Alexander-The Director's Cut

[ralphnj]

Anyone see this version? I'm wondering if it's better or worse than the theatrical version. I hear it had been cut down and rearranged. About all I know.

 

[laudy32]

I have only seen the director's cut, so I don't know how it compares to the theatrical. I can tell you it was still a confusing and cluttered piece of crap. I only liked the first 20 minutes.

 

[ralphnj]

I couldn't disagree with you more having just seen the director's cut. The only disappointment for me was the fact the introductory scene and monologue have been cut down when I considered them perfect as they were in the theatrical version. The rest of this new version was very wisely rearranged and somehow makes more sense now even if the story and idea are the same. The fact that the film presents a more parrallel narrative of two stories makes the film truer to Oliver Stone than ever. The more I watch it, the more I understand and enjoy what Oliver Stone was trying to communicate. Listen to any one of his audio commentaries and you'll see what I mean. This film in both it's versions is no different than any other Oliver Stone film. It's only a matter of time until is this film is accepted as part of his filmography by the critics. Just look at how movies like Platoon, The Doors and JFK started when they were released. Same story right?
Whatever you may think, Oliver Stone is still my greatest movie hero. I look forward to his next film "World Trade Center". I think it's about time we look back at this event with a more critical eye.

Who else out here feels the same way I do about Oliver Stone?

-Ralph N.J

 

[laudy32]

I love Oliver Stone's other work, and I have to totally disagree about this film. I mean, with a film like this I shouldn't have to watch it 3 or 4 times to understand the basics of the narrative (I mean, it's not Primer). I am a big history buff and know a lot about Alexander's life, and I still got lost in the narrative. I just felt that the movie was not well acted (Colin Farel just didn't work), it was overdirected (the whole battle at the end just made no sense). It's just not a well made movie. It's ok for directors to make bad choices, I just think Stone should admit it in this case.

By the way, I have to disagree with the public not accepting his movies, because two of the movies you mentioned won academy awards. I do hope that "World Tade Center" is a better movie, because with a subject like that it could either be great or a debacle.

 

[ralphnj]

Originally posted by laudy32:
I love Oliver Stone's other work, and I have to totally disagree about this film. I mean, with a film like this I shouldn't have to watch it 3 or 4 times to understand the basics of the narrative (I mean, it's not Primer). I am a big history buff and know a lot about Alexander's life, and I still got lost in the narrative. I just felt that the movie was not well acted (Colin Farel just didn't work), it was overdirected (the whole battle at the end just made no sense). It's just not a well made movie. It's ok for directors to make bad choices, I just think Stone should admit it in this case.

By the way, I have to disagree with the public not accepting his movies, because two of the movies you mentioned won academy awards. I do hope that "World Tade Center" is a better movie, because with a subject like that it could either be great or a debacle.

Thank you for your comments. Since you appear to know what you're talking about, allow me to remind you certain points you missed. First of all, in mentioning films like Platoon and JFK in my last post, I in no way implied that they weren't later well received by the public as you say. You forget however that films like JFK are not exactly well received by critics(americans in particular). They try very hard to shoo people away from Oliver Stone's movies. In the case of JFK, it happened before the crew had even finished shooting! Of course, such critiques never work. You said it yourself, JFK did win at least two academy awards(Best Cinematography and Editing). Oliver Stone however only won one director's oscar in his life which was for Born on The 4th of July. Platoon only won Best Picture. It is a great movie, no doubt. It opened up whole new genre for the war epic: gritty and realistic. Let's not forget how difficult it was at it's initial release. The critics did initially claim it was a fluke. Luckily, the public saw through them.

Concerning the history, I'm surprised that someone who claims to "know a lot about Alexander's life" couldn't immediately see that the last Indian Battle presented in the film never happened. I may have had to read up to figure this one out but would someone like you be able to realize that that battle was condensation of two actual battles i.e. The Battle of Hydaspes against general Porus' elephants and The Battle of Multan where Alexander was wounded. In what way did the battle in the film did not make sense! It may not be directly related to history but in the context of the story, what's wrong with it?
Alexander hardens on his troops, forces them by executing any ringleaders who think otherwise(yes, I know. This too is a historical of the second mutiny in Iran), practically brainwashes his troops with crazy stories, their un-motivation loses the battle. Although depending on how you look at history, Alexander's defeat at the battle of Multan(not in film) can be looked at as both a defeat(return to Babylon) and a victory(the troops massacring the entire town to save their wounded leader).
The only other argument I can think of that may justify the end battle making no sense would be perhaps the more symbolic use of it in this film which is above a "historical drama" to quote Robin Lane Fox, historian, consultant on the film and author the book "The Making Of Alexander".

If all this still isn't good enough, I would also like to express my bewilderment at your phrase "with a film like this I shouldn't have to watch it 3 or 4 times to understand the basics of narrative". Strange, I thought good movies were the ones you could watch over and over and still find stuff you didn't know was there as if you were watching it again for the first time! I speak to you now as an admirer of Oliver Stone: Isn't that what his movies are about? Don't they all have a little something to teach?

-Ralph N.J

Mickey Knox: I guess you gotta hold that ol'shot gun in yer hand and guess it all becomes clear like it did for me the first time.

Wayne Gale: And what's that?

Mickey Knox: **** man, I'm a natural born killer.

 

[laudy32]

In this case I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the merit in this film to make the case to watch it repeatedly.

By the way, when I said the final battle made no sense, I meant that I understood what was happening, it just seemed slightly out of place. But I cannot claim to be an expert critic and have only watched it once (and probably will never watch it again) so my memory of the film might just be condensed into a one bad memory.

I can tell you I enjoyed the beginning of the film a lot, and the flashbacks a little bit, but otherwise it just wasn't for me.

 

[ralphnj]

Originally posted by laudy32:
In this case I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the merit in this film to make the case to watch it repeatedly.

By the way, when I said the final battle made no sense, I meant that I understood what was happening, it just seemed slightly out of place. But I cannot claim to be an expert critic and have only watched it once (and probably will never watch it again) so my memory of the film might just be condensed into a one bad memory.

I can tell you I enjoyed the beginning of the film a lot, and the flashbacks a little bit, but otherwise it just wasn't for me.

No problem, still was a pleasure arguing with you as expert critics of the same film.

Nothing personal by the way, I just like to write. That's what forums are for.

Nice knowing you,

Ralph N.J

 

[Darkfire001]

I'm still debating wheter to Watch Alexander the Directors Cut or not (I've not seen the theatrical either).

My namesake just happens to be Alexander the Great and I don't fill like dishonoring him by watching a poor tell-tale of his legend. That said, the Directors Cut certainly sounds like an improvement.

But Colin Farell

...

 

[laudy32]

If anything, watching Alexander can maybe give you an idea of where those type of epics can go wrong, or if you enjoy it then you got some entertainment from it. Even though I really despise the movie, I am grateful for watching it because I saw what can go wrong with a movie, and how money doesn't fix story problems.