I usually prefer to watch the long version of a film, but in this case I would recommend to watch the short version first. The magical moments and emotional impact of the film results from it not explaining too much, which gets lost in the director’s cut. The film is a bit sentimental and idealistic, and therefore appealed to a mainstream audience, but even though it’s no real masterpiece, you should give it a try.
I did not like it – when it was released, it signified a shift as to which “foreign” films were distributed in the u.s.- marketers realized there was a crowd who wanted sweet sentimental “foreign films” that were not much more than nostalgic travelogues or “old man befriends child” stories, as opposed to films that were a little more challenging or films that offered a different take on narrative form than Hollywood. As you can tell, it kinda bugged me, even though I was quite young when I saw it. None of what I just wrote is intended as a spoiler- I’m just trying to describe the type of film it is…
Anyhow, the longer version is the only available version it seems.
Neither. Watch a good movie instead.
You’re welcome.
I vote “neither,” too.
I should have listened to you Matt and Roscoe,
The verdict is in, and I should say that I found the film to be sentimental and emotionally manipulative, and it did not contain much material of artistic merit. It was cliched and predictable, and it certainly did nothing for me as a whole. It served its purpose as a piece of entertainment rather than as a work of art in my opinion. It contained many trite cliches one would find in a generic Hollywood-produced coming-of-age of film.I rather liked the relationship between the projectionist and the little boy, but when the kid grew up into a sullen teenager the film just lost all interest for me. Very sappy film.
I enjoyed the first third and the last third. The middle of the film isn’t very good.
i just have watched Director’s cut and really like that
Roscoe, i agree. the first 1/3 is really quite good,but then it goes downhill. i kind of like the idea of the cinema closing, the end of an era, and the nostalgia associated with that when the kid finally returns as an adult, but the director didn’t handle it too well.
the score wasn’t too bad from memory a friend of mine from Italy always refers to the 80’s as a really bad period for Italian cinema, and points to this film, believed to be a ‘revelation’ at the time in Italy, to be one of the worst examples. haha.
apparently the director disowns the theatrical cut, but his cut drags imo.
Perhaps the films was meant as a ploy to gain the appreciation of mainstream audiences, in order to improve the international image of Italian cinema.
“believed to be a ‘revelation’ at the time in Italy”
I think its a common misconception that only people in America have relatively elementary film tastes and that only Americans see cinema as merely entertainment. The vast majority of Europeans see film in the same light, as well, I would think, even though people like to believe that Europeans’ taste in film is far superior and more eclectic than that of Americans.
Take the example of one of the few scenes in Cinema Paradiso I appreciated where the moviegoers jeered after seeing Il Grido, dismissing it as being too highbrow for the town.
Watch both. I always like to see the theatrical version first – the way it was originally presented to the world – then the director’s cut to compare and see whether the changes were for the better or not. This is one Criterion should pick up.
Do watch the first version (the theatre release). I’ve accidentally watched the director’s cut first, and I lost respect. But I would put 4 stars to the first version.
Mastroianni
I haven’t seen the film and would like to know if I should watch the director’s cut or the shorter version. Also, I’ve heard mixed things about the film in general and was also wondering if some would simply recommend that I pass on this film.