Man, this one was a real suprise- I saw
The Chronicles of Riddick in the theater twice and enjoyed it, but I did think it was short and a bit rushed. Many things didn't make a lot of sense and were really glossed over. Well a couple nights ago I watched the Directors Cut from DVD and I have to say it's a completely different movie- and a much better one!
First off, I read an interview with uber-hottie Kristine Lehman a few months ago in which she discusses the movie and videogame. In it she explains that for the game she reprises and expands upon her role in the film. One problem- she isn't in the theatrical version!
Which is a damned shame! I hate to give away too much in case anyone reading hasn't seen the film (and wants too), but her character really explains the whole nature of the Furyan race and why Riddick is a threat to the Lord Marshall. It's amazing that such a crucial character was left on the cutting room floor. For that matter, there are four strong women in the movie, and every single one of them was marginalized in the theatrical version. Look at Christina Cox's role- while she's hardly a big name, she's received wide acclaim in an array of indie flicks. Hardly the type of actress you'd expect to take such a bit part in a summer blockbuster. Well, lo and behold, her role is a bit meatier and more interesting in the Directors Cut.
One of the most amazing omittions is the scene where Riddick and company encounter the Necromongers on Crematoria. An astonishingly important and illuminating scene regarding Riddicks true nature is completely snipped out in the theatrical version! It really reminds me of the 2nd LotR movie- in the directors cut you learn that Aragorn is immortal (okay, not fully, but much longer lived than a normal human). But that critical peice of info is completely left out of the theatrical version! The result is that Aragorn is a very different character. That's the magnitude of the change in Riddick.
If you missed the film (perhaps due to the reviews), I suggest you at least rent the new verion. If you saw the original but wasn't impressed, be advised that the Director's Cut is a very much better film. If you liked the original, you're in for a treat.
BTW, just what the hell goes thru the heads of the studio heads? Riddick was only about 90 minutes! That leaves a lot of gaps and missing peices. Who decides a flick has to run that short at the expense of most of the plot and story? I could see if it was already 2 hrs 10 min- at some point people squirm in their seats and theater owners lose one showing. But a film that's aleady pretty short- what's the justification? Just look at "Queen of the Damned." That film tries to combine two very long books into one 90 minute movie and it fails miserably. The flick didn't make a damn bit of sense. Peter Jackson shows that you can make an epic that does justice to the books and make some money on it.
