more by MaryAnn

Hollywood’s loyal opposition | by maryann johanson

are there different versions of Movie 43 in the UK and the US?

15 Flares Twitter 1 Facebook 13 Google+ 1 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- 15 Flares ×

It would appear so. This was discovered on the Twitter when New York-based critic Lou Lumenick questioned my review of the film (I saw it in London), which mentions the framing story — involving some kids searching the Internet for “the most dangerous film in the world” — that does not appear in the version of the film he saw in New York. His version features Dennis Quaid as a demented screenwriter.
This was nowhere near anything I saw in Movie 43:

Movie 43 Greg Kinnear Dennis Quaid

Nowhere near.

It also makes me very sad to know that Greg Kinnear has any connection this awful film.

I think this could be the most egregious difference between international versions of a film ever. There are often small differences, often made to appease local censors. (I think The Hunger Games may have had a bit of blood splatter cut out for U.K. audiences that was left in for U.S. audiences, for example.) But this represents entirely different stories presented to various audiences. I don’t understand the rationale behind this, and frankly I’m pretty pissed off that I’ve been forced to think about Movie 43 more than it deserves.


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 104
posted in:
critic buzz | movie buzz
  • GeeksAreMyPeeps

    That would explain why the commercials I’ve seen for the movie don’t seem to align with your review. The U.S. commercials basically suggest that there’s 42 movies that a filmmaker made for studios so he could make one for himself.

  • RogerBW

    Interesting. (More interesting than the film, anyway.) Quaid and Kinnear are certainly on the IMDb page for the film, with top billing. Was your screening the same 90 minutes as the US version? (I know, one normally doesn’t like critics to be looking at their watches…)

  • http://www.flickfilosopher.com/ MaryAnn Johanson

    Yup, film was about 90 minutes.

  • http://www.flickfilosopher.com/ MaryAnn Johanson

    That bears no resemblance to the film I saw.

  • GeeksAreMyPeeps

    Interesting; just checked out the trailer and there’s no clips suggesting there’s any framing “story” so I guess it works for both versions

  • Pat

    Thanks for this post – I thought I was imagining things when there was no sign of Kinnear and Quaid – why on Earth did the film makers/studio do this? It’s not as if the alternative story was any good…

  • http://www.flickfilosopher.com/ MaryAnn Johanson

    I’m gonna see if I can find out what was behind this.

  • Francesco

    One way or the other, it remains a disgusting conglomerate of feces.

  • grow up

    Get over yourself, writing off a movie because it is offensive is chilish immature BS. Stop acting like your unevolved opinion should dictate what people are alllowed to laugh at, lots of people including myself find this movie friggen hilarious because there shouldn’t be a censor on any art, true comedy comes from a dark place

  • Garry Barrett

    I’ve seen both versions on Netflix. yes I am terribly ashamed but I heard about an alternate cut so I only had to see 5 mins of it to find out it was true. it is, without question, the worst movie I have ever seen. why those actors didn’t hire someone to burn every single piece of media it’s on is beyond me. Elizabeth Banks helped direct?! really???

  • VCNT

    Yeah… I’ve always seen the one with Dennis Quaid on Moviecity and when i bought the DVD i got some kids looking in the internet for some movie… NEVER seen that one before O.o
    I’m in Mexico

15 Flares Twitter 1 Facebook 13 Google+ 1 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- 15 Flares ×