Rypro 525

I currently own the lions gate unrated cut (which just started skipping right as mickey and mallory get to the green pharmacy). i know wall mart has the r rated cut for like 10 bucks and the unrated version for 8. are the extras any different from the unrated version? also, is there any major transfer upgrades (its very grainy at points but i believe that was a style point)

feral125

Get the R - rated version. The features are the same and the picture is a little better. Only drawback is the snapper case.

Dan

in terms of the actual movie, I prefer the director's cut. Sucks that warner's R-Rated cut is anamorphic, and the director's cut is not. I would have bought the R-Rated cut a little while ago, but I've decided to wait until Alexander is out, in hopes that they'll release ANOTHER Oliver Stone box with Alexander and all of the "best" versions of his previous films. We'll see, won't we?

DonnachaOne

Quality of a release vs. how complete the release is. Hmmm.

Generally, I go with how complete the release is... in this case, get the much better unrated version. While it might not differ much in length, the editing is different and the film is much more unsettling and pointed.

Julie Walker

I wonder if Lions Gates owns the rights for the unrated version since they own Trimark now?

Anyway Warner does not own the rights to the uncut version of the film,which is while Oliver Stone took it elsewhere. So unless they buy the rights back,they can only release the R version.


I would stay stick with the uncut version until a 16.9 version of the uncut version is available. It's a much better and stronger film with the many cuts reinstated.

djtoell

Yes, they do.

DJ

Tyler_Durden

Alternatively, if you have a multi-region player, you could order it in R2. As far as I know, all European releases of the director's cut are anamorphic.

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=1036

Rypro 525

are the features the same on both disks as well?

Dr. DVD

A little off topic, but what happens when you try to play a non-anamorphic disc on a 16:9 TV?

rfduncan

Without adding correction on the TV, you should get black bars on the top & bottom for the letterboxing and black bars on the side too I believe.

Josh Z

One of three things. Either:

- In Standard mode, the 4:3 DVD image is centered in the middle of the 16:9 frame, meaning that you get bars on all 4 sides of the movie image.
- In Wide mode, the image is stretched sideways to fill the 16:9 screen, which will make a 1.85:1 image look like 2.35:1 with everything on screen appearing short and squat.
- In Zoom mode (preferred), the black bars on the top and bottom are cropped off and the movie image in the middle is magnified to fill the screen. Unfortunately, this usually causes a significant drop in picture quality as compared to an anamorphic disc.

uhftv

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/review...rnkillers.html

Anamorphic one has a charliie rose interview but edited commentary since the extra footage isnt there.

It'd be nice to have a 2 disker with everything included.

ThatGuamGuy

I saw Oliver Stone speak at NYU. Somebody brought up 'Natural Born Killers', saying that a teacher thought it was crap, and Stone interrupted the guy and said, "Well, did he see the theatrical cut or the director's cut?" The kid said theatrical, and Stone got really mad. (I should point out, he seemed drunk or high or something.) I can't remember what he said verbatim, but the gyst of it was that the theatrical cut was so butchered and compromised that the movie could not be judged by it, and that if the teacher was going to insult his movie, he should at least watch the proper version before doing so.

Earlier that day, I had bought the director's cut (which I'd previously had on VHS) specifically to get it signed, and when I ran up to him after he was done talking (this was at least an hour later) to ask him to sign it, he grabbed it and said, "See? Right? This is what I was talking about, this is the right version, right? This is the one to watch, right?" In vino veritas...

He didn't come out and disown the theatrical cut, per se, but he sure seemed to actively dislike it. They're both available, I'd say there's no reason to own the theatrical cut. If anamorphic is that important (and I do understand why it would be), I'd say wait for the anamorphic release of the director's cut which is sure to happen sooner or later.

I mean, if you have the director's cut, would you really want to watch the theatrical? The only reason I can see owning it is to sit and compare the two and see how huge a difference that little editing (it's, what, two minutes?) can make.

Julie Walker

3 minutes actually and 150 different things are cut/altered in the film!

Josh Z

Although I do agree that the Director's Cut is a little better than the theatrical cut, if someone hated the theatrical cut there's really nothing in the DC that will make them do a 180 and say, "Oh yeah, now I get it. This movie is great!". It's still essentially the same movie.

Damed

True. I've seen both cuts and still hate the film.

ThatGuamGuy

I tend to agree, but it depends ... like, if you think that the theatrical cut is muddled, because sometimes the satire comes on *so* strong and sometimes it's been tamed down (which I've heard as a frequent criticism -- but that's a far cry from hating it), the director's cut fixes that.

I think Stone's point was that he wasn't going to bother defending the theatrical cut because he didn't stand by it, so if the guy was going to criticize the movie, and expect Stone to listen (and he did listen to people criticisms, surprisingly), he'd have to be talking about the director's cut.