Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSurfer  Cash on Demand the original print was ~88 mins but was edited down to ~66 mins for the general UK cinema release. The US edit is ~80 mins. |
The UK release was indeed a mere 66 minutes, but on the basis of my research I currently don't believe that this 88-minute version ever existed. The only reputable source I can find is the BBFC database, which also reports a 120-minute version of
The Full Treatment, which I'm also convinced never existed.
In the case of
The Full Treatment, I know for certain that the UK release version was a whisker under 110 minutes, as that's backed up by both the
Monthly Film Bulletin (which calculated running times from physical footage lengths, so is the most reliable source of theatrical running times as you can work them out down to the second) and surviving UK release prints preserved by the BFI National Archive. So my hypothesis is that whoever entered the data when the BBFC first created an electronic database many decades after passing the film simply got a digit wrong - which is much easier to believe than ten minutes disappearing between BBFC acceptance and eventual release. (120 minutes also seems insanely long for a Hammer film - even 110 makes it comfortably one of the longest films they've ever released.)
And I assume something similar happened with
Cash on Demand, partly because I've yet to find any actual description of what was cut (believe me, I've looked - and I also liaised extensively with Jonathan Rigby in the run-up to him recording his commentary), but mostly because the film is so tightly plotted that it's very hard to believe that there's a whole extra eight minutes out there. And 80 minutes is a perfectly standard running time for a Hammer film of this vintage.
Of course, if I'm wrong, please let me know - I still have about a month before I have to lock everything down.