Butterfly Effect, The (2004) *Dir. Cut*

[mw2merc]

This was a good & underated flick.

However, am I the only one who thinks of this film as a dark variation of 'Frequency'?

Yes. This was about the main character going back and changing the past. Frequency was about a son talking to his dad in the past & trying to stop a murder.

[Purple.Nightmare]

hey a proper rip of this movie - wickid!

[John_Doe]

anyone find out what this DC buzz is?

[spudthedestroyer]

i think the director did something to the end

So much for artistic integrity, seems people are perfectly happy to tamper, and retamper with movies. I can understand the case with Stanley Kubrick, and even he, as a perfectionist, released the best version and then left it at that. I can see a director always seeing inperfections that nag at them, but I think the sudden inburst of extra footage in most cases is totally unnessacary and shows how much it isn't about art any more (maybe I'm deluding myself in thinking it ever was?)

I read an interview with hammel talking about george's re-edits and he made a lot of good points, george is re-editing because, he has as the totalitarian ruler of everything star wars the ability to edit and 'perfect' it to his hearts content... there's no studio or anything with deadlines. He goes onto say this would be Stanley Kubrick's wet dream, being able to edit his movie over 20 years and beyond (although I'm not sure I'd agree, even kubrick left it at his final cuts, i don't recall many directors cuts [if any?] besides where he did region cuts ie the shining, the european is the director's cut.) There's not many film makers in this position, only probably speilberg (who owns the production and distribution companies for his projects), but with speilberg he has two co-owners who bring business and deadlines back into it. With Lucas there's nothing to stop him editing too much and ruining the film (which many say he did even with the 1997 versions).

A little side tracked there, just concerned with the director's involvement and intentions with such alternating cuts. Recently there's been shit like underworld and Hellboy that get extra footage.... the reason is selling point, and it totally degrades cinema as any form of expressive artform. It's like here's a piece to be enjoyed (the better ones normally are built with whatever background/context/message), but then lets bung more footage in, and more. it was cut for a reason, sometimes it truely was corporate greed and you can stand by that (ie. Blade Runner: DC, Brazil), sometimes its really to improve the film and fix things that standout of place (ie. Alien:DC (although it wasn't that needed, but here the runtime is actually cut. I can stand by this decision because you can tell its not "30mins of extra footage" as a gimmick, it would be "8mins of extra footage, 8min 7s of cuts" or whatever the runtime difference was) or to reinstate material for depth (ie Aliens) but sometimes I really do wonder whether cinema has lost it soul... or even had such a thing.

Same with this donnie darko DC. The film was edited and completed with little fuss well ontime, on budget and with after claims to be something deep and meaningful (imo its totally overrated, despite being a very good film), then it turned out to be a huge cult success. Now we get a Director's cut... little red flags are waving as I type

[John_Doe]

Well, I really wasn't too satisfied with the ending of this. Much rather liked the way everything was at the very beginning. This film would be the perfect one to make another version of though, as it was quite a good film, but had the possibility to be amazing, had they tried to make it a little more meaningfull and deep, instead of just trying to entertain.

Don't forget it was Spielberg who started all this 'director's cut' shabang! With guys like him and Lucas it'll probably always be the "30mins of extra footage as a gimmick" style in their director's cuts, as most of their films are simply easy on the brain entertainment. I mean, seing Jabba The Hut move outside his lair, another explosion or better laser effects might look cool and all, but it doesn't really change the movie much.

I guess 'directors cut' these days actually mean 'extended version'. In some cases though, it simply means 'Uncut'.

Blade Runner is probably the best example of a good directors cut, as not only did it change the whole viewing experience (removing the voice over ect.) but also gave a new ending which changed everything in the movie. (deccard's origin)

Hehe, Cronenberg can't stand to watch his own films.. Guess we wont see any of his in a DC version.

There's a 'Darko' DC?!?!?!? GIMME GIMME GIMMMMMMMEEEEEEE!!!!!
Finally I have another excuse to watch it even one more time... =)

[spudthedestroyer]

I think thats a discredit to a lot of directors, a lot of the big guns are anti-'director's cut' because their cut is the released version. I wasn't aware Speilberg started any director's cut craze?

[John_Doe]

I read somewhere that Spielberg's 'Encounters of the 3rd kind' was the first 'Directors Cut' to be released, and it did so well that more people started to look into it...

I think thats a discredit to a lot of directors, a lot of the big guns are anti-'director's cut' because their cut is the released version.

Eh, I didn't quite get what you meant there? What is it that's discredit? would you please try to rephrase?

[El Mariachi]

I downloaded the normal one as divx and the DC as a DVDR

I wasn't too happy with the DC, I prefer the original.
and as Spud as indicated, the ending is different. Can't remember about other details though

[Purple.Nightmare]

i think i settled on preferring the theatrical cut of BE. with the DC from memory there are 2 new scenes, at least one scene was shorter and a completely different end.

now does anyone have a link to a proper rip of the theatrical cut?