Director's cut is ridiculous

Rating: Null/10 (9 December 2004)

Possible spoilers
I saw this movie in theatre and I saw directors cut at home. I can tell you what: I disagree that just changing the end can make this movie the more valuable contribution in cinematography then it really is. Ending alone is NOT enough to change the movie rank. This is a simple non-sophisticated entertainment movie in either case with only difference is director's cut has a non-Hollywood, non-standard ending which again, alone can not make this movie stronger than it is in theatrical versions.
Looks like to me director just pretends here that he or she makes something like another "Amerrican Beauty" or "The Cuucoo over the nest" . Just flipping ending can not make him Milos Forman. I'll tell you that this just looks ridiculous. The whole movie is meant to be a Hollywood-cheesy-entertainment-destined thing with standard ending. In director's cut it is the same but now it is Hollywood-cheesy-entertainment-destined thing with NON-standard ending.
Big difference.:)
But I do not think I lost something watching this thing. Just saw some directors can not only pretend, (I mean fool themselves) they do something valuable but also put a big part of public in deception. But I understand the feelings of this part of public. We all are tired with standard Hollywood flicks but again flipping ending is not the way to do serious work. The guy obviously tries to pursue both targets: 1. Get as much box office as he can to justify big budget so voila, happy end and 2) have some naive public thinking he (the director) is worth more then he really is.
In single the word, this is a shame for director.