Rypro 525

now if the flick already has an extended version or a directors cut, lets exclude those (unless you think it is still missing things that would help out)

Giantrobo

A Nightmare Before Christmas.

I even read that they cut some scenes to due to time constraints but to me it was too short. Hell, I could've sat through about 20 or 25 more minutes.

wendersfan

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me

It should have been 8 hours long, at the very least.

PixyJunket

Disney's Atlantis.. it could've been the great action/adventure filmed they wanted if they hadn't been tied down to the unseen law of 90 minute animated feautres.

Shannon Nutt

Superman IV. They edited out scenes with Clark visiting his parents' grave, an alternate "Nuclear Man" that Luthor created first, and lots of dialogue moments. Granted, it probably still would have sucked - but they chopped about 40 minutes out of the film.

Robert

Equilibrium

Get Me Coffee

What about the first Xmen movie?

mh4268

13th warrior

Brian Gentz

Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back.

All the deleted stuff was great for the most part, especially the Ferrell stuff.

Duder

- The Transporter. It needed at least a few more fight scenes, I thought... plus that ending was REALLY abrupt.

- Master & Commander. Needed another 20 minutes to deal with and resolve that final twist. When the credits rolled, I couldn't believe it.

- U-571. After the first major confrontation, I was totally thrilled and stoked to see where the movie would go from there, and I thought that it could be one of the best sub movies ever... and then the movie ended. So much lost potential. What was there was very well-done, and I could've sat through another hour or more of it.

DonnachaOne

To paraphrase Roger Ebert... no good movie is ever too long.

jaeufraser

Terminator 3 seemed really short. Definately could've thrown in a few more scenes and beefed that one up.

RyoHazuki

Yeah I definetly disagree with that. I could list plenty of good movies that could use a trimming.

jfoobar

Well, since the subject is fresh in my head, I was watching Deep Impact the other day and remember thinking it might have achieved something more than it had if it had been longer, had not been so rushed in its closing chapters.

Living Dead

Another vote for Terminator 3. It was missing about 20 minutes of filler, IMO. The remake of Damn of the Dead could have used about 20 more minutes to flesh out the characters.

DVD Josh

Unbreakable. I've always felt that this could have been his best film if he fleshed it out a bit more.

DVD Josh

What are you talking about? Dont' forget to use spoiler tags.

Groucho

By "twist" I guess he means:



Personally, I think that resolving that particular storyline would be anti-climatic at best.

Giles

odd choice for me to note, but I always felt Alan Parker's Fame seemed to be missing alot of back story.

Drop

Well I believe he meant that any good film makes its audience wish they could spend more time in that world and with those characters.

Anyway, I agree with T3. I really liked it but they fudged it up a bit, and some more scenes really could've helped it a great deal. It really should've went out with a much bigger punch. They kind of blew their load with the great chase scene at the beginning.

HistoryProf

Almost Famous could have gone on for another 3 hours as far as i'm concerned....that movie just never gets old.

High Fidelity should have included the housewife deleted scene with Beverly D'Angelo....it's a great passage in the book, and they filmed it perfectly - i still can't figure out why they removed it.

B.A.

The Goonies

I concur w/ Ge Me Coffee in regards to the X-Men.

bboisvert

Master & Commander definitely ended abruptly. But, surprising as it was, I thought it was appropriate.

Not a great movie by any stretch, but I think Halloween:H20 falls into this category. At only 86 minutes, it's all build-up and ends too quickly once things get interesting/exciting.

obscurelabel

Men in Black II, while no great movie by any means (I know that's a matter of personal opinion) seemed rushed to me ... the listed time from IMDB is 88 minutes, although I seem to remember some sources saying 83 minutes. It's the first time I remember that a number of reviewers noted the short running time of a film as possibly being due to wanting to get more daily showings to try to boost the box office.

Sonnenfeld's movie before that one, Big Trouble, is another one that isn't so great, but I liked the book and saw it ... it's only 85 minutes and there was quite a bit from the book that was left out. This was scheduled to be released in the fall of 2001 but was pushed back and dumped, pretty much, in the late summer of 2002. The studio delayed it because of the storyline involving a highjacking of a plane (played for laughs, but a sensitive subject around 9/11 and still).

reubs82

I figured the poster meant the fact that .

I read this in a review for the film (glad I didn't wanna read the books!) after seeing it, but I kind of got that vibe all along.