Cyberock

I read Holly E. Ordway's DVD review of XXX - Uncensored Unrated Director's Cut at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=15266 and...

Why would DVDTalk have a reviewer do a review of this director's cut who hasn't seen the theatrical version???

Scott Weinberg

For the same reason a critic may review The Lord of the Rings without having read the books.

Ms. Ordway clearly states that you'll find an additional eight minutes of footage in this version, so what's the problem?

Frankly I'd rather have a critic come in "fresh" where Director's Cuts are concerned. Like someone who skipped the theatrical cut and therefore does not yet know that XXX is a flaming ball of camel poop.

jrobinson

I'm going to guess like most double-dips (theatrical to director's cut), the few extra minutes isn't going to make a big difference. I think whether or not Holly has seen the theatrical cut, her overall opinion of the director's cut shouldn't be too far off.

Scott Weinberg

Well, I can certainly understand if a fan wants to know what's in the new footage. I read a BUNCH of ROTK EE reviews for just that reason. But if one DVD critic opens their review with "Hi there. I no see theatrical cut," then I have the option to find a review from someone who has.

But I'd still contend that a critic need not see the theatrical version to review a director's cut successfully. See the review in question for a very good example of how to do it.

Cyberock

I just think any film that is a double dip such as this one, the reviewer should have something to compare it to. Most people reading this review are reading it to see if it's worth spending the money on it again. I have the original dvd release which I know I belong to the minority on this, but I did enjoy it. I found it to be a fun popcorn flick. Now I'm curious if this extra 8 minutes adds something to it. Instead, I find out half way through a review that the person never saw the orginal. If someone wants to know how the film is, most likely they would of read the review from a year and half ago.

I'm also confused by the quotes in this review "This is not to say that XXX is a bad film" and then later on she says "I barely made it through the first time." If it's that hard to sit through a film the first time, the reviewer must of found it to be a bad film. Sorry, I just feel the wrong person reviewed this film.

Scott Weinberg

Whereas I believe the reviewer need only review the product in front of them. But then, different writers have different styles. I know a few critics who try to NEVER mention Part 1 when they're reviewing Part 2. (It rarely works.) I also know a few DVD critics who love to write long and very specific features on the differences between Movie and Movie: Director's Cut, and I rely on them for just that. Holly employs a different technique; perhaps she requested this DVD because she'd never seen the theatrical cut and thought it would a fun movie. Why should that preclude her from writing a review of what she just watched?

Well, in a perfect world you'd be reading it because you enjoy it. If it were me reading that review I'd be thinking "Ah, she doesn't know what new stuff was added. I'll check a different review for that stuff. But still, a well-written and entertaining review."

And please don't think I'm trying to slam you or knock your opinion. I get what you're saying (you're looking for details on the newly-added material), and hey, you've every right to enjoy XXX. Personally I thought it was pretty damn terrible, but I happen to love Armageddon so what do I know?

I just think there's lots of different ways to review all sorts of movies/DVDs, and if every website did it the exact same way ... shit would get boring real fast.

MrE

Sorry Scott, I don't buy it. Therre are already reviews for xXx the Movie. I clicked on this review specifically to see what new scenes or etras were added. It felt like a waste of time, a thread crap if you will, to at-very-long-length learn that would not be part of the review.

Scott Weinberg

No one's asking you to buy it. Holly reviewed the DVD, period.

island007

I agree, it felt like a waste of time. The only reason I checked the review was to learn what was different. The main problem is the reader doesn't find out "Ah, she doesn't know what new stuff was added. I'll check a different review for that stuff." until the end of the movie section.

Edit to add: If this was in the first paragraph it would have been helpful.

RyoHazuki

Ok we know that. What he's saying is definetley valid, though. The selling point of this dvd is the extra scenes. Having a dvd reviewer who can't compare the longer cut to the original cut doesn't make any sense at all.

D-Ball

When it comes to double dips, the most important factor in a dvd review is what separates from the initial release. On it's own, this was a good review, but without comparison to the original cut, it's hard to determine whether the new version is worth checking out.

pro-bassoonist

Pro-b

fryinpan1

Here is the review from DVDfile.com

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi.../xxx_uudc.html

Joe Molotov

Especially in this case, where there's a Superbit version of the movie out, and you have to ask yourself, do you want the extras or do you want the DTS?