I like both, but Phantom is the one I can't stop rewatching.

It's complicated, but it basically had three things going against it:

1. The hype of the first two films, which were made with relative creative freedom.
2. Coppola hadn't made a big hit in several years, and it was becoming fashionable to hate on him.
3. The third film was made years after the first two, and Hollywood had changed. Seemingly the entire Hollywood machine was working against Coppola. He didn't get to make the story he wanted to make, he didn't have the time or the budget he needed, and Winona Ryder bailed at the last second, leaving Coppola to make a snap decision to cast his daughter, which was a mistake.

Personally, I also waited years to watch it because I heard bad things. And when I finally watched it... I thought it was actually pretty good. Not as great as the first film (still the best one, imho), but way better than people had given it credit for. The new edit of the movie, The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, was even better. I think it's a good ending to the saga, although it could have been better if Duvall hadn't asked for too much money, and Paramount had let Coppola make the movie he wanted to.

The different cuts of Alexander are fascinating. I know some people thought it was ridiculous, but each new cut was making millions of dollars in profit in the home video market of that era. It was the perfect scenario for Oliver Stone to use trial-and-error to find the best cut. And honestly, a film of that size probably needed to be edited for ten years.

It's similar with Apocalypse Now, which was such a huge editing job that Coppola had to try out at least four different cuts (Cannes, theatrical, Redux, Final) before he felt like he had addressed all of the challenges. And Final Cut really feels like he finally found the right balance and smoothed everything out. I think there was an awkward jump cut at one point in every edit until Final Cut, where he finally, decades later, figured out how to fix it.

Maybe most impressive to me is The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, because it's the most extensively revised. It's a complete overhaul of the movie, a complete re-think of the structure and focus of the movie. It doesn't feel as perfectly-honed as Apocalypse Now: Final Cut, but it feels like it works a lot better than the previous cuts. With more skill and more distance, he really addressed the core issues in an editorially insightful way.

Coppola is a very clever editor. So is Stone. Their recuts are fascinating.

With Blade Runner, I think I slightly prefer the work print to the theatrical/international cut, but generally, you can see each cut improving over the last. Final Cut > Director's Cut > Workprint > Theatrical/International. I'm a little surprised that there is any controversy about the Final Cut being the best one. That seems obvious to me. Same with the Final Cut of Apocalypse Now.

Too bad there isn't a bigger market for recuts like in the golden age of DVD. I wish there was more support and incentive for filmmakers to recut their movies if they want to. As long as the original version is available, I say keep remixing and refining all day long.

That's the one. I think he even went on tour (or at least wanted to) with composer Dan Deacon, who did the score live along with a live-edit of the movie. And Coppola would sometimes just press a button to randomize scenes. Something like that. Truly a unique presentation in film history and something people don't talk about enough. Some people felt like Coppola's powers kind of declined a bit towards the end, but I dare them to find a director who was that sharp and that innovative at Coppola's age. Aside from maybe Godard, I don't think that director exists.

Thanks, but yeah, that's all I found, too.

My impression was that the Coppola quote about the film being personal was in regards to the original cut, but I may be mistaken.

And I've seen various running times listed in different articles. Blu-Ray.com says it's 95 minutes. Amazon says 2 hours 19 minutes. Most articles say 79 minutes but I think I saw ones that said 88 or 89, which is about the same as the first cut (88 minutes).

I saw one article mention a revised ending. That's the only specific thing I've heard about what has changed.

If it's 79 minutes and has a revised ending, I'm hoping the entire movie has been tinkered with. Tightened up, maybe some rough edges sanded down, maybe some improvements in editing here and there, maybe new color grade.

The more changes, the better. I find recuts by auteur directors fascinating.

If you find any details, please let me know!

Absolutely yes.

All of his films post-Fast Company are strong. In fact, I think he has made the most movies that I like in a row of any director since maybe Kurosawa - 17 in a row and counting.

And personally, I think his "master period" started with Crash in 1995. That film, along with eXistenZ, Spider, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, A Dangerous Method, Cosmopolis, Maps to the Stars, Crimes of the Future... that's his master period. Maybe you could even extend it so that it starts with The Fly or Dead Ringers, but I feel like he reached new heights.

I say this as someone who loves his early stuff. Videodrome, The Fly, and Naked Lunch are still the Cronenberg movies I've watched the most times by far. Great films. Love them. But as I get older, and he his career continues, I really think the second half of his career is the best.

Here's the thing: he basically stopped making body horror, and so his fans stopped being excited about his movies. Aside from eXistenZ and Crimes of the Future, and some of them liked A History of Violence and Eastern Promises because of the carnage, he basically has two completely different fan-bases for the two halves of his career. The body horror people are disappointed he stopped making those kinds of films. But people who like arthouse dramas probably like at least a few of the movies he made after Dead Ringers.

Personally, I think his absolute best film is Maps to the Stars, or maybe A Dangerous Method. Those two are incredibly underrated. His mastery of his technique was complete at that point, and he had a lot of say with those films. You can rewatch them and get choked up on how much depth of thought and feeling went into each line of dialogue.

Crimes of the Future is a masterpiece, too, but I feel sad that people are calling it a "return to form" just because it's body horror. I feel like people who appreciate him beyond his genre work know that he's been doing great work this entire time.

I think the Coda version is better, and if you watch the 1991 version first the difference might be distracting to you. Some people seem to dislike Coda simply because the changes are so drastic that they can't focus on the story.

Like mostly theories about Kubrick films, it's a reach that tells you a lot about the person who came up with the "theory".

Not to say that Kubrick films don't have themes and subtext and all of that, but one must remember that one of the things Kubrick was criticized for in adapting Stephen King's novel was doubling down on making Jack Torrance the bad guy. I haven't read the book, but from what I'm told, in the film he comes across as much crazier, and it begins earlier, and the character is less sympathetic.

No, I think the Wendy theory is bunk and there are already videos out there addressing, in detail, why it doesn't make sense.

Depends why you didn't like Rogue One. It's a similar style and has one of the same writers. But it's also a lot better. It's the movie Rogue One was trying to be.

Nomad: In the Footsteps of Bruce Chatwin (2019), by Werner Herzog. Saw it on Amazon Prime.

• Sunshine
• The Ninth Gate
• Seconds
• The Ghost Writer
• JFK
• Mission to Mars

This seems to hit comedies particularly hard. Ghostbusters used to be my favorite movie, and now I don't even think it's very funny. Some good jokes, sure, but now it feels kind of lazy and I don't think the casual misogyny comes across as self-aware as they think it does. In fact, I'm not sure if it's self-aware of that at all, or people just make that excuse for it today.

Same with Back to the Future. I feel like the sexualization of Lea Thompson's character is pretty gross today. First of all, her character is a minor for most of the runtime. She's given zero agency. And then there's the image of her being sexually assaulted in the backseat of a car and... is that being played for laughs?! Also the stuff about Chuck Berry getting his music from a white boy does not work today at all. I think Back to the Future works because of a very charming cast and a terrific musical score, but the movie itself is kind of a turd.

Yeah. It's no longer fresh, but it's still a great movie. Same with To Live and Die in LA, and The Exorcist. Friedkin was so influential it's hard to look at those movies today and understand which parts of them were cliches at the time and which ones were fresh ideas.

Rewatched Top Secret recently and that one is also still hilarious.

Nightmare Alley, but honestly, most of the best movie experiences I had were at home watching old movies. My local cinema mostly plays the biggest blockbusters. They did play Everything Everywhere and Nightmare Alley, but mostly they just played Top Gun: Maverick for like six months, and a slew of superhero and children's films. I liked Nightmare Alley, Nope, and X. The Northman and Maverick looked good and were engaging but are pretty dumb, folks. Nightmare Alley was the only one of those I would call a great film. Maybe Everything Everywhere.

All the best movies right now are foreign films, indies, or streaming originals. I'm not excited for any studio films at the moment except mildly enthusiastic about Indy 5. If the studios collapsed tomorrow I wouldn't care, and movie theaters mostly exist for them.

Love that you countered the accusation that you are pretentious with recommending Proust. Take my upvote.

And you're not wrong. I do like some of Scorsese's films, though, but mostly his recent ones like Silence and The Irishman. Taxi Driver just seems profoundly mentally ill to me and I'm glad he grew as a person after that.

Nah. Leonardo DiCaprio might be even bigger than Cruise. Cruise can't open a big movie unless it's a franchise action film. DiCaprio can open anything. Brad Pitt, Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, Robert Downey, Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Adam Driver, Matt Damon, and others aren't far behind.

The star system is definitely in decline as studios focus on selling genre films to their audience, but movie stars still exist.

Yet a veteran film star said that about Hollywood much more recently than that.