from the IMDb trivia page for this movie)
Thanks, that makes sense.
It's a shame how often something like this happens.
I couldn't agree with you more.
sharethe bits they cut out dont actually make it a bettter film
it was total crap, also the film looked crap too specially the cgi and they cant blame that on editing lol
How do you know? Have you seen the earlier version of the movie? Not the "unrated extended cut" ,but the actual version that was screened two months before release?
shareIt wasnt just cut it was re-edited which can make a massive difference its just a shame that some directors get all the say over there film yet others dont, and even then sometimes when a director gets complete control the movie turns out *beep* just coz they had one hit doesnt mean there that great.
Just look at stephen spielberg, george lucas, james cameron, wes craven, john carpenter just a handfull of big name directors who's films are very hit and miss yet still get free reign to do what they want...........pisses me off sometimes.
All those filmmakers you mentioned delivered big hits, became immensely popular and respected. They have earned their final cut rights. Kurt Wimmer is a John Doe next to them.
Your analogy makes no sense and it is a bit insulting, actually.
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
wow this is an old post, i agree they earned the right to final cuts but my point stands had Kurt been given the chance to make the film he wanted, this could have been his big hit but he wasnt given that opportunity.
Times have changed and directors dont get all the say i still say its unfair on both the movie maker and the viewer..........not everybody wants pg-13 and some movies deserve to keep there adult rating, but we now live in a world where profit comes before art.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature
Would it being longer somehow make the terrible, terrible CG better? Or the lame action scenes better? Or the awful C-grade acting better? Would it make it not about silly vampires and some boy in a briefcase and somehow make it into a story anyone but weirdo Kurt Wimmer thought was interesting?
OMG, we're missing out on a masterpiece!
There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.