I guess the answer is that it depends. If the director is a household name, it is probably in their contract that they have the rights to the last cut. If not, it will usually be a producer representing the money men.
Shawshank Redemption is overrated. Doesn't stop it from being a very good film, but many say it to be the greatest film ever made - which it isn't.
It's all about opinions & I think Shawshank Redemption is an absolute classic. I can't see any problem with it being ranked best film of all time.
I just find it the very best "Oscar" style film. Hard hitting, but has hope, friendship and a happy ending. But it's boring, okay if I'm sitting in on a rainy day but I'd much rather watch a Leone, Kubrick, Coen Brothers or Tarantino film. I'd say 2001: a space oddessy, The Godfather, The Godfather part 2 and The Good The Bad and The Ugly could all call themselves the greatest films ever made. They're original and had a massive impact on cinema since.
And while we're on the Coen Brothers, you can add 'The Man Who Wasn't There', 'A Serious Man' and even 'True Grit' (which was better than the others mentioned but still overrated. In fact even their best films might be a bit overrated).
i know this is all about personal taste. But from a filmmaking standpoint all of the films you mentioned are fantastically well made films. The Man Who Wasn't There and True Grit have stunning cinematography and are very well written films.
I thought TMWWT was all style no substance; that A Serious Man was a self-indulgent American-Jewish in-joke and True Grit was good, but not so different from the original that they needed to get all precious about it and say it was a re-imaginging of the book, or however they put it. I do like them but they are critics darlings and tend to get overrated quite often. I generally prefer their earlier films (pre - Oh Brother) although No Country is a good 'un. All a matter of taste as you say.
My favourite coen brothers film would be Millers Crossing, I'd say the best prohibition era gangster film ever made, craps all over De Palma's Untouchables. I agree in a way with TMWWT, but i thought it was brilliantly shot and smartly written, just one of those films i guess.
I guess the answer is that it depends. If the director is a household name, it is probably in their contract that they have the rights to the last cut. If not, it will usually be a producer representing the money men.
Not always..films are often edited down to make them sellable or to appeal to an audience, such as taking certain scenes/swearing out so they can get a lower and more family oriented rating and make more money.
The director's cut thing came in to boost sales for mostly average films which were being sold to home viewers and fans of the movie and don't mind it it lasts an extra few minutes.
I guess the answer is that it depends. If the director is a household name, it is probably in their contract that they have the rights to the last cut. If not, it will usually be a producer representing the money men.
Not always..films are often edited down to make them sellable or to appeal to an audience, such as taking certain scenes/swearing out so they can get a lower and more family oriented rating and make more money.
The director's cut thing came in to boost sales for mostly average films which were being sold to home viewers and fans of the movie and don't mind it it lasts an extra few minutes.
Whoever said Pulp Fiction, I completely agree. Seems to be an essential part of being a student that you say you like that film. We had three copies of it in my flat as everyone I lived with brought it up and I had high expectations for it. I was pretty sure I could see Tarantino palming himself off in the background of every single pointless scene. The worst part of it is if you say you don't like it everyone tells you you just 'don't get it'. Pah
Whoever said Pulp Fiction, I completely agree. Seems to be an essential part of being a student that you say you like that film. We had three copies of it in my flat as everyone I lived with brought it up and I had high expectations for it. I was pretty sure I could see Tarantino palming himself off in the background of every single pointless scene. The worst part of it is if you say you don't like it everyone tells you you just 'don't get it'. Pah
I'm not so sure 3D will stay once the gimmick has worn off - sitting in a cinema for two hours with ill-fitting glasses on is not something I want to do.
There were efforts in the '50s to get people to watch in 3D and I remember seeing a western, 'The Charge at Feather River', with my dad at a now long gone cinema in Plumstead. around '53 or '54.I was quite impressed, what with all the spears and arrows flying 'out of the screen' but yes, had a blazing headache the next day and missed school. The most well known 3D film then was 'The House of Wax' ,starring Vincent Price which did fairly well but not enough to get 3D off the ground.
Comments
Hangover 2 the 1st one was brilliant
Titanic
Mama MIA
Not always..films are often edited down to make them sellable or to appeal to an audience, such as taking certain scenes/swearing out so they can get a lower and more family oriented rating and make more money.
The director's cut thing came in to boost sales for mostly average films which were being sold to home viewers and fans of the movie and don't mind it it lasts an extra few minutes.
Avatar - cack in 2D and 3D
Tinker Tailor
Perm any three Paranormal Activity films
Have you seen Wild At Heart, Raising Arizona, Leaving Las Vegas and Adaptation?
And 'Birdy' and 'Red Rock West'?
Saving Pvt Ryan is awesome.
He has made some bad ones but also quite a few excellent films, good actor imo
And them talkies will never catch on...
I'm not so sure 3D will stay once the gimmick has worn off - sitting in a cinema for two hours with ill-fitting glasses on is not something I want to do.