Alexander Revisited: The Unrated Final Cut -- Due 2/27/07 (1 Viewer)

[Mike_Richardson]

Indeed, which speaks volumes about what they like watching overseas.

I don't think you could find a more universally panned "epic" film than this one in recent memory, but I suppose you can find someone who likes any film in some corner of the world -- ISHTAR and LEONARD PART 6 included!

 

[JonZ]

To each their own, you know. I cant stand the Matrix, but its pretty much universally loved here. Id rather watch Alexander than The Matrix anyday.

 

[Vincent_P]

Wow. What an incredibly ignorant remark.

Myself, I find much of the "overseas" cinema (you know, that "they" like watching) to be better than most of what's produced here in the U.S., but I guess that speaks volumes about me.

Vincent

 

[Darko]

How arrogant!

From now on, I'll be sure to ask your opinion, if something I want to watch is worthy:rolleyes

 

[TravisR]

Since I liked Alexander, I don't really care if every other person on the planet hates it. Still just to be safe, I should move to Europe so as not offend any other Americans with my taste.

 

[Terry St]

I'm a sucker for both historical epics and sword&sandal-type flicks, so Alexander should have been right up my alley. However, after seeing it I only felt it was so-so. The film... rambles. It seemed to me that Stone truly admired Alexander and wanted to convey that, but he never really figured out precisely how he was going to do it. The structure of the film is deeply flawed. It flits all over the place without rhyme or reason. If there's any film that could benefit from a beginning-to-end re-edit, it's Alexander.

Perhaps something resembling a clear and focused central theme will somehow emerge from the 45 minutes of footage that is that is being added to this new version. Perhaps in splicing it in, Stone will have a chance to restructure the film in a way that better suits the material. I'll certainly be renting this. I think there's a good film somewhere in all the footage Stone shot, and more time in the editing room might be just what the film needs.

As for the subject of Stone revisiting this film so soon... Try thinking of the previous versions as work prints.

 

[mike kaminski]

Well i think the general consensus is that yes, the constant tweaking of Star Wars has diluted the films.

As for Alexander, i guess i was a bit harsh but it just seems to me like an act of desperation because the releases have been so close together and neither version thusfar has been particularly good (interesting nonetheless, but overall poor IMO). I hope that the upcoming cut is better than the previous two, and it certainly sounds like it will be--the original directors cut comes off as less a traditional "directors cut" (the way Kingdom of Heaven's was for a good comparison) but more like a response to all the criticism that his first theatrical cut garnered, sort of like "okay, okay i made all the changes you guys wanted." The theatrical cut was booed and so he did a directors cut, and then that was booed too so now he tried again--it just came off a little desperate. This new one seems more genuine and heartfelt so i am hoping it will be a genuine improvement, but i really didn't like the way the entire movie was filmed; it was as much a question of directing than it was editing, and you can't really undo that.

Whatever becomes of it, it certainly is a unique and educational event for students of film--a huge, huge movie, completely re-cut into three totally different versions, all done by the same director. Its a rare opportunity to see how the same footage can be reshaped into much different narratives and for that reason alone it should be worth a curiosity.

As for "overseas" movies being "better" than "American" movies, although most of my favourite films are non-American ones, its more about output--Hollywood, believe it or not, puts out about the same amount of good films as any other country, much, much more so, especially in recent years. People think that Hong Kong films for example are so much more dynamic and artistic than Hollywood ones but thats only because people just see the most acclaimed titles--none of the typical crap gets imported or is seen in America, only the top five or so best films of the year, and in more obscure countries like Sweeden and Germany you might only hear of the top one or two films of the year. By contrast, an American viewer might see a hundred Hollywood films, and, like any country, 90% of them are crap. If it was 1999 and you only saw Fight Club, Three Kings, Matrix, American Beauty, Being John Malcovich and The Insider, you would think that Hollywood was the artistic capital of the world, but of course you would never ever even hear about crap from the same year like Bowfinger, Runaway Bride, Wild Wild West, Tarzan and Cruel Intentions. Its the same with any other country. Most Japanese films are crap, but when you narrow it down to the top five or ten of the year, the output looks good. When you narrow down the top one or two of every country in the world, combine them and then compare them against the total output of Hollywood of course Hollywood looks like a hollow snake den of money-hungry hacks, and for the most part it is. Its the diamonds in the rough that make all the difference, and, realistically, Hollywood has more than most countrys, and the last ten years has been its most artistic period since that seminal period of the early 70's.

 

[Vincent_P]

My point was not to disparage American or "Hollywood" movies as a whole, but to point out just how ridiculous Mike Richardson's remark was in reference to European audiences having had a more favorable response to ALEXANDER compared to American audiences as a whole- to quote his post, "Indeed, which speaks volumes about what they like watching overseas." I think you'd have to agree that Richardson's comment is a very ignorant one, no?

Vincent

 

[Nathan V]

Merely as an observation, I would state that Mr. Richardson's comment is either the most poorly phrased or the most arrogant thing I've read on HTF in some time (hopefully the former). I interpret him as saying "foreign audiences don't know a bad movie when they see one," and I respect that opinion and am glad he expressed it, although I couldn't disagree more.

Much of the ink spilled on Alexander is by folks who haven't seen the film or don't know much about Stone's work, etc., which I suppose is fine, but it leads to a lot of misconceptions, such as the idea that the director's cut is toned down or has no homosexuality, neither of which are true. All the gay content is still in there.

As for comparing Lucas to Stone, that's absurd just on general principle. I'm with Mike Richardson on that one- on one hand you have Lucas adding CGI for Jabba the Hut, and on the other hand you have Stone experimenting with structure and clarifying the themes of the movie. Stone's editing is perversely dynamic (JFK, NBK, Nixon), a league above the rest, and I'm eager to see what he comes up with here.

Interesting discussion, to say the least. I'm very curious to see the reviews for the new cut.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[David (C)]

I like that.

 

[David_B_K]

I do not think Mike Richardson's remark is any more arrogant than the American-bashing remarks that preceded and followed it. The thought behind most of the "Europeans received it better" remarks is that the Americans must be a "homophobic" lot to have dissed Alexander so. That is as if to say the movie only failed because the Bible Belt in America would not tolerate a move about a bunch of Greek gay/bisexual guys.

I did not think it a successful film for a lot of reasons. As for whether it had too much or too little homosexual content, in one important way, it had too little. We know that Phillip's assassination was largely due to the way he treated a cast-off male lover, and that it was this lover who killed him. It seems to me that if homosexuallity was to figure prominently in the movie, it should have been in relation to the death of Phillip.

My main problem with the movie was dealt posted earlier in the thread. He made a movie about one of the most brilliant and audacious generals in history, and portrayed him as a dazed and confused and uncharismatic so-called leader. Yes, his men grew mutinous as his campaigns had no end, but through the conquest of Persia, the men would have done anything for him. Maybe the constant shifting back and forth in time thing made it difficult to discern a period when Alexander was "king of the world".

I still look forward to seeing the longer cut in the hope that Stone finds a good movie in it somewhere. I saw the Director's Cut only, and actually felt there were some realy good moments in it. I do not blame him for constantly tweaking the movie. It definitley needs it. I just get tired of hearing that it needs tweaking because the Americans are too stupid to appreciate the earlier versions.

 

[TravisR]

It's a fact that the movie was better recieved in Europe than it was in America. However, you seem to think that most people in this thread are blaming homophobia for its failure in America (although I've barely seen anyone even mention the gay content of the movie). I don't think that that really had much to do with its reception one way or the other.

 

[David_B_K]

Not necessarily in this thread, but almost every article that mentions the film's failure in the USA and its success in Europe bring the homophobia angle up. Stone himself has been guilty of this (which is probably an attempt on his part to blame the failure on unenlightened Americans rather than inherant flaws in the film).

 

[TravisR]

Fair enough but the European reception of the film would seem to support Stone's view in my eyes. Either that or Europeans can't see the 'inherant [sic] flaws in the film' as well as Americans can.

For the record, I still don't think the subject played a significant role in how much it made in America or Europe or Mars.

 

[David_B_K]

Agreed.

 

[Vincent_P]

Sorry, but the only "bashing" that came up in this thread was from Mr. Richardson directed towards European audiences. Mr. Richardson asked why was a new cut of ALEXANDER being allowed, and some folks mentioned something to the effect that the film wasn't universally reviled, it was in fact pretty well-received overseas- THAT'S "America bashing"? I don't think so...

Simply stating that a film that was not well-received in the U.S. has been received well overseas is NOT "bashing" the U.S. in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Richardson's comment? There's no other way to read his particular comment EXCEPT that he was bashing Europeans.

Vincent

 

[David_B_K]

Stating that the film was "received well overseas" may not be America-bashing, but the remark by Richardson of "Indeed, which speaks volumes about what they like watching overseas. " was hardly Europe-bashing either. It was little different than that famous "well, the French think Jerry Lewis is a genius" line that has been floating around for some time.

Basically, defenders of the film constantly mention its failure in America and its relative success in Europe as a sign that Americans are either homophobic or so unenlightened that they are incapable of "getting" so subtle and brilliant a film. I'm not saying I take umbrage at such remarks. I don't like a lot of films other people like and vice versa. I don't care what other people think of my tastes (or lack thereof). Indeed, the idea that Americans are content to watch crap may well be true. As I do not consider myself to be one of those people, it does not concern me if someone says it in a general way.

But I do not think that the remark of Richardson's was a big deal either, and the people who are being offended by it should get over it. If he thinks their tastes are questionable because they liked a movie he considered crap, then it was a perfectly legitimate comment from his point of view.

Of course, we could all be wrong in our generalizations, buit this is only a mesage board. Really, it's no big deal.

 

[JonZ]

"I do not think Mike Richardson's remark is any more arrogant than the American-bashing remarks that preceded and followed it. The thought behind most of the "Europeans received it better" remarks is that the Americans must be a "homophobic" lot to have dissed Alexander so"

:rolleyes

"It's a fact that the movie was better recieved in Europe than it was in America."

Exactly Travis. It was.

Domestic: $34,297,191 20.5%
+ Foreign: $133,001,001 79.5%

= Worldwide: $167,298,192

I also remember seeing comments at imdb where people were saying the film was doing well and generally well received where they were from.

"Basically, defenders of the film constantly mention its failure in America and its relative success in Europe as a sign that Americans are either homophobic or so unenlightened that they are incapable of "getting" so subtle and brilliant a film."

I made that comment as a reply to it being a failure here - as in, it flopped so why bother to make another cut and try to see if the film can "find a audience" - and the US not being the only market in the world.

Weve seen many cases of special cuts, DVDs,etc made for small fan basis. If you include the people who genuinely do like the film (which Stone acknowledged), average whoever out there who might pick it up, plus a foreign interest - it can make it more than worthwhile to invest the time and money on the longer cut.

It didnt mean it as a slight at all. Just a fact.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

We need to stop these broad generalizations ...

because Americans and Europeans are too sensitive.



I keed! I keed!

Regards,

 

[Dave Simkiss]

Many thanks Travis. I apologise - I should have specified that I was after the Region 2, I actually just found it on play.com today.

But of course Im still waiting to see if there will be any differances between the various regions.