5 ms·

If you do (re-)visit this film, I highly recommend the "International Cut" that was shows and released on video everywhere except the US. It's the director's pr

If you do (re-)visit this film, I highly recommend the "International Cut" that was shows and released on video everywhere except the US. It's the director's preferred version. It's more than 20 minutes shorter(!) making for a much tighter movie, and removes some bits that didn't move the plot or looked weirdly dated (spooky Skeletons towards the end, for example)

CharlesW 6y ago
FWIW: "When released theatrically in the United States, the film ran approx. 146 minutes. However, as explained above, three weeks into its release, Kubrick cut the 2 minute coda from the end of the film, reducing its length to 144 minutes. After meeting with poor reviews and erratic box office, Kubrick decided to further edit the film for its theatrical release outside the US. He cut approximately 31 minutes of footage, reducing the length to 113 minutes. The 144 minute 'US version' is often erroneously called the director's cut when in fact director Kubrick regards both the 119 minute version and the 144 minute version as director's cuts." https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/alternateversions https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/alternateversions
- intopieces 6y ago
  I don't know if it's some weird quirk of copyright, but I really wish they'd just release both versions on video everywhere. AFAICT, there isn't a 4K HDR re-release of the International Cut, which is a shame.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    At least it's within the realm of possible fan recreation if the international cut is strictly shorter than the 4K release we have.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  The (only) version available on Amazon UK runs for 119 minutes.
troughway 6y ago
Lately I have been seeing a number of films that have been altered against the wishes of the director, such as Lynch's "Dune", Michael Mann's "The Keep", and various other WW2 movies. I understand the want for studios to make movies palatable to an audience, but there is only so many people who are interested in watching these movies to begin with, so really cutting is just going to piss off the fans and won't earn you any accolades. And it's a damn shame because in a number of cases the original footage has been lost, so there is no hope for some miraculous "Uncut" or "Director's Cut" version in the future.
- intopieces 6y ago
  To be clear, The Shining wasn’t alternated against the wishes of the director, but in fact at the behest of the director, and to positive effect. But on that note, if you’re interested in the studio messing with the director’s intended work, check out the “Love Conquers All” version of the movie “Brazil” (1985). It starts like 40 minutes in, makes no goddamn sense, and ends on a happy note where the original film... definitely doesn’t. A friend of mine described it as (SPOILER for the movie Se7en): “As if in the movie Se7en instead of his wife’s head in the box, it was a cake and she rolled out on a unicycle singing Happy Birthday.”
rwmj 6y ago
Wow in the several times I've watched the Shining from different sources, I've never seen a version with spooky skeletons. Here is the deleted scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usgsJ-hy0h0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usgsJ-hy0h0 I think I have to agree that this wasn't one of Kubrick's best moments.

CharlesW 6y ago

FWIW: "When released theatrically in the United States, the film ran approx. 146 minutes. However, as explained above, three weeks into its release, Kubrick cut the 2 minute coda from the end of the film, reducing its length to 144 minutes. After meeting with poor reviews and erratic box office, Kubrick decided to further edit the film for its theatrical release outside the US. He cut approximately 31 minutes of footage, reducing the length to 113 minutes. The 144 minute 'US version' is often erroneously called the director's cut when in fact director Kubrick regards both the 119 minute version and the 144 minute version as director's cuts." https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/alternateversions https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/alternateversions

intopieces 6y ago
I don't know if it's some weird quirk of copyright, but I really wish they'd just release both versions on video everywhere. AFAICT, there isn't a 4K HDR re-release of the International Cut, which is a shame.
- Lammy 6y ago
  At least it's within the realm of possible fan recreation if the international cut is strictly shorter than the 4K release we have.
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
The (only) version available on Amazon UK runs for 119 minutes.

troughway 6y ago

Lately I have been seeing a number of films that have been altered against the wishes of the director, such as Lynch's "Dune", Michael Mann's "The Keep", and various other WW2 movies. I understand the want for studios to make movies palatable to an audience, but there is only so many people who are interested in watching these movies to begin with, so really cutting is just going to piss off the fans and won't earn you any accolades. And it's a damn shame because in a number of cases the original footage has been lost, so there is no hope for some miraculous "Uncut" or "Director's Cut" version in the future.

intopieces 6y ago
To be clear, The Shining wasn’t alternated against the wishes of the director, but in fact at the behest of the director, and to positive effect. But on that note, if you’re interested in the studio messing with the director’s intended work, check out the “Love Conquers All” version of the movie “Brazil” (1985). It starts like 40 minutes in, makes no goddamn sense, and ends on a happy note where the original film... definitely doesn’t. A friend of mine described it as (SPOILER for the movie Se7en): “As if in the movie Se7en instead of his wife’s head in the box, it was a cake and she rolled out on a unicycle singing Happy Birthday.”

rwmj 6y ago

Wow in the several times I've watched the Shining from different sources, I've never seen a version with spooky skeletons. Here is the deleted scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usgsJ-hy0h0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usgsJ-hy0h0 I think I have to agree that this wasn't one of Kubrick's best moments.