Dances With Wolves ; Theatrical or Director's Cut?

I own the theatrical cut on dvd. I saw this when it was released in 1990, and probably another 10 times on dvd. I was in Target the other day, and I noticed that some of their blu ray's were 3 for $11. I grabbed Dances and noticed the time (234 minutes). I haven't seen the Director's Cut yet, but plan on watching it soon. I will report back.

 

Agree - same for "Amadeus". Longer versions are great, but the original should always be available as well!

 

Not wild about the movie, but would pick the theatrical. The longer cut works fine in its own right, but I think theatrical focuses better on the lead character and is tighter...

 

I own the theatrical version on a DVD that was released in 2014: Did the change to "director's cut" only happen after that? (And yes, it's an American release.)

In any case, until this thread, I wasn't even aware of a director's cut: I'm going to have to (eventually) search that one out.

 

I found this movie to be very boring when I watched it in my sophomore year of high school.

Apologize to all the fans of the movie out there though.

 

Director's Cut all the way for me. It's one of the few DC's that I've seen that really fills in some gaps in the story.

 

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

 

Guess it wasn't valuable.

 

The extended cut was released in various Laserdiscs editions though - here's a message from the director and the producer on one of them:

 

I enjoyed it, though the first time I saw the DC was in a cinema and they showed the reels in the wrong order...

 

The reasons given here are exactly why I prefer the longer cut.

 

Read my findings earlier in the thread before posting yours but *not* before watching it. Curious to find out if you (dis)agree with them.

To be fair, it's not really a movie for teens. It deals with emotions and concepts at a higher maturity rate that is only experienced in full-fledged adulthood, IMHO.

As another example, I wouldn't expect a teen to watch Citizen Kane and enjoy it, although I'm sure there are exceptions.

Weird. Wonder if that's the kind of thing that happens often. Did the theater reimburse you or offer any type of compensation?

This reminds me of the time I rented Godfather II on VHS and accidentally inserted tape #2 first. Must've been 20 at the time. I thought it was strange that there was no logo plastering but figured it was a director's decision to be bold. The movie didn't really make sense but I was locked in and focused trying to make heads or tails of it. Of course, I realized my mistake at the end of tape #2 once the credits rolled. Haha! I inserted tape #1 did the movie start making sense afterwards, not too surprisingly.

 

I was probably too young for it.

 

Give it another try. Some really rich storytelling.

This thread has me wanting to watch it again.

 

Thanks, I will.

 

I know that the Director's Cut is all I ever see available on Blu-ray now. If there is a vrsion that contains the Original Cut, I'm not aware of it, as I would probably purchase it

 

I know that the Director's Cut is all I ever see available on Blu-ray now. If there is a vrsion that contains the Original Cut, I'm not aware of it, as I would probably purchase it

 

I already posted it. Look in the thread.

 

Watched the DC cut again a couple of days ago.

A few observations ;

1) It wasn't clear to my wife that Stands-With-A-Fist was a white woman. The scene in which she's revealed, losing her mind at the sight of her dead Indian husband is pretty dramatic and well shot. From previous viewings, I knew she was a white woman so the reveal is beautifully done but my wife didn't see it and I had to point it out to her. Maybe some color correction to enhance contrast in that scene would've helped? Or maybe my wife's in the minority so it isn't necessary.

2) The movie was a lot easier to watch today than it was about a dozen years ago when I last saw the DC. Easier in the sense of flow. Back then, I thought it dragged but now I think it's perfectly OK.

3) The very last shot of the two figures moving through the snow along with the last blurb at the conclusion of the movie is awful. Either the camera they had on the helicopter was terrible or they were so far away that they zoomed in drastically. Either way, it's jarring when comparing the rest of this beautifully shot movie.

4) There are some logical missteps such as when Dunbar does his suicide run at the beginning of the movie. I can't believe that the weapons from back then were so unbelievably inaccurate that they'd be able to miss a target a mere 20 feet away. I'm guessing Costner used poetic license in doing so but the scene would've had more credibility if he had been much further away.

5) Another one was the protagonist insisting on going back to his fort to get his book with the reasoning that it maps out where the tribe goes for the winter. Well, they end up going elsewhere anyway so Dunbar didn't need to go to the fort at all. If he hadn't, Cisco and Two-Socks would still be alive.

6) Also have a hard time believing a girl who hadn't spoken English since she was 5-6 was able to so easily recollect the language (if at all!) so easily 20 years later (or however old she's supposed to be in the movie).

7) A more compelling and less predictable way of doing the movie would've entailed having no white woman and having Dunbar fall in love with an Indian woman. Of course, the language barrier would've been much tougher to get around, though.

8) Lastly, I found Costner's narration to be wooden, stoic, and without much emotion. It felt like a 13-year old reading a book report. A stark contrast to the great narration in some movies such as GoodFellas or Shawshank Redemption where emotion is poured into the narration. I felt that was the movie's weak point.

Great great movie. Fantastic score, well shot, good pace (even with the DC), and the acting is perfect minus point #8.

 

It's a grainy optical, down a few generations, and we couldn't find the pieces of camera neg in order to replace the optical with a clear digital VFX.

A lot of the dramatic points you mentioned are elaborated on and explained better in Michael Blake's novel. There's only so much you can cover in a 3-hour (or 4-hour) movie, so they did the best they could.

That was the worst thing for me as well, and I had to live with the movie every day for 10-11 hours a day for close to four months. I was glad that DP Dean Semler liked the HD transfer; he told me via phone that he had never cared for the original home video color back in 1991.

 

Not so bad in the grand scheme of things. It lasts all of about 20 secs.

Yes, the transfer was good. Thankfully, it being a long movie didn't affect its picture quality. Sometimes, studios cheapen out with low bitrate Blu-Rays.

It's a mystery to me that Costner was OK with narrating in such a monotone... uh, tone. You can't really feel his impressions and have to subconsciously fall back onto the words themselves. A poor choice, IMHO.

 

Read the thread. It's been posted twice.

 

I like the DC but I'll watch either version. Very epic film. For me, one of the last epics in the tradition of Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. Maybe not as "great" as those, but in the same ballpark.

 

The actual info on the Amazon UK site is misleading

 

How so?