Alexander Revisited: The Unrated Final Cut -- Due 2/27/07 (2 Viewers)

[Nathan V]

Reviews are up:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/768/7684...ted-dvd-review
http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/release/...review2220.php
www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=5264
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...=5937&Itemid=3
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/homevid...=3345&type=dvd
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/dvdre...s.php?id=19068
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=26729
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/alexerrevisited/4357
http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2567.shtml

Interviews with Stone about the dvd:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/768/768195p1.html
http://www.dvdtalkradio.com/

Most of these reviews are by people unfamiliar with the previous cuts, which is unfortunate. What I'd really like to see is a detailed breakdown of all the additions, subtractions, and structural changes of the new cut. I'm still on the fence about this one.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yup, I think so. I mention this in my review:

http://www.dvdmg.com/alexanderfinalcut.shtml

 

[JonZ]

This flew by for me. It does seem to flow a bit better. The additions to the battle scenes are amazing.

I dont like the so and so years ago captions. Theyre really not needed.

And I did notice a bit more added to the nekkid scene

 

[Nathan V]

Glad to hear it. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what a no-holds-barred Oliver Stone ancient battle looks like.

Colin, thanks for the review.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[PatrickDA]

The battle scene in India is VASTLY improved with title cards and a lot more
bloody, action filled footage. The Battle of Gaugamela has also been edited
to included more one-on-one combat footage, but everything else is appears
to be nearly the same.

 

[Nathan V]

Patrick and Jon, and others who have seen it- the reviews tend to indicate that the last half hour drags. Do you find that to be the case?

 

[Allan^L]

Has anyone in Canada found this? Amazon.ca has a date of 03/20 and the stores I've been to don't have it.

 

[TwoKings]

I honestly am glad to find some people who enjoyed the original movie like I did.

I know it was flawed, but still enjoyed it.

I was very disappointed when I learned that the Blu-ray version was delayed. I picked up the DVD version to hold me over because I have to see this cut of the film as soon as possible. Hopefully it will be tomorrow, but I like what I have heard about it for the most part.

 

[PatrickDA]

um...the last 10-15 minutes is Hopkins talking. Now, I'm a HUGE Hopkins fan,
so that isn't a big deal to me since I like his old man act (i.e. Amistad), but
most haven't liked Sir Tony's performance in any of the three cuts. Once
again, Stone wasn't going to suddenly include a whole new battle or dozens
of cut scenes. This third cut is made up of expanded versions of scenes
already in either one (or both) of the first two cuts.

 

[JonZ]

Yea I think his wrapup Alexander speach is a few minutes longer, but I dont think it dragged.

In all honesty, the film flew by for me.

The scenes with Angelina are easily the weakest of the film IMHO and my only real complaint.

 

[Nathan V]

Finally saw this last night.

This new cut is the only one of the three that feels like Stone's other films- a behemoth of a movie, muscularly directed, crammed with information. There is no other epic film like it. This is a lurid, excessive epic, a $150 million independent film that doesn't even think about pandering to demographics, filled with broad strokes, stupefying violence, bizarre story situations, rampant sexual overtones...the brazen confidence that we know so well from Stone's other work is on full display here.

This version moves in the way Stone's film always move, propulsively, throwing information at the audience and not waiting for them to catch up. The 40 minutes are not new scenes so much as the restoration of little moments in many existing scenes- now, things just make more sense. A lot of cutaways spliced in here and there, bringing back memories of JFK and Nixon; editorially, this is top-tier Stone. Most notable is the Roxanne sequence, where the scenes have been reordered to how they were in the script, and the inclusion of a key moment makes the whole section work in a way it never did before. The addition of so many little extraneous moments helps immeasurably with pacing and atmosphere. We know who these characters are now. Oliver is absolutely right when he says the story just can't work in under 3 hours. The addition of so many numerous shots helps so much, we understand what the characters are thinking much better than before; we can draw connections and parallels in ways that weren't possible before. Also, the removal of one cringeworthy line that was in both previous cuts is definitely a good thing. The expansion of the Ptolemy segments makes them more interesting, and the opening segment feels shorter even though it's longer. Starting with Guagemela is a masterstroke. The performances are the same as before, but now they have more depth; as for Farrell, it could only have been him; no one else could have so equally captured the feminine and masculine qualities of the character. The perfs by both the parents blew me away; this is the first time I really "got" the Jolie role. This can no longer be called a timid work about a bold conqueror; now more than ever, it's a bold, brash, mammoth of a movie that dwells in lurid excess, and all the better for it.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Cory S.]

"This is a lurid, excessive epic, a $150 million independent film that doesn't even think about pandering to demographics, filled with broad strokes, stupefying violence, bizarre story situations, rampant sexual overtones...the brazen confidence that we know so well from Stone's other work is on full display here."

Right on, Nathan. This is the best version of the film. I was pleasantly surprised at how fast it moved. My only, true complaint is the final scene with Ptolemy. I just personally felt it went a few moments too long. Otherwise, I like what Stone did with the restructuring of the film. And the final battle in India is one of the most glorious, brutal, and barbaric battle sequences ever...It's "Natural Born Killers" Oliver Stone in that sequence....pure gold.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Nathan, your lengthy commentary and review is a thoughtful one and makes me even more keen to get this extended set. Excellent post.

 

[Brett_M]

Nathan, I agree wholeheartedly. I liked the other versions but I love this cut -- the film is tremendous. The battle sequence in India is one of my all-time favorites.

 

[Nathan V]

Wow, thanks guys. I agree that the expanded Indian battle is undoubtedly one of the best scenes of its type, if not the best. Of all the directors who have mounted the recent epics, only Stone has actually been in combat, and that makes a difference. There's a quick cut to a close-up of an elephant's eye, in the midst of all that carnage, that really kills me for some reason. Just the idea of this generally nonviolent herbivore being made to perform in this environment only exemplifies the absurdity of human battle. I like how the score during Guagemela seemed representative of Alexander's idealistic notions of war, whereas the score during the Indian battle is built more around the horror, the chaos, the sickening violence of the moment. Cory, "glorious, brutal, and barbaric" is a good way to put it.

More later,
Nathan

 

[TwoKings]

Excellent take. I was a fan of the theatrical cut but this one blew me away. This movie could not have been done any other way and it is sad that the previous 2 cuts have left such a negative mark on this final cut.

My one main problem that I still have is the sountrack (except for the battle sequences)...I thought it was horrible and did not fit the movie at all. There were too many scenes where I felt like I was watching a soap opera instead of an Oliver Stone epic because of the music.

I also think Farrell did an excellent job, especially with this cut, but I still thought he had problems with the softer moments when he would try to encourage troops and whatnot...he just did not come off well in my eyes during those scenes.

Anyway, to Oliver Stone for finally getting his version to us and I can't wait for the Blu-ray version this summer.

 

[Garry Cowell]

Like Nathan says the finally battle in India is astounding, so much so I find it hard to understand why Stone didn’t editing the battle in the same way for the unrated Director’s Cut. It not only more brutal but it contains a lot more pathos…My favourite scenes in any version were the one between Alexander and his horse Bucephalus, In the Revisted cut Bucephalus death scene takes on an almost supernatural feel to it, with the animal, fatally wounded, defending the fallen Alexander until his troops arrive.

Most the other additions are to the length of scenes, the order of the movie is more akin to the Director’s Cut with Alexander’s life from the first battle onwards told in chronological order with flashbacks to young Alexander life interspersed, bookended by Anthony Hopkins’ narration. There’s a lot more narration, and it help fill in things that were skimmed over in previous cuts (such as Alexander’s other wives and lovers - his eunuch lover Bagoas has many more scenes.) It seems to flow better too, the length of the first part up to the intermission is roughly 2hrs10min and then the second section runs about 90 minutes.

All in all, I’d be interested on the thoughts of those that really liked this movie in its previous forms (I urge you to check it out!), Stone says in the intro that if you hated this movie you with probably hate this version more, but the opposite if true also, I really loved this, I only hope I get to see this version in the cinema (I know it only exist in a digital form at the mo'), albeit probably in 20 years when an arthouse cinema is doing a Stone retrospective…

 

[BarryS]

I picked this up on sale at Best Buy. I got Alexander Revisited and Reservoir Dogs 15th Anniversary Ed on a 2 for $15 deal. Not bad. I saw Alexander the Director's Cut back when the DVD first came out. I admired a lot of things about it, but wasn't terribly impressed overall. I've been wanting to see it again for a while though, in one of the other cuts. I've heard good things about the Final Cut, so I'm going to give it a whirl. I think maybe I was just tired of historical epics when I saw it the first time. Having sat through Troy, King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven, all within the span of a year or so. Now, I think I'm ready to see it again and re-evaluate it. I feel like the movie unnecessarily got a bad rap, but the Director's Cut version didn't help any. It looks like it's now out of print, which is probably a good thing. The Theatrical Cut and Final Cut should certainly suffice.