I'll save you from an endless plot description, as the film is quite dense. For that reason alone - and even if you've already seen theįilm in its abridged form - this restoration of Scott's original vision is goodĮnough that it probably deserves to be given a second chance. Seeing the film for the first time in its restored version it's still certainly not a true masterpiece, but it is far from the plotty, soulless and chopped-up mess the theatricalĬut apparently was. Like many moviegoers, after reading the reviews, I personally skipped the film when it was in theaters, deciding I didn't need to subject myself to a truncated version of Scott's take on the Crusades. Upon its theatrical release in early 2005, the film was largely maligned by critics and grossed a disappointing $47 million at the domestic box office (it reportedly cost over hundred million to make). Having said that, after having seen the director's cut of 'Kingdom of Heaven,' I can't think of another Scottįilm that would seem to have benefited more from having his original, unfettered vision restored. His contracts - either that or he just needs to learn when to let go. Reasons as creative (the largely unnecessary "revisiting" of 'ALIEN'Ĭomes to mind), but still, it would seem Scott needs to either get a better agent to negotiate The revisited versions of these movies have been done as much for commercial Of Scott's critical and commercial caliber would have earned contractual finalĬut by now, but apparently not: 'Blade Runner,' 'ALIEN,' 'Gladiator,' 'Legend,'Īnd now 'Kingdom of Heaven' have all seen alternate versions released on home video. You would think that an Oscar-nominated director What is it with Ridley Scott and alternate cuts of his movies? I can't think ofĪnother director who has seen as many of his works remixed, revisited and mashed-up
0 kommentar(er)
