The best thing about Victoria isn’t actually its technical prowess—it’s the lead performance from the mesmerizing Laia Costa as the title character.
From: John Steiger, Woodbridge, VA:
Query: Why attend R-rated (or even sometimes PG-13-) horror/thriller movies at the cinema anymore?
Consider the following 3 examples:
"The Chronicles of Riddick" (2004): 119 min (PG-13 Cinema version) vs. 135 min (Unrated "Director's Cut" DVD)
"Sin City" (2005): 124 min (R Cinema version) vs. 147 min (Unrated DVD)
"Land of the Dead" (2005): 93 min (R Cinema version) vs. 97 min (Unrated "Director's Cut" DVD)
On top of them I have learned that the forthcoming " The Hills Have Eyes" (2006) remake and "Basic Instinct 2" (2006) are supposed to be extended Unrated versions, as well.
Why should I pay top dollar to attend a cinema viewing of an R-rated horror/thriller movie, when the "real movie" will appear later, and only appear later, on the DVD?
[Note: I have seen the "R" rated version of "Sin City" twice in the cinema and once on DVD, but I almost think I haven't really seen it at all, now that there's an extended Unrated version out.]
This seems to be happening more and more. And it's becoming a terrible problem for me personally, because I prefer to view movies in cinemas where I believe they show best. But how can I get psyched up for "Sin City 2" in the cinema, when the "real movie" may not appear for months later and then, only on DVD? Cinemas (and cinema critics) should be angry because you are only getting to screen (review) an expurgated version. Can anything be done about this?
This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...
A review of Steven Spielberg's "Bridge of Spies" from its NYFF premiere last night.
A NYFF report on Don Cheadle's directorial debut, "Miles Ahead."
A review of season two of FX's "Fargo."