Once Upon a Time in America (1984) (Extended Director's Cut)

[GxyExpress999]

[HeavyHitter]

I decided to just hold off this and purchased a used version of the original Warner disc at a good price. The color is just WAY out of whack despite the temptation of the extra detail on this new extended cut, however, I rather watch something closer to Leone's intentions in terms of color and version of the movie.

[Mandalorian]

Based on all the various opinions I've been reading I can't tell if it's best to just go ahead and get the original release, or get the new extended one which supposedly also has the 4K theatrical cut on another disc.

[Khronikos]

What? This has a theatrical version too? But with the new coloring?

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I just finished watching my single-disc Blu-ray of the entire 251-minute Extended Director's Cut of Once Upon a Time in America in one sitting.

Two thumbs up. Way up.

I believe that this is an outstanding disc, and I will be retiring my old Blu-ray of the 229-minute cut for good.

The added scenes are crude in terms of picture quality, but the noticeable drop in picture quality with each scene insertion never took my mind out of the movie. The scenes themselves really piece together some previously vague plot points (how Noodles met Eve, how the Bailey situation fits together, etc.), and I will go so far as to say that they are integral to the movie in this definitive form.

The reason to buy this Blu-ray is that the 229 minutes of familiar footage are vastly superior in picture quality to the way that they appeared on the previous Blu-ray. The previous Blu-ray edition included several sequences, especially in the final half, that looked barely better than DVD upconversions, but those scenes look wonderful on this new disc. In terms of 4K restoration results, I have no hesitation about comparing the improvement of the 229 minutes on this disc to the improvements of the most recent Blu-ray of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

With the exception of the 22 minutes of added footage, everything on this new Blu-ray pops out of the screen. The color scheme is toned down slightly from the previous edition in a way that seems faithful to the intent of the filmmakers, but the detail is remarkable.
...and even the 22 minutes of added footage are not "unwatchable." The added footage is inferior, yes, but not unwatchable. I think that most people will, like me, be impressed by the improvements to the storyline that the added footage has to offer.

The official review of this Blu-ray on this site should have included screenshots from the 229 minutes of familiar footage for those who want to compare, instead of simply including the screenshots of added footage.

Thanks for the review, a must by for me now.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

What? This has a theatrical version too? But with the new coloring?

The 229 minute cut is on disc 2, but I haven't heard many talk about it.

[HeavyHitter]

This set includes: 1) the original 229 min disc that was previously released by Warner which is Leone's preferred cut and original color, and 2) the 251 min cut mastered from 4K (minus 22 minutes of it which comes from scraps lol) with the different color timing yet very similar to the Italian release.

You can also buy the 251 min cut separately.

[SymbioticFunction]

I think the colour of the new version's original footage looks awful. Won't be replacing my old blu-ray.

Edit: And to put it in perspective, I thought the latest Good, Bad & Ugly disc was worth the upgrade.

[The Drugstore]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

I think the colour of the new version's original footage looks awful. Won't be replacing my old blu-ray.

Edit: And to put it in perspective, I thought the latest Good, Bad & Ugly disc was worth the upgrade.

I think your overreacting by your post, there is a letter clearly stating in this set why they had to do what they have to do with the found footage. I have watched the new cut and love it, I understand the footage was in bad shape and needed restoration work done. I am extremely happy with my purchase and have no regrets. I am happy to own this iconic piece of film making. I don't understand why people need to bash this release without viewing it and taking into account the quality of the footage that was found and restored?? Screen caps taken don't do this release justice, if you are a fan of the film purchase it and enjoy it for what it is and what we have now.

[Blu MacReady]

Originally Posted by The Drugstore

I think your overreacting by your post, there is a letter clearly stating in this set why they had to do what they have to do with the found footage. I have watched the new cut and love it, I understand the footage was in bad shape and needed restoration work done. I am extremely happy with my purchase and have no regrets. I am happy to own this iconic piece of film making. I don't understand why people need to bash this release without viewing it and taking into account the quality of the footage that was found and restored?? Screen caps taken don't do this release justice, if you are a fan of the film purchase it and enjoy it for what it is and what we have now.

But he was talking about the 229 min new colouring and has watched it. Your post is over reaction.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by The Drugstore

I think your overreacting by your post, there is a letter clearly stating in this set why they had to do what they have to do with the found footage. I have watched the new cut and love it, I understand the footage was in bad shape and needed restoration work done. I am extremely happy with my purchase and have no regrets. I am happy to own this iconic piece of film making. I don't understand why people need to bash this release without viewing it and taking into account the quality of the footage that was found and restored?? Screen caps taken don't do this release justice, if you are a fan of the film purchase it and enjoy it for what it is and what we have now.

There's some good discussion about this on another forum from some reputable people including Robert Harris.
By all accounts, the entire color timing of the 251 min cut is completely wrong. The 229 min cut is what Leone approved and the color is said to be spot on to his preference. The new color timing and added scenes of the 251 min cut has nothing to do with the filmmaker's intentions. If you're okay with that, that's fine. But just keep that in mind. Some of us actually care about these matters.

[Dr. Humbert]

The thing that bothers me most about this release it that we basically know it's only a stop-gap one. Scorsese is working on getting the rights to the missing 18 minutes to be able to restore the original, complete 269-minutes Leone cut.

It's only a matter of time before he can make that happen and we see another "ultimate final complete this-is-really-the-last-one-guys" release. And that I'd be buying the same movie for the third time.

It does seem to me though that people who claim that the 229-minutes version is truer to the director's intentions aren't exactly right. He was forced to cut 40 minutes from his prefered cut so we can pretty much assume that adding 22 minutes back would bring us closer to the original vision.

I can't say anything about the color timing though.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Dr. Humbert

It does seem to me though that people who claim that the 229-minutes version is truer to the director's intentions aren't exactly right. He was forced to cut 40 minutes from his prefered cut so we can pretty much assume that adding 22 minutes back would bring us closer to the original vision.

I can't say anything about the color timing though.

Wrong.

http://notesofafilmfanatic.com/?p=911

[Doctor Jack]

I dont know why you all argue about what is the right and wrong about this and/or that. Unless it comes from the director themselves explicitly, there is no use in arguing about what others say the directors intentions were. It just comes down to a lot of no I'm right/no you're wrong, I'm right.

[pi2loc]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Wrong.

http://notesofafilmfanatic.com/?p=911

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

I will hold off for now and see what they come up with in the future.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

I dont know why you all argue about what is the right and wrong this and that. Unless it comes from the director themselves explicitly, there is no use in arguing about what others say the directors intentions were. It just comes down to a lot of no I'm right/no you're wrong, I'm right.

That is the point I am making. The 229 min cut IS the approved cut, period.

There's blatantly false information being spread in some reviews and forums based on nothing but pure assumption (zero facts) that the 251 min cut and color is based on his intentions.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Wrong.

http://notesofafilmfanatic.com/?p=911

There's a lot of good info in the comment replies to the above-linked article.

From what I gather, the argument about Sergio Leone's original intent for this film is still up in the air. It seems that Leone was upset that the 269-minute film was cut in the first place, but he ultimately approved the 229-minute version. Did he approve the 229-minute version because it was his "original director's intended cut" or did he approve it simply because it was, at the time, the closest match to his original vision (the 269-minute version) given the condition of the source elements?

To my own eyes, the added scenes in this 251-minute version improve the story arc of the movie. Understand that I'm simply talking about the content of these added scenes and not about the picture quality of the prints. In terms of narrative, I prefer the way that this 251-minute version flows.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

To my own eyes, the added scenes in this 251-minute version improve the story arc of the movie. Understand that I'm simply talking about the content of these added scenes and not about the picture quality of the prints. In terms of narrative, I prefer the way that this 251-minute version flows.

And that's fine. I don't think anyone objects to the release of this cut, or of anyone liking this cut over the previous one. The only thing that has incensed some folks is the labeling of this cut as the "Director's Cut", when the director is long dead and had no hand whatsoever in crafting this cut.

It's the titling that is inappropriate. It should be called the "Special Extended Cut" or something similar.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

And that's fine. I don't think anyone objects to the release of this cut, or of anyone liking this cut over the previous one. The only thing that has incensed some folks is the labeling of this cut as the "Director's Cut", when the director is long dead and had no hand whatsoever in crafting this cut.

It's the titling that is inappropriate. It should be called the "Special Extended Cut" or something similar.

I concur that the "Extended Director's Cut" designation could be misleading.

Maybe there was just not enough room under the movie title to type, "Closer-To-The-Director's-Cut-But-Still-Not-Quite-There Cut."

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by The Drugstore

I think your overreacting by your post, there is a letter clearly stating in this set why they had to do what they have to do with the found footage. I have watched the new cut and love it, I understand the footage was in bad shape and needed restoration work done.

But I have no problem with the look of the found footage. My dissatisfaction pertains to gimping the colour of the existing footage in an attempt to try to marry the two sources together. Why not keep the original look and use the extra footage as is? Like the My Bloody Valentine or Four Flies On Grey Velvet blu-rays. I chose not to buy the Italian blu-ray for exactly the same reason.

Edit: Had a look at my earlier post and can understand why you thought I was complaining about the look of the added footage. Perhaps I could have worded it better.