Which Amadeus? (1 Viewer)

[Frank@N]

You might have better luck checking second-hand (used) DVD shops for releases that came out from 97'-99'.

Most B&M stores have sold thru older titles or only have one because it's still $20.

Maybe when HD-DVD shakes everything loose, I'll update some of my older releases with better DVD versions.

Till then, I'll be buying the affordable castoffs everytime there's a new SuperBit or $20 SE release.

Just found Ransom for $7, but that was a no-brainer since the transfer wasn't updated on new SE release.

 

[Jack _Webster]

Just decided to order the original DVD off of Amazon.com after having the Director's Cut for a couple of years. I've lately found myself going back to the theatrical cuts of many films I own (even LotR). I've come to understand that sometimes less is more. Not that the footage in this DC is bad by any means, but the original was sublime and something just seems off by adding footage.

 

[James Luckard]

I'll add yet another vote in favor of the original cut. It is one of the first films I remember seeing in a theater, and has always been a favorite. I don't think I've ever seen an altered cut that I like. I tend to see movies that I like more than one time, so that by the time I'm ready to buy a DVD, I know the film really well, and can't watch a changed version, because I do nothing but notice every single change. "Last of the Mohicans" is a perfect example of this. I was so glad to track down the British DVD of that, with the theatrical cut.

Also, I should add that I took a friend with me to see the Special Edition during its theatrical release a few years ago. He thought it was too slow and he'd never seen it before.

I really think the extra 20 mins add nothing but running time. Yes, the picture quality is somewhat improved, but it's not like the original is awful, it's perfectly watchable.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I don't know... there's a lot of video noise, tons of dirt, cropping on all 4 sides, splice "flashes" (discoloration at some splices, which are gone in the DC), edge enhancement, and a wavering picture. It's watchable in the sense of the old Gone with the Wind DVD. Not horrible, but not a great image by any stretch.

 

[Jack _Webster]

I don't recall being too disappointed with the original DVD when I originally had it (I sold it when I got the DC). Not as good as the DC, by any means, but it was good enough for me. I'll be happy just to have the original cut again.

 

[Kain_C]

I saw the Director's Cut having never seen the film at all. And I could tell which scenes where added. My friend (at the time) confirmed my claims as he is a huge fan of the film, and subsequently HATED the Director's Cut.

I wish there would always be the option of having the original cut on the DVD, via seemless branching which is a terrific technology tragically underutilized in the format. M

Most Director's Cuts are inferior to the original, as the filmmaker's thinking is different and they may not have the capacity for nearly as much creativity as they did. Most of the time they end up harming the original film instead of helping it. If they wanted that scene in there so badly, it probably would have gotten added originally.

 

[TonyD]

i have the dc but havent watched it yet.
i was wondering if the dc version is re-cut the way
"mohicans" with scenes removed and some added, or just scenes added.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I have the 2-disc, but I've actually thought about trying to find the theatrical version just to have it.

 

[ScottAndrew]

I noticed that several of the deleted scenes contained modern language and expressions that felt out of place. It doesn't make sense to put so much work into award-winning costumes and sets and then use expressions like "in that department" or "I don't give a damn." It seemed to break the spell.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

For me, the only thing good about Amadeus is the music. And why would I want to watch the film again for that when I could sit back, close my eyes and listen to the Deutsche Grammophon recordings?

The historical accuracy is needlessly ficationalized and the performances are ridiculous. Salieri is portrayed as the Devil, Mozart as a randy, farting idiot savant and Stanzi as a clueless, cutesy little doll. Not one of Forman's best by a long shot. Beautiful sets and cinematography, though, but not worthy of the towering musical genius of Mozart.

No offence to those who love the film, I love his music too much to subject myself to this farce.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

My experience has also been that it's tough for those very familiar with the real people depicted in the film to accept the almost completely fictionalized story.

I actually enjoy Salieri's music, but I still love the film (prefer the theatrical cut) for its own sake!

 

[Chris PC]

Is the original version anamorphic?

 

[joshEH]

Yup, but slightly grainier and "softer" than the re-mastered Director's Cut, which for my money boasts a stellar, near-reference-quality transfer in comparison (considering the age of the source materials). The theatrical cut disc was one of Warner Bros.' first entries into the then-fledgling DVD marketplace, and thus was one of the dreaded "flippers," but boasted an isolated score track in 5.1.

I still prefer the Director's Cut by a more than slight margin to the theatrical print -- owing to several clarified plot points and character-payoffs -- to say nothing of the 2-discer's superb Forman and Shaffer audio commentary and comprehensive documentary.

 

[Chris PC]

I see the original is available used in my area. I will check that out and then look for the newer version too.

Why does everybody dread "flipper" discs? I say anamorphic all the way and nothing else, but is there some other reason why people dislike the "flipper" dvd's?

thanx,

 

[Vincent-P]

When they say "flipper" in this case they mean you have to flip the disc in the middle of the film in order to watch the entire film...it is broken up onto both sides of the disc. The original disc was like this. It was not a "flipper" in the sense that it had widescreen on one side and fullscreen on another.

 

[Chris PC]

ok, gotcha. I mis-understood. I thought flippers were just double-sided dvds with different aspect ratio formats on either side. I get it now. Its like the old double-sided LD's, except, there are no double-sided dvd players like there were double-sided laser-disc players. Oh well..c'est la vie!

 

[joshEH]

A few of those early Warner DVDs were of the type you describe -- the Blade Runner Director's Cut disc contains 16:9 WS on one side, and pan-and-scam on the other. Dark City and Demolition Man were others produced along those lines, but most were like the Amadeus theatrical cut, Goodfellas, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and split across the two halves.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Amadeus is supposed to be a dramatic, slightly bawdy comedy. It was NEVER intended as a strict-to-history docu-drama. Look at it this way and you'll like it better.

Mozart was indeed rough around the edges in social circles and his laugh was described as particularly grating... the play/film makers decided to exaggerate those known traits for comedic effect.

The MPAA should have thrown out the rules this one time and Tom Hulce and F. Murray Abraham should have BOTH received dual Best Actor Oscars as both were equal to the story. Hulce's stint was never a supporting role.

The story is about resentment, jealousy, revenge, and hatred that destroys one's very soul and hurts everyone that comes in contact with that vengeful spirit. Salieri is also the embodiment of, as he puts it, "mediocrity." He's the little guy that is forever in the shadow of greatness. The play was not about being accurate to history. Mozart and Salieri just happen to make good, well known examples.

Dan

 

[Haggai]

You mean the Academy (AMPAS), not the MPAA. Hulce and Abraham were indeed both nominated for Best Actor, the last time that two actors from the same movie have both been nominated as leads (Sarandon and Davis for Thelma and Louise being the most recent instance of two female leads begin nominated from the same film).

 

[Dan Hitchman]

AMPAS, yes... sorry. You know what they say: once you've seen one Hollywood organization...

I did know both actors were nominated. I'm just saying they both should have won. They played off each other with equal brilliance.

Dan