okay so i was at blockbuster and they had a 3 for 20 sail going on and i was tryin to pick out my 3 movies. i had 2 picked but i couldnt decide if this should be my 3rd. I saw it in theatres and wasnt that inpressed because of the pacing and the characters felt very cardboard but i heard the directors cut fixes that somewhat. is it worth getting for the directors cut?
share[deleted]
Yes. The director's cut is a better movie. Almost like Alien 3 Special Edition.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.
Have to also agree.
Those 17 minutes of footage are wonderful.
A little break in continuity because of what they added but still makes for a superior movie.
I wish the Talbot werewolf would have killed a bunch of those fools who were listening
to the doctor go on about Talbot being insane....
Talbot only killed the doctor and his idiot assistant after he broke lose from
the wheel chair....more of those people needed to be killed.
well they got the crap scared of them, and they will have to live for the rest of their lives remembering that vicious wolfman attack
I think them witnessing something so horrific was punishment enough lol
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
If I could wish anything different about the movie..its that he kept his word.. When he stated "I will kill all of you!" I wish he completely destroyed them ALL...would have been EPIC and most certainly the most menacing werewolf yet
Not sure if uve heard but..
$hit just got real
-In Nolan/Goyer/Snyder I Trust-
Certainly. The only bad thing is the mention that Talbot was sent a letter by Blunt's character about his brother as this did happen in the theatrical version.
But the DC has a scene where she physically goes to see Talbot to tell him about his brother. But the letter is still mentioned in the rest of the film.
At first I thought it was meant. That when Talbot mentions the letter he was lying to his Father about Blunt getting involved so much that she actually went as far as to see him.
But when Blunt herself mentions sending the letter...then a rather obvious flaw occurs.
www.beardyfreak.com
YES! I watched the edited version in theaters and wasn't impressed, but when I watched the Director's Cut, I fell in love with the movie! It made all the difference for me - added the additional 15 minutes the story needed to come full circle. I can't figure out why they cut it anyway. The film felt too short in theaters.
shareBe it that the director's cut did give some back story (but still not enough for any real character development...I used to like the old Wolf Man because the old LT was so caught up in his own mortality and curing himself), I would say watch the longer version. If anything, just to watch Emily Blunt. I think she was the only one acting well enough to draw an emotional response from me. Everyone else was a bit wooden.
shareI can't understand why they just didn't release the director's cut. It's only about 15/16 minutes longer, so the movie (minus credits) would still be under 2 hours. Most of what they cut is in the first 30 minutes of the movie too, so we're talking about cutting some valuable back-story scenes about the Talbot brothers' mother, Lawrence's indifference to his family, his trip back home, and a few very suspenseful minutes from the initial werewolf chase scene at the gypsy camp when Lawrence is hunting the wolf in the stone structure.
I had hear rumors the studio wanted to cut it down, but it makes no sense why they would want to do that. I really became immersed in the director's cut.