Alexander

[Fletch F. Fletch]

From DVDAnswers:

Warner has announced theatrical and director's cut releases of Oliver Stone's Alexander which stars Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie. Both will be available to own from the 2nd August this year, priced at around $29.95 a piece. Each will carry a lovely 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extra material on the theatrical edition will include a commentary by Oliver Stone and historian Robin Lane Fox, a Resurrecting Alexander documentary which explores the filming of Alexander, a Perfect is the Enemy of God documentary that provides an in depth look at the details that go into the filming of an epic and a featurette on the soundtrack. Warner has yet to confirm the features on the director's cut, although seeing as they are priced the same - features could be identical. Also worth noting, Warner lists the Director's Cut runtime as being 167 minutes, and the theatrical cut at 175 minutes.

[THX1378]

Warner lists the Director's Cut runtime as being 167 minutes, and the theatrical cut at 175 minutes.

Davis DVD posted that the Director's Cut is "less gay" than the theatrical cut which I find very funny. This was the most disappointing film that came out last year since I had such high hopes for it. Stone is one of my favorite american directors and I think that this is his weakest film in years.

[Polybius]

Who wrote the review, Eric Cartman?

[dx23]

Davisdvd.com is reporting that Oliver Stone has mentioned in 2 recent interviews that he is planning on releasing a 4 hour extended edition of Alexander. More info here:

http://www.davisdvd.com/news/rumor.html

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Interesting, but at the same time, I don't think it was the length or even the setup of the film; but more like the casting...

[Fletch F. Fletch]

According DavisDVD, Stone's "definitive" cut of the film streets February 27th, 2007. The Unrated Final Cut features 45 additional minutes of previously unseen footage. Is Stone and Ridley Scott having Director's Cut pissing matches now?

[a.khan]

Third time's a charm. I demand that Olly does a commentary on his much vaunted Cecil B. DeMille cut of "Alexander." At least for the additional 45 mins.

About Scott, he'll be next working on the director's cut of "1492."

[Polybius]

They both think they're Walt Whitman

[John Cope]

I loved both previous versions; and, in fact, prefer the Director's Cut as it stands now, a position I didn't expect to take. I'm very excited to see the new and presumably definitive edition.

As to the rumored re-cut of 1492--I really hope this is happening and not just some cruel joke. [-o<

[Cinesimilitude]

Ridley Scott's Director's Cuts are marvelous! Kingdom of Heaven is terrible in theatrical form, and Overwhelmingly Beautiful with the extra footage. I may actually watch the third cut of alexander if stone says its his definitive cut.

[Polybius]

The Whitman thing was partially tongue in cheek, but it's not really that far off. I've had problems with each of these guys in the past (especially Stone) but they're both accomplished artists, and I am always interested to see what they come up with. Often their "failures" are at least as interesting as many lesser director's ostensible successes.

So noodle on, you two crazy kids and show us what you come up with when you get done.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Ridley Scott's Director's Cuts are marvelous! Kingdom of Heaven is terrible in theatrical form, and Overwhelmingly Beautiful with the extra footage. I may actually watch the third cut of alexander if stone says its his definitive cut.

I dunno. I thought a lot of the additional footage for Kingdom of Heaven was nice to see but it still didn't make up for the acting vacuum that is Orlando Bloom.

I too enjoyed Stone's Director's Cut of Alexander and am looking forward to seeing what he does with this longer cut. He certainly has had success in the past with longer cuts of his films... I thought that both JFK and Nixon were improved in their longer forms.

[lord_clyde]

Sooo. . . anybody seen it yet? (The final cut of Alexander, I mean)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Sooo. . . anybody seen it yet? (The final cut of Alexander, I mean)

I have. I feel that the film plays much better in its longer running time as I feel that Stone is no longer constrained by a theatrical running time and this allows him to take his time and let the story breathe a bit more. Stone re-edited a lot of it, moved things around, etc. It still doesn't cover up the horrible miscasting of Colin Farrell, Jared Leto and Jonathan Rhys-Meyer but it does develop the relationship between Alexander and his mother in more detail. I haven't seen the other cuts enough times to pick out exactly what is new and I wish they would have included an insert or marked on the scene selections which contained new material like they did with the special edition of JFK. Oh well.

[John Cope]

DVD Talk and DVD Town review the new cut.

Also, everyone's favorite NY Press writer (especially kinjitsu's, apparently) gives us his take.

I haven't seen it myself yet but am anxious to and hope what is alluded to in the preceding article comes across in this new version. I have confidence that it will.

Oh, and FWIW, the new NY Press also has a pretty interesting article on 300 which I will link to in the appropriate thread.

[kinjitsu]

Also, everyone's favorite NY Press writer (especially kinjitsu's, apparently) ...

Whatever gave you that idea? Now I'm completely convinced that Oliver Stone is one the greatest visionaries of contemporary cinema.

[lord_clyde]

Thanks for the feedback guys (and especially for the links), I've been hoping for the best with this one.

[John Cope]

Though I was already a fan of this picture, Revisited truly is another beast altogether and it's a remarkably powerful, savage one.

What has always struck me most about Alexander is what an elegant piece of work it always was. The first couple passes now feel like efforts at continual refinement and necessary, understandable ones. At first, Revisited doesn't seem as poetic as those earlier cuts. It approaches its story more methodically, with more of an even pace and less seemingly arbitrary poetic flourish. But all the time Stone has invested in this shows as it begins to reveal itself as composed with meticulous precision. All the shortcomings of the previous cuts are addressed in the very structure of the piece. The flashbacks are much more fully integrated into the text (this was something one could feel Stone striving for in his "Director's Cut") and the length of the film works to its advantage as it helps communicate the essence of Stone's intent far better.

While the first two cuts act as depictions of Alexander's character, this one takes the far more interesting route of trying to understand that character. As it proceeds, that central drive becomes more evident. The flashbacks are cued through poetic associations that don't immediately reveal themselves and are never completely explicable. This is wise as that is the whole point of this epic, ambitious undertaking. Stone's rhythms, pacing and temperament are self-evidently restless as he considers one notion after another and abandons them as adequate for understanding. Clearly, the suggestion is that only a synthesis of all these wildly grandiose influences would be enough to grasp who Alexander was; but, wisely again, Stone's evident frustration shows through as that synthesis is virtually impossible, as any such project would inevitably have to be. Still, his noble effort is commendable. Those things that felt slighted or inadequate in previous cuts now make sense as part of an aesthetic approach that's mirrored in the frenzied fever of influences Stone applies to the picture stylistically. There can be no masterful total understanding and that frustrated desire is the emotional center of Stone's project. It gives justification to his many attempts to "get it right".

It was instructive to see this right around the same time I saw 300, a movie I despised. I can't help but feel that the reason Alexander failed with audiences is because 300 is what they wanted all along. Regardless, Revisited is a majestic, triumphant work that will endure long after the critics who frivolously condemned it.

[Roger_Thornhill]

John I completely agree with your thoughts on the Revisited cut and how it improved the film overrall. I like both of the previous versions, the director's cut more, but I always felt the biggest problem was Colin Farell. There were many moments, such as in his confrontation with his mother after Phillip's assassination, where Farell's weaknesses as an actor became apparent.

In that particular scene in both of the earlier versions he didn't come off very convincingly as being upset with his mother and at times he was hamming it up. However, with the Revisited cut I've noticed that Stone has re-edited that particular scene (and probably many more) to focus more on Jolie's reactions to Farrell's anger instead of showing Farrell's limitations as an actor. To me, you can tell when an actor's in over their heads by their eyes, they betray them and show that they're not thinking about being that character and instead their mind is on other things (hitting their marks, what's for lunch, Angelina Jolie has nice lips, etc.). While Farrell's problems as an actor aren't eliminated in Alexander Revisited, his performance, to me, seems a bit more believable.

[Cinesimilitude]

I just finished watching Revisited, and it is the only cut I have seen, and I think it will take a few more viewings for me to fully appreciate it, but it is quite something. I felt that the music by Vangelis (while powerful, beautiful, and fitting in most scenes) was really out of place for the battle of Gaugamela, and that the use of subtitles such as The Macedonian Right, Left, and Center were really unnecessary, extremely distracting, and a bit condescending (as if the audience couldn't follow what was going on by themselves). Also, I would have liked to see much more visual changes in Alexander, as colin farrel; just looks the same going 10 years forward, and then 9 years back, and another 10 forward. He doesn't change his look until nearly the end when they March on India and his hair is let loose.

Other than those minor superficial complaints, I liked it a lot.

[malcolm1980]

I think this film would've improved (somewhat) if Oliver Stone either gone all the way with the homosexual content (as in depict him kissing and making to Hephaiston or whoever) or just cut it out altogether. The compromise that he did in the theatrical version at least, is distracting and quite laughable and ridiculous. Although, this is only but one of Alexander's many problems.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

This is getting a little ridiculous

[TMDaines]

I think it's still the worst film I've seen in a cinema, once you take into account that the whole audience was ready to leave at the interval.

[stroszeck]

For the life of me I can't think of any film that deserves less attention and tinkering with than Alexander. At least Blade Runner is pretty good for what it is. Talk about beating a dead horse...And who the hell are the 1 million people who bought that Final Cut???

[htshell]

"Have you ever seen Napoleon? Because my film Alexander... well it's not like Napoleon, but I'm still going to do it anyway..."