Alexander, the Director's Cut

[Puzz3D]

I just watched Oliver Stone's director's cut of Alexander, and I have to say it's much better than the theatrical release and very well done. It's actually 11 minutes shorter than the theatrical release. It benefits from critical feedback in that the sexual overtones are toned down a lot which I was glad to see. I did expect to see a couple of the poorly placed flashback scenes relocated in the movie, but Stone went way beyond what I expected in this regard and it really lifts the movie to a high artistic level. What I didn't expect was the refocusing of the picture on exploring who Alexander was to such an extent that the viewer has to know the historical narrative quite well. The expository monologues by Ptolomy (Anthony Hopkins) are shortened, the opening one by a full 3 minutes, and there aren't anymore history lessons using the map. The events that are depicted are as historically accurate as possible, although, many events that were actually separated in time are condensed into a single sequence. Even so, the importance of the events and their affect on Alexander comes through accurately. The private scenes are all speculation, but consistent with Stone's view of Alexander who he admits is not knowable directly from the secondhand historical records available, and many of the situations depicted have more than one interpretation. The viewer is given options to think about. Alexander isn't presented as a macho hero the way the main characters in Troy, Gladiator, Braveheart and King Arthur are presented. It's interesting because in the movie Alexander says that people are remembered not for who they were but for what they did. What he did has had a profound influence on western civilization. Why he did it has relevence to present day attitudes.

[Byzantine Prince]

Sounds great! If it's as good as you say it is, and assuming what you wrote is truthful, then I'll get it for sure. I liked the movie a lot, the only thing that bothered me was the long ass Ptolemy speeches. I couldn't care less that Alexander had sex with guys. I think anyone aware of the history of the pagan era of southern europe is very aware also that they didn't care who they slept with.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I never saw the original cut but the directors cut is very good and part from the Irish accents its a damn fine film with the battles being realistic, gory and enjoyable.

My fav shot is the eagle over the opposing armies at Gaugemela, which really is cool imo.

[Al Khalifah]

The Theatrical Version is shocking, they have actually split the film in half to put it on two DVDs and then put some extra features on the first!

Irritating and bad judgement.

The flashback scenes! I remember those now! Why was the scene of his father's murder put there? What was the significance?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I watchedit two days ago. The scenery and the like are mazing as for the rest it sucked big wind. Give me the Richard Burton version any day. I must admit I fell asleep before the end.

[CBR]

I must admit I fell asleep before the end.

Old men easily fall asleep like that


CBR

[lars573]

I watchedit two days ago. The scenery and the like are mazing as for the rest it sucked big wind. Give me the Richard Burton version any day. I must admit I fell asleep before the end.

I've seen the Richard Burton version. And I can't see how Stones version could be worse.

[Puzz3D]

Oliver Stone takes responsibility for the theatrical release, but it was influenced by people who wanted the audience's hands held and the sex scenes played up for commercial reasons. They even changed the time jumps to, for example, "3 years later", because the theatrical audience wouldn't understand that 327 BC was later than 330 BC. The Director's Cut is a reworking of the entire movie to Stone's artistic vision unencumbered by those commercial considerations. He can't take the eyeliner off Haphaistion, but his death scene is completly reworked and the knife sequence with Roxanne is thankfully gone, although, that takes out the copy of Homer's Illiad that Alexander always kept with him. A small price to pay I would say.

The story he tells in this version is compelling, and I didn't have any moments of "Oh no! What an artistic blunder." like I did with the theatrical release. All the flashback scenes work for me and are distributed over all three acts, and have relavence to the scene from which they cut away. I think he knew he was going to make a director's cut all along, and didn't put much effort into editing the theatrical release in which the classroom type narration is at odds with what Stone was trying to do. Even the big jump cut to Guagamela works better because of the scene preceeding it. There is a lot skipped in that 6 year jump, but Stones says he had to move the story ahead so he could cover the final 8 years.

I would say that anyone who buys the theatrical release DVD just because it's 11 minutes longer is missing out. BTW, the film score by Vangelis is outstanding.

[King of Atlantis]

Are these sex scenes with two men, cause if so,

[Puzz3D]

Are these sex scenes with two men, cause if so,

It's just suggested in a few scenes, but the degree that is was dwelt upon in the theatrical release was excessive and got to be superfluous to the story. There are only two scenes like this in the director's cut and they are brief. The movie has an R rating.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's not that it's too historically innacurate or anything.. but the movie just rubs me the wrong way. I would have a hard time recommending it to anyone.

Same here it seemed more like a political statement than a movie on Alexander.