5 Directors’ Cuts That Were Better Than The Theatrical Versions (& 5 That Were Worse)

Sometimes the movie that fans see in theaters is not the version of the film the directors had in mind. The idea of a director’s cut is becoming more well-known thanks to the never-ending discussion about the alleged Snyder Cut of Justice League.

While fans are adamant Zack Snyder’s original vision for Justice League would be an improvement over the disappointing theatrical version, the director’s cut is not always superior. Here are some director’s cuts that were better than the theatrical cuts and some that were worse.

10 Better: Blade Runner

There have been so many different cuts to Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner that it’s hard to keep track of them all. After the film originally bombed, the studio released a so-called director’s cut in the early 90s but Scott actually denounced it as far from his vision.

Finally, the studio gave Scott the opportunity to revisit the film which resulted in several cuts. 2007’s “The Final Cut” version feels like what the film was meant to be. The unnecessary narration is gone as is the studio-mandated happy ending. It is a polished masterpiece.

9 Worse: Donnie Darko

Donnie Darko is a mind-bending and complex science-fiction story that became a cult hit after its small release in 2001. As the popularity of the film grew, filmmaker Richard Kelly decided to release a director’s cut of the movie.

Strangely enough, Kelly decided that the best way to revisit the film would be to spell things out to the viewers more. While the film becomes easier to understand, part of the fun of the movie was the mystery quality of it all. In removing that mystery, Kelly made his film much less interesting.

8 Better: Payback

Payback is a solid crime film that stars Mel Gibson as a criminal who is betrayed by his former colleague. He then goes on a relentless mission of revenge up the hierarchy of mobsters to recover the small sum of money that was stolen from him.

While the theatrical cut is entertaining, the director’s cut from Brian Helgeland offers a pretty different movie. It is grittier and less comical with Gibson’s protagonist portrayed less sympathetically. It offers a nice dirty alternative to those who felt the theatrical cut played things too safe.

7 Worse: The Warriors

Director Walter Hill is an action movie, but perhaps his most beloved film is his 1979 film, The Warriors. The movie is set in New York City and focuses on a gang who has to make their way across the city as the rest of the gangs hunt them down.

When revisiting the film for his director’s cut, Hill made some pretty awful stylistic choices. The recut of the movie featured strange comic book page transitions between scenes. It’s a strange choice that makes the director’s cut rather annoying to watch.

6 Better: Blood Simple

The Coen Brothers have long been able to make films in their own unique style. But with their first film Blood Simple, the brother decided it was worth recutting to suit their original vision of the Texas-set noir thriller.

Unlike most director’s cuts, the new version actually comes in a few minutes shorter than the theatrical version. The Coen’s expertly edited the film to feel faster and more engrossing. They also added in their original song choice of the Four Tops’ “Same Old Song” which proves to be the perfect choice.

5 Worse: E.T. The Extraterrestrial

A lot of directors choose to revisit their older movies when technology allows them to make changes that weren’t possible at the time. Sometimes this can be an improvement and sometimes it’s totally unnecessary.

Steven Spielberg saw the advances in CGI as the perfect opportunity to tweak his classic science-fiction adventure, E.T. The Extraterrestrial. Unfortunately, this included created a CGI E.T. for some sequences that looked terrible and robbed the film of much of its magic.

4 Better: Almost Famous

Cameron Crowe’s Almost Famous is a beloved film and a deeply personal one for the filmmaker. So it’s not too surprising that Crowe would want to revisit the movie even though many consider the original version to be a masterpiece.

Thankfully, Crowe’s instincts were right and his additions in the director’s cut are more than welcome. The film is a love letter to rock and roll and this version allows Crowe to showcase his love even more. It also gives us more time to hang out with the colorful characters of the story.

3 Worse: Apocalypse Now

Francis Ford Coppola made some of the greatest films of all time in the 1970s, however, his later directing efforts were less than stellar to put it lightly. So when he decided to recut his war epic Apocalypse Now, it sadly proved he was not the same great filmmaker he once was.

Apocalypse Now Redux is now the authoritative version which is a shame because it falls short of the original masterpiece. Much of the restored footage is plodding, aimless and uncomfortable. His editing instincts were right the first time around.

2 Better: Kingdom Of Heaven

Once again, Ridley Scott proved that his original vision for his film was the right way to go. Kingdom of Heaven was a medieval epic about the Crusades, but the film failed with critics and at the box office.

After the flop, the studio decided Scott could rework the film by adding back around forty minutes of additional footage they forced him to take out. As it turns out, that footage was vital to the story, the character development and the epic feel of the film. Once restored, it felt like a much more complete film.

1 Worse: Stars Wars

George Lucas is another filmmaker who seems to take any opportunity to retouch his older films with new technology. Yet this is often much to the disappointment of his most die-hard fans.

Star Wars is such a beloved and iconic film that you would really need to have a good reason to go back and start changing things. Unfortunately, Lucas did not make those changes worthwhile as he redid practical effects with digital ones which is something fans love about the old movies. He also inexplicably changed Han Solo’s iconic early moment and started the “Han shot first” debate.

About The Author

Colin McCormick
(2045 Articles Published)

Colin McCormick is a Senior Writer with Screen Rant and has been a proud member of the team since 2019. In addition to his work as Screen Rant, Colin is also a writer of News, Feature and Review pieces at Game Rant. Colin has had a long passion and obsession with movies going back to the first time he saw The Lion King in theaters. Along with movies, Colin stays up-to-date on the latest must-see TV shows. While he loves to find interesting projects in any kind of genre, he has a special movie of crime stories that are infused with a little dark humor much like the work of his favorite author, Elmore Leonard.

More From Colin McCormick