Swamp Thing release..uncut? (1 Viewer)

[Charlie O.]

Swamp Thing was recently reissued. Does anyone happen to have any reviews on it. I'm mainly interested if this release is the uncut version and if its anamorphic or not.

 

[TheBat]

try here:

JACOB


http://www.dvd-basen.dk/uk/home.php3...land=%25&ok=go

 

[Sean Richardson]

Simple answer: no, it's not uncut (which is to say, it's not the international "R-rated" cut). Yes, it's anamorphic.

 

[Charlie O.]

Thanks guys. Guess I'm sticking with the recalled copy.

 

[Bill Thomann]

With every other release coming out nowadays with an Unrated counterpart it is hard to believe that they dropped the ball & didn't release Swamp Thing both ways (& anamorphic for both). It seems like a majority of people head straight for the Unrated version, director's cut whatever you want to call it and the version is just sitting begging to be put out and they didn't. Makes no business sense.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

They should have just redone the cover and put an R rating. Problem solved.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well, really, they would've had to put "unrated," as that version of the film has never been rated at all by the MPAA. But, even that might not solve the problem, as MGM may not necessarily have the rights to that European version.

DJ

 

[TheBat]

I found a used copy of unrated international cut of swamp thing. got it for 9.99

JACOB

 

[David Allen]

I thought the problem was with Adrienne Barbeau- not the studio.

 

[TravisR]

I don't think it matters if Adrienne Barbeau has a problem with it, she wouldn't have any say if the movie was edited or unedited.

 

[David (C)]

I thought the brief nudity seen on the initial DVD release was actually apart of the US (theatrical) PG rated print. The nudity was non-sexual in nature therefore the MPAA was much more lenient before the advent of PG-13.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Some of the nudity was sexualized, actually, as it shows some hookers getting their boobs grabbed by evil henchmen at a party. Barbeau's nudity was also just gratuitous, and not at all like, say, the incidental nudity in the CPR scene in The Abyss. Anyway, it had seemed fairly well-established that the US print never had those moments of nudity - DVD reviewers and hardcore fans noticed it as soon as the disc first hit the shelves.

The reason for disc being pulled was that a mother somewhere bought/rented the film for her child based on the PG rating, and was then shocked at the nudity and complained to MGM. If the nudity was always a part of the PG version, I don't think MGM would've wasted the money on recalling the disc from stores and then keeping it out of circulation for so long. Instead, it is likely that they faced two problems. First, they could've faced sanctions from the MPAA for misapplying a rating (or possibly even a lawsuit for trademark infringement, etc., but it's quite unlikely that the MPAA would sue one of its member studios with a board position over something that small). Second, they may not have actually had the rights to use the additional footage from the extended version, and so could've faced a dispute about that (probably from Studio Canal). Personally, my totally uninformed guess is that the incorrect rating issue probably prompted the recall (the MPAA may have even directly demanded it), but the reason for the long delay in bringing the title back out again was caused by fallout from that possible licensing dispute (again, likely with Studio Canal).

DJ

 

[Rhoq]

Actually it looks like the new re-issue might be edited.

Here is the back of the original release with a runtime of 1 hour, 33 minutes.




Here is the back of the re-issue, which says it has a 1 hour, 31 minutes runtime.



I have to get used to seeing the Sony Pictures logo on MGM releases.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Right, the new issue is shorter than the version on the original release. The older release contained nudity that was not in the original theatrical PG-rated release, and MGM marketed that disc erroneously by putting a PG rating on it. The new disc correctly presents the shorter PG version.

I don't know if the difference in running times is actually that much, though. However, the runtimes printed on DVD packaging is notoriously inaccurate (and reviews are generally useless with regard to accurate runtimes, too, because they usually just recite what the packaging says), so I wouldn't worry much about whether the difference really amounts to two minutes or not.

DJ

 

[Brian McHale]

While I appreciate the female form as much as anyone, I actually thought the US cut was a better film. It was basically good campy fluff. The brief flash of nudity perks your interest, but doesn't affect the overall feel of the movie. To me, the added nudity and sexuality felt forced and out of place. I just think the US cut is a better movie.

Ideally, they'd release a DVD with seamless branching that lets you select which version (PG or Unrated) that you want to see.

 

[AndrewWickliffe]

Wasn't the bigger deal that they didn't have the rights to the international version?