In the Extended Cut, Salt doesn't kill Orlov when she does. Instead, it's the final scene of the movie, which gives the impression that her revenge is done. In the Director's Cut, however, the President actually DOES die, and a voice-over hints that the new President will be a Russian sleeper agent. So the plan succeeds, the end. I suppose there's still a possibility for a sequel after those endings if you wanted, but it's not as obvious as in the theatrical cut. You can also look at his comparison between the Theatrical Cut and Director's Cut and comparison between the Extended Cut and Director's Cut.

Wow, P-C, that's interesting, because the theatrical ending so clearly left it open, I thought that was the point. Setup for a franchise, in which Salt keeps looking for other sleepers.

When I popped in the DVD, I had a choice which version to watch, and I had no idea which to pick since I didn't know what the differences were. I usually go with the director's cut if it's there, but I didn't want a longer version since I was short on time, so I said, fuck it, I will just watch the version everyone else watched. And I'm glad because the other ones are so different they would have left me with a very different impression of the movie that couldn't really be compared to those of the theatrical version.

Dark Shadows

I want this movie NOW. You would think after how disappointed I was in Burton's Alice In Wonderland that I wouldn't be so frothingly, giddily excited. But ... Tim Burton. Helena Bonham Carter. Johnny Depp. VAMPIRES. I am so predictable.

(However, I do cling to the theory that Tim does better with things that are darker in theme: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice In Wonderland vs. Sweeney Todd and Sleepy Hollow. I know which set of movies I consider to be better.)

TL;DR: I am a gothy-goth Tim Burton fangirl, even when I should know better.

Any good advance buzz on Unknown? I'm trying to decide if I will see a movie this weekend.

ita,

the critics reviews are all over the place. I'd like to see it this weekend, but I'm befuddled. I went to metacritic and found no good recommendations.

I looked at rotten tomatoes and got confused because the "positive" reviews had pretty negative excerpts.

So I'm going to take that as a no.

Michael Phillips of the Tribune called it a decently solid action flick that is much better than the usual February fare, and he liked Liam Neeson's performance.

Andrew O'Hehir at Salon gave it a very positive review.

Ebert was decidedly mixed, but really liked most of the actors.

much better than the usual February fare

that is damning with faint praise. Maybe I need to whip out my LOTR dvds.