MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
tldr - the extra scenes take the momentum out of the story or take away the transition scenes which I felt worked better in the 229 minute version
And that's not taking anything away from these scenes, which are still great. I think what they did is known in the biz as "cutting muscle"
I can see why every one of the deleted scenes was initially cut. And it's a shame because I'd been looking forward to finally seeing them since I first watched the film!
Lb2121 summarises them nicely above.
(1) Going immediately from the key in the tomb to their old locker is brilliant, and the extended version takes this away
(2) One of the best things about the film for me is the creative way in which they cut between the past/present/future scenes. The car landing in the water being immediately followed by TV footage of the exploded car being hosed down just works a lot better (in my opinion) that what they show in the extended version. Plus Noodles already being at the Bailey mansion in the daytime just takes a lot of mystique away from him finally going there at the end
(3) The driver being so appalled by Noodles' behaviour that he stops the car and refuses his money is powerful enough. In fact, knowing that the driver already has some animosity towards Noodles kinda takes the edge off it.
(4) I mentioned this in a thread about Eve, the scene just takes all the momentum out of Deborah's departure
(5) Cutting straight from the picture of Deborah in the Bailey Foundation to her in the dressing room removing her make up just works better (again, my opinion), and I also feel her "terrific" performance as Cleopatra was better left to the audience's imagination
(6) I like the fact that Max/Bailey's involvement with the unions and their wish for him to disappear is only implied in the 229 min version. In the 251 min, it's spelled out for the audience and seeing Max/Bailey actually interacting with someone else from their past (think there's a bit when Treat Williams even says something like "i've known you for 35 years") just takes away any possible illusion that Max & Bailey could be different people, something Noodles chooses to go with when he leaves.
I think they cut it because in the original cut, it goes from that brilliant panoramic shot of Noodles after being kicked out of the car to Deborah being on the train without missing a beat of the "Deborah's Theme" music.
The music, plus showing her literally pulling the shutter down on him immediately after the unspeakable scene is very powerful.
In the extended edition, as well as the scene mentioned above, it also shows Deborah in the station restaurant before making her way to the train (presumably so they had time to build the music up again). It takes all the momentum out of this scene.
They could maybe have shown it as some kind of flashback scene later on - maybe when Max is telling Noodles that Cockeye found him "so doped up (he) didn't even recognise him" but then it would be a flashback within a flashback within a flashback etc.
Besides, she doesn't add a great deal to the story and it's maybe better left to the audience's imagination - until I saw the extended scene I just thought Noodles had moved on and met a nice normal girl in Miami
it was part of his betrayal of Noodles - "I took you money, I took your girl".
That said he must have only taken up with Deborah nearly 20 years after initially disappearing so he was clearly going for the "long game"! Even more implausible (if you buy that the 1968 scenes are real and not Noodles' opium fantasy) is that Moe hadn't met or seen a picture of his sister's partner at least once during this time - I know he said he "hadn't seen her in years" but still.
as well argued as this is, I don't know that it had anything to do with Noodles rejecting Max's scheme for big money. He showed he was against joining or working for "the combination" in earlier scenes ("if we're not careful, he's gonna have us in the palm of his hand"....."didn't like bosses. It was a good idea then. It still is" etc)
His bond with the rest of the gang was damaged after the incident with Deborah though. Could be that they knew he'd raped Moe's sister, or Noodles was wary about if they knew or not, or, from what I can interpret, Noodles himself was feeling guilty or affected by what had happened and so acted more withdrawn and distant. Could be a combination of all of the above.
the one Noodles shoots when he's waiting for the lift to come down looks awfully like one of the guys in Burt Young's crew - also shot by Noodles (in the pillow factory) - more weight to the dream theory? Or just a co-incidence that the 2 actors look alike?
He's saying it in the context of him thinking Moe had stolen the money - $1,000,000 in 1933 - he wouldn't still be running a bar in his old age if he'd had access to that kind of money.
Also last time Noodles saw him, in the 30's, the establishment took up the entire building and Moe had a house separately. Now he's had to sell his home and most of the building, leaving him with only the bar itself and a couple of small rooms where he has to live. I also get the impression (and I could be wrong) that he couldn't afford to lose the business or not to run it himself, could be operating at a loss etc,
So in the grand scheme of things, running a cafe/bar in the late 60s doesn't sound too bad. In the context of how much money/business they had in the 30s and that he might have stolen the million, it would be considered "on his ass".
Incidentally the early line that annoys me is when Eve asks "what are you gonna do to him"? Seriously?! What does she think they're gonna do to him?!
what I don't get is why it took so long for it to happen. The Batts incident happened in 1970, they had to dig the body up and move it several months later, then Henry goes to jail for over 4 years, then there's another year or so for Luftansa and the aftermath of that, so you're looking at at least 6 years between murdering Batts and Tommy's murder. It's not exactly setting an example about not touching made guys!
I can only assume Tommy had done something in the months leading up to his death that Henry didn't even know about, and that was the final straw for the bosses, hence the "bunch of other things".
For me, the movie, or at least the 50s part of the movie, should have ended with the narration while they're walking back after the showdown with Ace.
Adult Gordy could easily have mentioned the part about when happened to Teddy and Vern during this.
The scenes when they get back to Castle Rock are very awkward and take all the momentum out of the story. Plus, the uncomfortable silences followed by the adult Gordy talking about how they saw less and less of each other, could lead the viewer to think that they'd fallen out during the events of the 2/3 days we're shown in the movie. Hence this thread!
thanks for the reply. I thought they also mentioned him doing a stint for armed robbery too?
I was going to ask the same question, not about the killing, but why he didn't put up any resistance at all when they initially "kidnapped" him
First time i watched it I didn’t know about this unwritten rule that cops are off limits. So when Michael says “where does it say you can’t kill a cop” i’m thinking ahem..the law?!
So I now appreciate how glorious Michael’s speech is here –by getting so actively involved with Solozzo’s business, McCluskey lost his right to the usual protection from the mafia, that bumping him off wouldn’t have the stigma of a cop killing. If they can use their newspaper connections to make it public knowledge that McCluskey was effectively a “gangster” too, and not some innocent cop who was just doing his job, then they could get him and Solozzo out of the way without losing too much face.
Nothing to do with the main thread I know. Sorry!
the amount of times I've watched this film and I hadn't even thought about that! Someone's already mentioned Sonny's death on this thread - for me that would have changed everything in the sense that it would now be up to Michael to take over the family business, rather than how the event (and Apolonia's murder) may have changed Michael personally.
And with the don's declining health, it meant he had to take up the reigns pretty quickly after he'd settled back in America.
Had Sonny lived maybe Michael could have just come home and lay low and left the gangster stuff to him....then again it was Sonny's death that prompted the Don to call an end to the war so that Michael could come home, otherwise he's staying in Sicily for much longer!
my understanding is that by the time Sinatra wanted to go solo, his celebrity status and clout within the industry were such that he could persuade radio stations not to play Tommy Dorsey or ask his bobby-soxer fans not to buy their records etc if he didn't release him from the contract.
So there were ways to strong arm the band leader without threatening violence or sending mob-men around. Still a great story though
You said yourself, Kenneth's understandably angry with Ronald for ditching him - consequently he'll be hoping that he's unsuccessful and/or makes a fool of himself when trying to "hang with the cool kids" and is miffed when he doesn't.
Further, I think Kenneth's motives with Patti were simply because he fancies Patti - I don't think he particularly wanted to be friends with the entire popular crowd, especially the guys, because to Kenneth they were jerks who'd trashed his house for at least a couple of Halloweens before the s*** incident. We're not shown enough though about how Kenneth started tutoring Patti to know.
I would say Ronnie's speech when he saves Kenneth's a** explains the difference in their method.
I'd also argue that it still wasn't considered "ok" because Quinton was ready to deck him for sitting there, and the other jocks made no attempt to stop him even after Cindy pleaded with them (in fact it was the blond guy who brought Kenneth's presence to Quint's attention when he expressed his dissatisfaction about it).
As for the popular crowd making a choice to become friends with or like Ronald, all of it was predicated on the fact that he had Cindy's approval - Patti/Barb (can't remember which one) even admits that the main reason she asked him out was because he'd been with Cindy.
i'm aware this thread probably originated on imdb so people might not see my reply, but I watched it a few nights ago with this in mind, and it's kind of inconclusive - possibly deliberately so.
Her words might suggest that she might not have been trying to end it, but I'd say her tone and body language were no-where near as flirty and warm as the previous occasion when she thought Ronnie was about to kiss her or ask her out.
So I'd say it could be taken either way - in any case, I don't think Ronnie causing a big scene and humiliating her was part of her plan!
many years late to the conversation and not sure if anyone will have transferred over from imdb, but I completely agree with both of these points - while I wouldn't call them plot-holes, they are flaws in an otherwise great program/film.
(1) I assume you meant Jim's house, and any way you slice it, there's no way any semi-detached house in outer-London would have gone for £156k in 2007, never mind a mock tudor one with an extension and in an attractive looking area. If it had been a run down/fixer upper terrace house in a rough looking area, that would have been more realistic (and even then you'd struggle to get that for under 200k in outer-London in 2007). Actually it would have made Jim's story even sadder - after a year of renovating and making the house livable, that's when the repayments go up and they have to leave!
(2) Arguably sleeping on the job could be considered gross misconduct with work of that nature, but still, legally he'd have to be given a weeks notice of there being a disciplinary hearing and right to representation etc. If they didn't want him still working there in the meantime, they could have suspended him then dismissed him at the meeting. Doesn't matter if Jim wasn't in a union member or didn't know the process himself, the company would still have to do everything legally - I think head office (where the video was sent) would know that! Unless he'd been an agency worker, but the dismissal seemed a bit too formal for that and 6 years as an agency worker, prior to the recession....I'm not sure that could have happened.
Any time you 2 are finished jerking off watching MTV (we need to get a look at these tapes).
You've given up? Fine. It doesn't mean I have to.
....while you were crapping in your hands and rubbing it on your face
You agree to do exactly what I say when I say it?
This is stimulating but we're out of here
agree- that would have been brilliant. Also would have been better if they'd actually filmed it in Australia - can't take that scene as seriously now that I know it's on the Goonies beach!
there might be something in this because that last scene was apparently filmed about 6 months after the rest of the film (as you can tell from the length of Keanu Reeve's hair at this point) - it actually worked out well because the longer hair (for Bogus Journey) was consistent with him becoming more of a surfer, and the 2 leads didn't have to act like they hadn't seen each other for 6 months, because they genuinely hadn't! So the vibe you were seeing and the fact that they were both coming back to the project, changed slightly but also with fresh eyes, was real