My Bloody Valentine Special Edition Coming From Lionsgate, But... (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

I'd be curious to know if this is a director's cut, a producer's cut or simply a let's cash in on the remake cut. There's certainly "other" footage that could have been included but it's obvious they just wanted to go with the extra gore scenes but that doesn't explain why some bits are missing. It seems like it would have been a better idea to include the original X-rated version and then a "fuller" version with the dialogue sequences back in. The "theatrical" version included is apparently cut further than the Paramount disc so I'm not sure what the point of this one was. I haven't got the disc so perhaps someone who has it can comment but the director has been giving interviews talking about an additional kill sequence, which isn't on the disc. He claims it was shot but nothing else is said. I'm curious if the footage was just too bad to use or perhaps they kept it out for another reason (perhaps the FX looked bad).

Or, I'm wondering if the eventual Blu release will contain this stuff.

 

[TravisR]

Lion's Gate's theatrical cut is actually gorier by two shots than Paramount's theatrical cut.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Thanks for the correction Travis. I misread your previous post on the matter.

 

[Simon Caleb]

3 minutes can make a huge difference. Then again it helps if you actually watch this particular version before being so final in your quite frankly illogical opinion. That's the great thing about renting, try before you buy ;o)

The choice with this edition is you have both an R rated (of sorts) and Unrated version to view.

 

[to_the_9]

After viewing the uncut "My Bloody Valentine", I'm really quite happy with this DVD. The gore is quite substantial in comparison to Paramount's disc, and while the footage is semi-grainy, the difference between the new and old scenes isn't too stark. If you're looking for a noticable change, you'll find it; but if one was watching the new version, having never seen the censored theatrical cut, I'm not sure they would notice. In fact, the graininess makes the death scenes look as though they were intentionally made at a lower quality. A little bit of an art-house, not entirely feasible deduction, but I like the way this "new" footage looks spliced into the film.
Good job Lionsgate/Paramount!!!

(1 Gripe: Where is the audio commentary??? The cast and crew were together for shooting the featurette, and Mihalka has always been very vocal about this piece...)

 

[Bryan^H]

I have decided to pick it up.

 

[Simon Caleb]

Well here's confirmation that it isn't uncut, nor a director's cut.

EXCL: George Mihalka Talks My Bloody Valentine Uncut- ShockTillYouDrop.com

Valid reasons. And at least someone had a go at reconstructing a fuller version. Ahem Paramount!

Oh and doesn't this confirm the producer didn't have a complete negative of the entire film? as some had argued. Merely he was in possession of the trims.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Well, there are a few problems with that interview. Everything I've ever seen or read said that the MPAA don't "discuss" cuts with the producer, director or studio. They simply give a rating and it's up to those people to do what they feel with the film. The director states that the MPAA asked to remove "one more frame" but "there wasn't a frame left".

He also doesn't mention why stuff they do have wasn't put back into the film. Minor dialogue isn't that big of a deal but it's interesting to note that some of this "stretching out the characters" seemed to pop up in the remake.

I did skim through the official release last night and must say that I'm impressed on how much cleaning up they did on the new footage. Sure, it doesn't look supper but compared to what I saw earlier it was a real masterpiece. I still can't bring myself to watch the whole thing yet.


You remind me of Alicia Silverstone in a certain movie of hers.

 

[JeffMc]

The MPAA certainly does "suggest" things that could be cut to producers and studios. They don't want to be viewed as a censor, though, so they are simply suggestions and not mandated cuts. That's how they get around it. They just give out helpful suggestions. Otherwise, if the MPAA never made a suggestion as to what is the offending footage, they'd probably end up having to watch the same movie two billion times. What you're saying is that a movie gets an X-rating so the MPAA just gives the studio the X and doesn't tell them it's because of the sex scene, or the violent scene, or the use of the F-word, or the mistreatment of the dog, or whatever else. Nope, they just give out the X and then it's up to the producer to guess what to cut out first. That's completely incorrect.

 

[Michael Elliott]

That's interesting Jeff. Do you know of any interviews with director's talking about it?

On the NATURAL BORN KILLERS commentary Stone discusses his frustration that the MPAA wouldn't discuss the film with him. Sean Cunningham and Wes Craven have also said similar things. I believe THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED is another where (I think) Kevin Smith mentions getting NC-17 ratings and he couldn't get an answer as to why or what needed to be removed. I know the INDIE SEX documentaries also had filmmakers going against the MPAA for not letting them know why XYZ was okay but ABC wasn't.

The hypocrisy of the MPAA is never changing but it's always an interesting subject.

Having seen the remake, it's really amazing at how much they've changed over the years. I guess sex is the big no-no today but one has to wonder if these women groups will ever start attacking the genre again. The first few minutes of the remake has more violence and gore than the entire original film in its X-rated version, which is just funny.

 

[TravisR]

^I think (but am not sure) that they tell you what scenes they have problems with but they won't tell you what to cut in order to get an R. Then you go in, cut some stuff out of the scene and hope that it's enough to get the rating.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

And sometimes, as Mr. Mihalka indicated in his interview, it's not even anything within the visual elements they want you to cut. Sound effects, rearrangement of shots, and other things can affect the impact of a scene and reduce the rating. One sex scene in Wild Orchid was passed with an R when Zalman King simply reversed the order of two shots within the scene.

 

[MLamarre]

I'd definitely recommend the documentary film This Film is Not Yet Rated for a good analysis of how silly and bewildering the MPAA is.

 

[JeffMc]

Yes, this is more of what I was trying to say. As far as examples go, I do remember Coscarelli mentioning years ago that the MPAA objected to the scene in PHANTASM where the first ball hits the guy's head and the blood gushes out of the ball's hole. The MPAA thought it went on too long so he cut out most of the blood gushing out, which Coscarelli laughed about because he said the shorter version had more impact as the longer version became more humorous just because it went on for so long. You also have to wonder how a movie like ANOES only has to chop out several seconds to get an R without anyone telling them in advance what sequence was offending. Just several seconds removed got it the R. I know there a ton of other films with just snippets removed to get an R and logic would dictate it's with a little knowledge beforehand courtesy of the MPAA's suggestions. There are a lot of other violent scenes in ANOES that could have been cut, but they weren't.

In cases like NBK, I can definitely see the MPAA throwing up their hands in disgust at how vile and violent that whole film was - a visual and audio assault on the senses - and not even caring to discuss with the filmmakers anything about it. There's also the case of HENRY - POASK where the MPAA couldn't suggest any changes that would give it an R because they just said the tone of the whole film was so oppressive that cuts wouldn't even help. But them saying that does kind of indicate that normally they are willing to give suggestions. So I think certain films that are ultra-violent or too real or that have no redeeming values make the MPAA resistant to even discuss anything. However, when it's just a commercial film that may have a few offending scenes, they are more than willing to offer the filmmaker suggestions on what those problematic scenes are, especially if the studio/filmmaker is willing to listen and not be antagonistic back.

All that said, the hypocrisy and idiocy of the MPAA is a thing I will never defend.

 

[Michael Elliott]

It probably has a lot to do with who you are as well. Considering how badly the slashers were hated back in the day I'm sure they didn't want to hear anything from the studio or filmmakers. I'll certainly look into that PHANTASM thing since most filmmakers simply call the MPAA dicks and claim they're impossible to work with. I might be mixing up my director's but I think it was Smith saying the studio wouldn't fight them for fear of their next movie being slapped with an NC-17. Paramount knew they had future F13 movies coming so I wonder if that's why they didn't fight this one more. It seems this film got cut a lot more than several of the slashers out around the time. Even THE BURNING cuts weren't this bad.

I'm going to try and watch the complete thing later tonight if I don't fall asleep. I hope my reaction is a little better this time but last time I was only luke warm on this one.

 

[Simon Caleb]

And you bring to mind Bob Balaban from "A Mighty Wind". ;-)

I actually prefer this almost uncut version. To label what's been added mild, is plain wrong, or have some just become too jaded... I suspect Mabel's death has what footage they could find/salvage slowed down in order to flesh out the scene. The drill double impaling is still missing and Happy's death looks short of various shots, the heart ripping and opening impalement could also be short of footage but, we're lucky to have this at all, so I'm happy.

And the 17min+ docu actually contains 12mins devoted to the original.

Yes it's lacking a trailer, but we do get one the remake. Better than nothing.

 

[Michael Elliott]

It really wouldn't shock me if the eventual Blu release featured more extras and perhaps a longer movie. I'm sure the remake will get a sequel so perhaps we'll get another SE of the original in a few years. A lot of the cast members were interviewed so I'm sure they got more of them on tape than got released.

I finally watched the entire film last night and while the added effects help the film I can't help but not really like the movie. Perhaps it's just me but I find the Canadian slashers (this and PROM NIGHT) to be very lacking in terms of character development. Some might call me for a loser for saying this but I think the characters are just as important as the kill scenes. I think this is why the F13 series worked so well. It's also why I think THE BURNING works better than something like MADMAN (or even those ultra low budget shockers).

While the effects were good I wouldn't call them better than Savini's work. During the extras it seemed like everyone who blowing their own horn about how great and ground breaking they were but I don't think too many of them were that great. The pick/eye one was great in its extended version as was the decapitation. I think the Mabel one was laughable and worked better in its cut form. The "shock value" they were going for was overdone in the extended version IMO.

It seems this release is taking some heat across the internet but I thought it was pretty good for its low retail price.

 

[TravisR]

I agree. If all the characters are just total stereotypes (it's a slasher movie so I'm not asking for a psychological study of the characters but you have to let the audience know and like the characters a little bit) or they are assholes, you don't care about them and the suspense suffers because you just want to see them die.

That being said, I find My Bloody Valentine to have a strangely 'real' feel to it even with a couple of poor performances. I guess what gives it a real feel is that the town and the mine are obviously real places (rather than a town in California or in Vancouver), you're dropped into the middle of the dramatic story (the love triangle story is already going) and because I've never seen any of the actors in anything else.

 

[Bryan^H]

Your not alone about characters. They make (or break) any horror film.

Friday the 13th part 2 is probably the high watermark for good characters in a slasher film.
Madman I feel is one of the best(and underrated) slasher films around. There are some very creepy scenes when the Madman is hunting his victims.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

A few thoughts on this...

First, I just read the DVDDrive-In review of this new disc by Wes Ray, and it alone made me want to buy the disc and give the movie a second chance. I've only seen it once before, via the old Paramount DVD... and it was underwhelming.

As far as other slasher films are concerned, I too enjoy MADMAN and I think it's underrated.

If we're talking about well-developed characters where you begin to care about the victims and feel for them, then I think MOTHER'S DAY scores the highest on that point, maybe more than any other cast of slasher victims I've ever seen. At least it's always the first one which comes to mind.