Sometimes 'nothing' is a real cool hand...

tylercoates:

The DVD case lists a running time of 73 minutes. I know this film runs over 80 minutes (83, I believe, with the PAL DVD running a bit shorter due to speed up). I just assumed the 73 minute runtime was an editorial error, so when I put the disc in, I used the scene selections to navigate to the end. Sure enough, it was 73 minutes as the credits faded to black.

So, I started watching the film, to see if I could ascertain what was removed to shorten the running time. Well, the answer was easy: Lionsgate dropped an entire 10-minute stretch right near the start of the film. From around eight minutes in to the 18-minute mark is just gone. Character introductions, bits of business that will factor into the story later—approximately 12.5 [percent] of the film—just not there. There’s just a huge jump that eliminates about a dozen key scenes. It’s like if you went to the movies and the projectionist just decided not to show Reel 2, you know, because he wanted to get home early.

Mind you, there’s no reason for this chunk of film to be gone. This isn’t an exploitation film with a shadowy history that’s played under a variety of names, with different versions having different lengths. At best—and this is just speculation—this might have been the print used when The Dead was shown on commercial television somewhere, the 10 minutes lopped off to fit the film in a 90-minute slot. Whatever the case, it is absolutely disgraceful that Lionsgate would release the film like this. It’s beyond careless. Needless to say, particularly since it happens so early on, it renders the film unwatchable, destroying Huston’s meticulous rhythm and pacing.

Isn’t there anyone at Lionsgate who checks the print to make sure they’re putting the right film in the box? Maybe checks to make sure the run time, aspect ratio, and whatever else, are in place? Even an intern who’s not familiar with the film should be able to tell time. See—73 minutes and 83 minutes are not the same thing. Lionsgate is not a sham company; they’ve been in business for a while and have released some worthwhile discs. Didn’t anyone think that 73 minutes was awfully light for a 1987 feature? How could they not know that they were releasing a version that’s 10 minutes too short? It’s mind boggling.

(via Roger Ebert)