I heard a re-cut “Hal approved version” that was locked away in a “vault” is "hitting the streets" this July.
I went through Ashby’s movies recently, and this is the only one I haven’t seen.
People that have seen it: was it really messed up by the "bean-counters"?
Amazon says it's coming out on June 30 in an extended cut that more closely resembled what director Hal Ashby had in mind. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Lookin-Get-Out-Directors-Cut/dp/B001TK80CK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1242943544&sr=8-1
One week from today!! Can't wait.
shareDid you seen it? Mine is SUPPOSED to be here. UPS is pulling some shenanigans.
Netflix is sending it to me tmrw!
shareI'm just about to watch it. Finally!
shareSo what did you think of it? It has a terrific cast and, of course, one of the best directors ever. I'm lookin' to get my hands on a copy soon.
shareGood to see you post again! Have you been listen’ and/or getting to see any moonlight thru the pines lately?
Ok. As for the movie: I liked it. But it was the weakest script Ashby worked with. The script was weak as it was written by an actor not a writer. Writers, good ones anyway, write to the idea and make the canvas; actors, their emotion, are the watercolors that fill in the canvas.
When you have an actor writing it, and this isn’t their “fault” as this is what they do well: it’s liking watercolors painting on watercolors, it’s vivid for a moment, but doesn’t hold, and like the movie, it renders the picture episodic and momentary.
What did you think?
Thanks for your mini-review. It appears you liked this film a lot more than most of the people on this board. I haven't gotten my hands on this yet, but I'm hoping to soon.
It sounds like this may be Hal Ashby's weakest film, but simply the fact that he directed it probably makes it worth watching.
Writing, like acting, is difficult work, and few people have talent in one of the fields, much less both of them. At least this has a good director and cast to make up for the weaknesses of the script.
Be sure to post when you do see it!
Have you seen his film The Landlord?
I feel Ashby's editing background is what made him a great director. Hugely important. Being able to cull and get the essence of the scene, its point.
Yes, I did see "The Landlord," which I found in the clearance bin for $1.50! Great to see Beau Bridges, Fay Grant and Lou Gossett Jr. together.
Hal Ashby clearly had a feel for the depth of the scene, looking beyond the performances and the script. He also had a clear ideological point of view, but his films were never propaganda. They just opened minds – at least they opened mine.
LOOKIN' TO GET OUT is not top-drawer Ashby by any means, but the "director's approved" DVD edit is better than the cut released to theatres in '82 (which was the last time I saw the film). The film's storyline is slight and everything rests on the interaction of the characters. The theatrical version trimmed away much of that interaction and one was left with a somewhat hollow experience and a second half that was difficult to follow. The new DVD edit balances the film out considerably and there's a much better sense of what motivates all of the characters.
shareYou were very fortunate to see this in the theater when it was released, and you appear to have an excellent memory! Do you know how this is a "director's approved" cut when Ashby died years before the DVD was released? Is this the film as he wanted it be released, and was it the studio that made the theatrical revisions?
shareI just found the VHS and watched it. Good film for its stars, if not for its script and plot. Do you know how the DVD cut differs from the original film as released on DVD?
shareAs I understand it, the DVD "Director's Cut" version is about 12 - 15 minutes longer, but all the editing is different since Ashby himself went back and selected the takes he wanted to use and determined how the various shots and sequences should be intercut. He then personally donated this version of the film to UCLA without telling anyone who was involved in the making of the film. Some of the changes/additions are obvious, but other more minute tweakings would require comparing the two versions side-by-side to see the differences. For this reason, I wish Warner Brothers would have included the theatrical cut on the DVD as well. The whole feel and effectiveness of a film can be altered by how long a shot is held or when a reaction shot is used in a scene, so I would trust Ashby (a superb editor) to make the best choices for this material. As it is, my memory of seeing it in '82 was that the second half, especially, seemed rushed and confusing, whereas I didn't get that feeling seeing this newly released "Director's Cut".
shareThanks for the explanation. I was a bit puzzled by how this DVD would have a "director's cut" when Hal Ashby died 21 years ago, but it's reassuring to know that his intentions were followed in the reissue. I enjoyed this film for the cast and of course the director, but my version on VHS looks rather choppy and, considering Ashby is one of the finest directors ever, this film feels rather conventional.
shareJohn Voight said today that Hal went back before he died and re-edited the film, then the film sat in the archives until recently when John Voight heard of it's existence. He went and saw it and had it released on DVD, or so he says.
shareThanks for that explanation, or at least Jon's explanation. It's too bad Hal Ashby wasn't able to see his re-edited version of the film through to its release. More than anything, it's too bad Hal Ashby is no longer with us.
share