criterionforum.org

Extended "redux" version to be premiered at Cannes.

PLEASE. DON'T. SUCK.

*fingers crossed*

Does anyone love the 229 minute cut (or this film in general) and still think the film feels incomplete?

I felt that even before I knew Leone shot more. Namely as concerned the other members of the gang, De Niro's relationship with Darlanne Fluegel, the whole Frank Manoldi and Jimmy Conway subplots. Granted, none of this may be in the extra footage, and if it is, none of it may be worth it, but a fella can dream.

I've founded only a review, just one ! about the new cut.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/ca ... a-restored" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last minute, but they're showing the new cut for the first time in the U.S. at MoMA in NYC tomorrow night (Saturday, 10/13) as part of their annual film restoration festival, and Robert DeNiro himself will be there to introduce it.

I cannot go, I've got tix to a screening at the NYFF, but Jesus, someone please go and report back. I think they still have tickets too.

What's the source of your information? The MoMA page says it's the 229 minute (standard) version.

Hmmm...having just seen this Guardian article, I have to wonder about that too.

It was the 229 minute version, called the "European theatrical cut" by the MOMA host. No extra scenes--Burt Young was there, and looked pretty good--DeNiro spoke briefly--there was a nice program with notes about the original release and the restoration sandwiching some color stills.

Three scenes are up on YouTube that you have to figure will be in the extended version:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... rZ8gnWypTw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like we'll be getting it as a 30th anniversary release. I still hope we can get the full 269-minute cut.

hearthesilence wrote:Hmmm...having just seen this Guardian article, I have to wonder about that too.

I love the first comment "In the restored version, the phone now rings and rings for a full half an hour."

It doesn't already?

According to early comments(Scandaloso!) the new Italian blu-ray of the extended cut is a mess,riddled with compression artifacts.I smell that someone at Warner Italy just wanted to rush this out for a christmas market,the special edition will no doubt follow later...

Just finished watching the Italian Blu-ray of the extended cut. The film is as mesmerizing as it's ever been, and extended version added to my appreciation even more. Some of the new additions now seem absolutely essencial, such as Bailey's exchange with union leader Jimmy O’Donnell that preceeds final conversation between Noodles and Bailey/Max, or the extended "car in the water" sequence. Others seem a bit more superficial, but still add richness to the whole and provide some missing links. Only one scene IMO would do better remaining among deleted material and shown as such - the Deborah's performing in Cleopatra play. It slows the proceedings to the grind at the worse possible time.

I was really glad to finally see this version. Speaking of quality, as many have said, this is less than a stellar release, and the quality of the inserted footage is amazingly poor (and I had rather low expectations to begin with). On the upside, despite some reports, all the additional footage does have both English and Italian soundtracks. Also, the price at the moment on Italian Amazon is too good to pass at ~8 EUR.

I am looking forward to the results of the additional restoration effort by Scorcese Foundation. This new version is certainly worth a wait!

Mentioned already in the Warner thread, but word's going around that WB will release an "Extended Director's Cut" next year, in time for the 30th anniversary.

From TheDigitalBits.com:

"...Warner Home Video has set Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America for 2-disc Extended Director’s Cut Collector’s Edition Blu-ray for release on 9/30 (SRP $34.99). It will also come in Digibook packaging (32 pages) which include “with rare photos and insightful notes that chronicle the movie’s production history” and a letter written by Martin Scorsese. The film runs 251 minutes and was restored with the involvement of Scorsese’s The Film Foundation. Extras will include commentary by film historian and critic Richard Schickel and the Once Upon a Time: Sergio Leone documentary. Note that there will also be a single-disc Blu-ray (SRP $19.98) and a 2-disc DVD re-issue (SRP $14.97). Here’s what that looks like (the Amazon link will be added when available)…"

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/m ... 60514_1415" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hooray!

It's too late now, but apparently they screened the extended restored cut at the NYFF this afternoon with DeNiro, James Woods, Treat Williams and William Forsythe doing a Q&A afterwards. (Actually, it's still going on, but the film's getting close to the end.)

In the meantime, I found this article interesting. It makes the case why it can't be considered a director's cut, then goes through the added material, often praising it.

hearthesilence wrote:It's too late now, but apparently they screened the extended restored cut at the NYFF this afternoon with DeNiro, James Woods, Treat Williams and William Forsythe doing a Q&A afterwards. (Actually, it's still going on, but the film's getting close to the end.)

Actually, it wasn't a formal Q&A, just the actors hanging out and chatting with fans. Not DeNiro, though, he left after his (very brief) opening remarks. The other gentlemen sat and watched the entire film with the audience, and appeared to enjoy it.

Oh wow, well, except for DeNiro leaving early, having the cast casually hang out with fans is probably better than a Q&A. I definitely would've chatted with James Woods, you can tell from his interviews that he genuinely loved working on the film and with Leone.

How was the restoration? I've seen the added scenes on television (the Louise Fletcher scene definitely looks crummy), but I'm wondering how the rest of the film looks.

Assuming it's the same as the new Blu-ray, then like the Italian disc the full film has been drained of colour to better match the awful condition of the new footage. RAH made some comments here. The new set does contain the old disc though, with the previous colour scheme. Direct comparisons here.

Holy crap, that's insane. I remember when they pulled the restoration from circulation, saying they wanted to see if they can do a better job on the reinstated footage, but I never thought this would be the result. Very disappointing…

Review of the new Warner BD, with caps from some of the new scenes, here.

RobertAltman wrote:Review of the new Warner BD, with caps from some of the new scenes, here.

Haven't watched the whole thing yet but did several comparisons between the "extended cut" and the 229 minutes version. The extended cut seems rushed, even the menu looks amateurish and there are few chapter stops. But the most striking difference is the timing: the extended cut looks washed out and greenish. Weird. If it's true that this was done in order to match the workprinbt scenes "better", then all I can say is that the restoration project got into the hands of amateurs. Also, the claim that the workprint could not be brought to the quality of the rest of the film seems fishy, given e.g. the jaw-droppingly good restoration of Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari on the Masters of Cinema Blu-ray. In that film there were similar instances of filling in missing snippets from projection prints of bad quality and the match is simply astonishing.

My conclusion: it's good to have the film's length restored at last but the final, 100% restoration, is something that should start now. No rush, but just do it correctly. (Incidentally, the same ought to be said about the 16mm scenes in the restored Metropolis, the art of film restoration is making huge strides.)

There's a world of difference between a timed theatrical print and rushes printed haphazardly for quick reference or to use in a work-print. Your main complaint, as others have also pointed out, is that the colors look drained which makes a comparison to CALIGARI irrelevant. The choice to degrade all of the footage to match the previously unseen material is, indeed, questionable. But there is only so much that can be done with footage that is bad to begin with. Most successful restorations are based on locating the original negative, interpositive or acquiring high-quality prints and cleaning those up. When the material is poor, especially for color films, you simply can't put back in what is gone. Technological advances may allow for a few more lines to be removed from the 16mm METROPOLIS footage, but that material is never going to be mistaken for the better preserved 35mm footage that surrounds it (thank goodness Murnau-Stiftung didn't degrade everything else to match the 25 minutes of 16mm footage!).

Roger Ryan wrote:There's a world of difference between a timed theatrical print and rushes printed haphazardly for quick reference or to use in a work-print.

Yes but you should see the Caligari examples.

Your main complaint, as others have also pointed out, is that the colors look drained which makes a comparison to CALIGARI irrelevant. The choice to degrade all of the footage to match the previously unseen material is, indeed, questionable.

I'd call it "unacceptable". (My guess is too many cooks in the kitchen.)

But there is only so much that can be done with footage that is bad to begin with.

Agreed. But it seems to me, based on the Caligari example, that much more can be done. I'm not saying this should have been done for this release, first things first.

Roger Ryan wrote:But there is only so much that can be done with footage that is bad to begin with.

While there is always the question "if this has been restored, why couldn't the same be done for this ?", I believe that the simplest thing here would have simply been to leave the damaged footage as such, and basta. Why degrade all the good footage ?

However, if one thinks of Caligari as a good example for restoration VS OUATIA, the point is a boot since we are mainly talking of color scheme on a color movie VS a tinted one, where the tint has been digitally restored. I have no idea how a color movie could get his colors back the same way, and if so, then it could already have been used on the extensive IAMMMMW Roadshow restoration, for instance.