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

PatrickDA

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
317
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.
 

mike kaminski

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
262
Real Name
mike kaminski
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?
 

PatrickDA

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
317
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!!!!
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,590
Location
The basement of the FBI building
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.
 

David_B_K

Advanced Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
2,062
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
David
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.
 

PatrickDA

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
317

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!
 

Arnie G

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
662
Real Name
Arnie Douglas

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
 

David_B_K

Advanced Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
2,062
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
David


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.
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray
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!

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.
 

Mike_Richardson

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
639
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?
 

PatrickDA

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
317

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.
 

David_B_K

Advanced Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
2,062
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
David
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.
 

Craig_Ehr

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
385
Location
San Diego, CA USA
Real Name
Craig Ehr
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.
 

PatrickDA

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
317

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!
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Premium
Ambassador
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
20,619
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
well i barely could get through the first one
couldnt get through the second one

third one, no thanks.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Premium
Ambassador
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
20,619
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
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.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,900
Messages
4,724,057
Members
141,357
Latest member
avaroy