Second Sight Dawn of the Dead 4k Ultra HD Limited Edition Set

[kidgloves]

I agree with you Ned about the Cannes cut. I remember when I got hold of my first Dawn DVD in the UK as an adult and it was labelled the directors cut. I watched it and was confused as it didn't click with me like the movie I remembered renting multiple times as a kid on VHS. I'm really taking my time with this set. Haven't even got close to the new extras. I'm just finishing up the Rubinstein commentary on the Cannes cut then i think I'll watch the Argento cut without commentary. I don't remember the cast commentary from the Ultimate edition being particularly interesting but who knows. I'm clearly obsessed like others here so won't count that out. I have to say the HDR on the UHD version is really something. Details really pop, especially lighting at night, clothes, colours etc. It really shows the grain though and it's quite jarring when going from soft shots to highly detailed expansive ones.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, that BMG video release of Dawn at the arse-end of the 1990s was labelled the "Director's Cut" more for advertising purposes. Easier for the general public to understand than "Extended Cannes Cut". That's how I first saw Dawn, so the extended cut has always been the version for me. Argento's version is an interesting curio, but nothing more. It kinda tramples all over Romero's intentions for the most part, turning it into a very different type of a movie. Good for an intrigue-watch, kinda like the 8mm digest version, but it's a long way away from Romero's vision.

[JDP]

The "extended cut" is definitely better than the theatrical version. Romero had to do some "butchering" of footage for that later version, which results in some parts barely making any sense due to the sloppy editing (since sequences were not re-shot for the theatrical version, a butcher-job editing had to be done with the footage used for the "extended" cut.) This is specially true of the "docks" sequence, which is simply atrocious in the theatrical cut. It is hardly clear at all what in blazes is going on here (who the hell are these other people at the docks? where did they pop-up from?? what are they doing here???) Once you see the "extended" version it all makes sense, though. By all means the better version of the movie.

[kidgloves]

The "extended cut" is definitely better than the theatrical version. Romero had to do some "butchering" of footage for that later version, which results in some parts barely making any sense due to the sloppy editing (since sequences were not re-shot for the theatrical version, a butcher-job editing had to be done with the footage used for the "extended" cut.) This is specially true of the "docks" sequence, which is simply atrocious in the theatrical cut. It is hardly clear at all what in blazes is going on here (who the hell are these other people at the docks? where did they pop-up from?? what are they doing here???) Once you see the "extended" version it all makes sense, though. By all means the better version of the movie. You forget to add imho I completely disagree. It drags and the soundtrack is nowhere as good. Theatrical cut is leaner and far more entertaining.

[shootemindehead]

'Dawn of the Dead' dragging in places is sort of the point Romero wanted to make though. The characters have what they want and more than they need. But they're not content. It doesn't stave off the dread of their situation and the hopeless nature of what it happening around them. The protagonists all get by doing what they need to do, but once the work is over sealing up the mall, they're at a loose end. So, they tart up, play video games, fire off their pop guns, get in the best Bang & Olufson stereo equipment...but what does it matter? They're still trapped in their own tomb, with nowhere to go.

[EvilNed]

'Dawn of the Dead' dragging in places is sort of the point Romero wanted to make though. Are we reviewing Romero's point or Romero's film?

[shootemindehead]

Wouldn't one coincide with the other?

[Harleydude666]

The "extended cut" is definitely better than the theatrical version. Romero had to do some "butchering" of footage for that later version, which results in some parts barely making any sense due to the sloppy editing (since sequences were not re-shot for the theatrical version, a butcher-job editing had to be done with the footage used for the "extended" cut.) This is specially true of the "docks" sequence, which is simply atrocious in the theatrical cut. It is hardly clear at all what in blazes is going on here (who the hell are these other people at the docks? where did they pop-up from?? what are they doing here???) Once you see the "extended" version it all makes sense, though. By all means the better version of the movie. This. Couldn’t have said it any better

[EvilNed]

Wouldn't one coincide with the other? No, not at all.

[shootemindehead]

Really? You think a film maker would make a film with no point at all? You think Romero would write a script and film it, but not try and make a point about what the characters are going through in the story?

[EvilNed]

Really? You think a film maker would make a film with no point at all? You think Romero would write a script and film it, but not try and make a point about what the characters are going through in the story? That's not what I said. I just said that we're reviewing the film, and not the point the film maker was trying to get across.

[shootemindehead]

That's not what I said. I just said that we're reviewing the film, and not the point the film maker was trying to get across. Surely, the point of what the director was trying the get across is part of reviewing a film? The director's intent with his film is a factor. Doubly so when he's also the editor of the movie. Romero, in his film, deliberately put in sections showing his characters being bored and unfulfilled. They're not there just to add running time. There there for a specific reason.

[MinionZombie]

Surely, the point of what the director was trying the get across is part of reviewing a film? The director's intent with his film is a factor. Doubly so when he's also the editor of the movie. Romero, in his film, deliberately put in sections showing his characters being bored and unfulfilled. They're not there just to add running time. There there for a specific reason. Even more considering he was also the screenwriter, which is really the most important element at play here.

[EvilNed]

Surely, the point of what the director was trying the get across is part of reviewing a film? The director's intent with his film is a factor. Doubly so when he's also the editor of the movie. Romero, in his film, deliberately put in sections showing his characters being bored and unfulfilled. They're not there just to add running time. There there for a specific reason. A director's intention and the actual execution are two separate things. If a section of a film is perceived as "boring" or "it drags" - then that section is boring no matter what the director's intentions were. "It was meant to show how bored the characters are!" doesn't cut it... There are other ways of telling that without actually making it dull.

[shootemindehead]

Even more considering he was also the screenwriter, which is really the most important element at play here. Agreed. - - - Updated - - - A director's intention and the actual execution are two separate things. If a section of a film is perceived as "boring" or "it drags" - then that section is boring no matter what the director's intentions were. "It was meant to show how bored the characters are!" doesn't cut it... There are other ways of telling that without actually making it dull. It "cuts" it completely, Neddy. You find it dull, because the characters are doing dull things. That was the point he trying to make. Their lives in the mall have become dull, while outside everything is still going to hell.