much darker and a more cold blooded film than the theatrical cut. Porter kills much more in this one. it's less fun but a cynic's darling. i really liked it. mel is shot up and smiles . he's able to stay alive long enough for the fade to black.
share[deleted]
if there is a thread titled "nut shell of how the two films differ" and you want the difference in the films to be a surprise, you may not want to click on the link.
shareIt's called generalizing. And the OP didn't seem to speak of anything besides the alternate ending.
HELL is the impossibility of reason...
...this forum is HELL.
There's not really anything to give away about the ending, anyway, because it's ambiguous. We don't really know what happens after the fade to black.
share[deleted]
Was a great Movie...I like this version much better ! It's sweet and dark !
shareI wouldn't say darker, but much more realistic as far as the killing. And Mel SHOOTS more people, but I think the body count is about the same. I think the original had a much better and more complete story and was WAY more entertaining. I was amazed by how much two versions of the same movie can be SOOO different.
It also raises the question of which story was in the book!
The best film would be roughly, the theatrical release with the blue tint up to the killing of Carter then go with the directors cut (keeping the blue tint) to the ambiguous end, but even that I would trim a bit, there are just too many syndicate men waiting for an obsessive nut case wanting a measly 130,000. I'd keep the beating of his wife & the killing of the dog also.
We need a fan edit