Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo

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


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 of 99 OFFLINE   PatrickDA

PatrickDA

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 198 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2005

Posted December 16 2006 - 05:21 AM

Alexander Revisited: The Unrated Final Cut -- Due 2/27/07 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Home Video will release Alexander Revisited: The Unrated Final Cut on February 27th, 2007. Director Oliver Stone's epic arrives in its third incarnation featuring more than forty-five minutes of never-before-seen footage restored into the tale of the Macedonian conqueror. The film, now clocking in at nearly four hours, will arrive with a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio track. Aside from a free movie ticket to "300," no extras seem to be included in this edition. Retail is $24.98.

#2 of 99 OFFLINE   mike kaminski

mike kaminski

    Second Unit



  • 262 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2006

Posted December 16 2006 - 06:40 AM

For gods sakes. When is he going to realise that the material filmed was too flawed to edit into something good? Its a bit pathetic to watch the man desperately try to re-edit the film to make something out of it. Just let it go. I am amazed that Warner financially backed this move. How many people bough the first so-called Directors Cut?

#3 of 99 OFFLINE   Patrick Mirza

Patrick Mirza

    Supporting Actor



  • 883 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 1999

Posted December 16 2006 - 06:50 AM

Have you seen this final cut? If not, reserve your judgment until you do so.

#4 of 99 OFFLINE   PatrickDA

PatrickDA

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 198 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2005

Posted December 16 2006 - 07:29 AM

Warner Bros. didn't back the film. They put up a very small part of the budget and released it in North America. That's it. Now, why does 'Blade Runner' and other such films get more than one or two releases? Because the director's are still working and want to make the best film possible. Oh, the 'Director's Cut' sold very well considering the reaction to the film in the U.S. I personally cannot wait for this release, it'll be the DVD of the year for me. I'm counting the days!!!!

#5 of 99 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 23,579 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted December 16 2006 - 09:59 AM

Four hours? Wow, that's gotta be everything and the kitchen sink. I think this is a great movie so I'm very interested in seeing Stone's version where he has no running time constraints and where he could take as much time as he wanted to edit the final product. And I get the feeling that alot (but not all) of the naysayers haven't actually seen the movie and just say that it sucks based on word of mouth or how much money it made.

#6 of 99 OFFLINE   David_B_K

David_B_K

    Advanced Member



  • 1,711 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted December 16 2006 - 03:23 PM

I only saw the Dirctor's Cut. It was far from a good film, IMO, though it had some fine sequences. I am surprised this 4-hr version got the green light, but I will at least rent it to see what he's changed. One thing that annoyed me about the film: its advertising catch phrase was "Fortune favours the bold". Alexander was certainly one of the boldest men in history, but he came of much less than bold in the movie IMO (aside from the boy Alexander riding Bucephalas for the first time). The battle of Issus should have been included as well, IMO.

#7 of 99 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted December 16 2006 - 11:10 PM

have not seen this, so I might just get this
Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#8 of 99 OFFLINE   PatrickDA

PatrickDA

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 198 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2005

Posted December 17 2006 - 01:23 AM

Ok. I'm sick of people attacking the film for not having included this or that battle. It took them (shooting only) about 9-10 weeks to film the two battles that were included in the film on a 93-94 day scheduled shoot. Now, how could they have included more? HUH! They also had far less money than what it would've taken to include more battles. You're talking at least $250-350 million to do four, five, six battles...IN FULL like the two in the film already. So, please take into account the conditions the filmmakers had to live with. 'Fortune Favours the Bold" was an excellent tag line, by the way and the film was, at the very least, bold!

#9 of 99 OFFLINE   Arnie G

Arnie G

    Supporting Actor



  • 662 posts
  • Join Date: May 29 2002

Posted December 17 2006 - 03:47 PM


He was far from attacking the film. He even said there were parts that he liked and also said he would like to see it again in the new cut Posted Image
I've got my own Toto

#10 of 99 OFFLINE   David_B_K

David_B_K

    Advanced Member



  • 1,711 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted December 18 2006 - 02:16 AM

If he was hampered by budgetary restraints, then maybe a movie about a conquering military genius in ancient times was a bad idea for a project. If it is now going to be 4 hours, I would hope he is adding something more than more flashbacks. Again, there were some fine moments. IMO, it was a film in which the sum of the parts were greater than the whole. There was much that I liked, and I would probably see it again. But as a whole, it did not quite explain what made Alexander great. The 1955 version with Burton was similar in that it had some great scenes, but did not quite gel as a film, either.

#11 of 99 OFFLINE   Kevin M

Kevin M

    Producer



  • 5,172 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted December 18 2006 - 02:50 AM

Ahhh........the brotherhood of HTF.....anyway.

I personally liked both previous versions of Stone's epic, the editing of the former "director's cut" into a pared down version was an interesting choice I thought and one that worked fairly well...even though I liked the longer version equally. Now he's putting out an even longer version? Well....if it contains more Rosario Dawson then HELL YES! Posted Image
But aside from that, I'm not sure more is necessarily a good thing for this film, I'll give it a rent and see for myself.
-Kevin M.

There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.  The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.
- Roger Ebert
 

#12 of 99 OFFLINE   Mike_Richardson

Mike_Richardson

    Supporting Actor



  • 639 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2002

Posted December 18 2006 - 03:10 AM

It is fairly miraculous for someone to put not one, not two, but 3 DIFFERENT cuts of his own movie together -- all within, what, 18 months of release?

Maybe the third time will be the charm, eh? Posted Image

#13 of 99 OFFLINE   PatrickDA

PatrickDA

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 198 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2005

Posted December 18 2006 - 03:16 AM

I don't agree. This was Stone's dream project from his childhood days! He had the money, locations, script...everything fell into place in 2001-02 unlike '89 and '96 when he tried to make it. Plus, he couldn't have made the film now or before then. Thanks to Alexander, Troy, King Arthur...the epic is once again DOA. So, 2001-03 was the one moment in his entire career where he was going to be allowed by the system to make his dream project. He couldn't have said no and lived with himself. So, they could only do a certain number of battles and they had a very limited shooting schedule for that type of film (they had 93 or 94, but needed about 120-130). Anyway, I LIKED that they showed Alexander how he might have been like. He was some brat little prince, who'd been treated like a baby all his life. Why couldn't he have cried (and the historical records showed that he need after many a battle) and why couldn't he have been shown to have one too many drinks, which history tells us he did in India? I just to see the FLAWS of my heroes, not them winning battles. I mean, I'd like to see that too and YOU DID in the film! One battle after another would've been boring to me. I want conflict...you the stuff that drama is made of!!!! Stone will add PLENTY of new scenes. I know of WHOLE sub-plots cut out of both versions already released. It won't be more of Anthony Hopkins talking, which I loved by the way, but I know most didn't.

#14 of 99 OFFLINE   David_B_K

David_B_K

    Advanced Member



  • 1,711 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted December 18 2006 - 04:19 AM

I agree that endless battle scenes get boring after awhile. They need not be in great detail. But just showing how Alexander could fight a large army with a small one is important. At the Granicus, Alexander faced a large contingent of expatriate Greeks. At Issus, he knew that Darius's large forces would be useless on the battlefield because he would be unable to engage them in such a crowded area. All you'd have had to show was Alexander explaining this to his generals, and the battle could have been dispensed with in a few shots. It would have helped to show that Alexander had put together a string of victories by the time he entered the Persian capital. Again, battles like Granicus and Issus need not have been filmed in any detail, but should have been at least referred to. This sort of thing was done well in Patton, in which Patton relieves Bastogne. We see a staff meeting in which Patton stuns all in attendance by announcing that he can move several divisions in 48 hours. The campaign is depicted with "generic" shots of Americans and Germans fighting in snow, or simply trucking down the highway in vehicles. Then a newsreel announcer announces that Patton's Third Army relieved Bastogne. The drama was achieved by establishing how nearly impossible the task was, and that Patton and his army achieved it. There was no need to show the battle in great detail. I guess what I'm saying is that a film about one of the 2 or 3 greatest generals of all time should explain a little about why he was great. All we got out of Alexander was that "he won a big battle". If details about strategy are not interesting to filmgoers, then again, I have to question the wisdom of undertaking such a project. I realize most filmgoers are probably not as interested in history as I am, but if one chooses to make a historical film, one must be assuming that the subject will generate ticket sales. I certainly do not mind Alexander's flaws being depicted. He certainly drank a lot in the latter days of the endless campaign. I guess that I never felt he truly seemed to become the hardened, ruthless cocksure person he would have to have been. I guess I never found the character of Alexander in the film to be terribly impressive. He need not be admirable, but he must be impressive for his talents. I think there should have been more of a contrast between the adolescent Alexander and the "Great" Alexander. Hopkins' Ptolemy waxed rhapsodic about him, but I did not feel we saw the man Ptolemy described. But still, I am interested in the new version. There was enough good material in the version I saw to warrant a recut. Hopefully the new hour or so will not contain any more Ptolemy.

#15 of 99 OFFLINE   Craig_Ehr

Craig_Ehr

    Second Unit



  • 329 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2002

Posted December 18 2006 - 09:59 AM

FYI...also on Blu-ray and HD-DVD. edit: oops...my bad! hi-def not day and date with the DVD release in February, but later in 2007. sorry for any confusion.

#16 of 99 OFFLINE   PatrickDA

PatrickDA

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 198 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2005

Posted December 18 2006 - 10:38 AM

Well, we simply saw a different movie as I would disagree with just about everything you just said. We were shown him talking about Gaugmela in the scene in the tent, which was enough to show how different he was. Remember, Stone and company knew they had to make this for a WIDE audience and I think most people would be bored to death with battle strategy talk. As far as why he was 'Great'...well, I think Stone tried to get away from that word and that's why I liked the film so much. None of these jerks are great, they're murders!

#17 of 99 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor



  • 814 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted December 18 2006 - 12:04 PM

I wonder if the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray version will contain the free movie ticket for the "300?"

#18 of 99 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Who do we think I am?



  • 16,605 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted December 18 2006 - 01:08 PM

well i barely could get through the first one couldnt get through the second one third one, no thanks.
facebook.com/whotony

#19 of 99 OFFLINE   PatrickDA

PatrickDA

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 198 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2005

Posted December 18 2006 - 05:52 PM

Good for you! I'll enjoy this third cut very much, if you don't mind!

#20 of 99 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Who do we think I am?



  • 16,605 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted December 18 2006 - 07:42 PM

thats fine. your opinion is you like it mine is I dont. I didnt think it was a very good movie both times. this isnt a love fest topic is it? You seem to be taking it to be your mission here to defend the film. and come across as if it is personal when someone says they dont like it. its not you they dont like, its the movie. I find your thoughts on the movie interesting but please throw in a paragraph line break here and there. big blocks can be hard to read without the spaces between paragraphs. "I personally cannot wait for this release, it'll be the DVD of the year for me. I'm counting the days!!!!" thats great, i wish i enjoyed it as much as that. I wanted to. I look forward to anything by stone. this one just didnt make it for me. "I'll enjoy this third cut very much, if you don't mind!" I dont mind, and even if i did would you really care? it wouldnt make any difference, and my opinion shouldnt have any importance to your enjoyment of the film. its just discussion. some people like it and some dont.
facebook.com/whotony




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users