Alexander Revisited - The Final Cut [2004]

The DVD has a three-minute introduction by Oliver Stone himself, who talks about the radical restructuring that he had overseen for the new three-and-a-half hour version. He says that this is the third cut and is for DVD only. I never saw either of the other earlier two editions of this film, so my review is blind as to how better or worse is this reconstruction. He says that he has had full freedom to do as he pleased, uncensored, and unhampered by the pressures of a cinema release or studio executives. "Those of you who loved the first Alexander will love it more, and those of you who hated it will hate it more. ... [It was] always a difficult film to understand, difficult to do." Alas there is no commentary to help us understand why this was the case and there are no extras.Being a fan of other Oliver Stone movies (JFK and Nixon) I was at first unsure about his credentials to attack a non-American historical subject, and I feared his Alexander would be just another biopic made according to the Hollywood view of history. And my only previous experience of Alexander in a visual format was Michael Wood's excellent historico-travelogue for the BBC, "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great". But I noted that the great English scholar and expert on all things Alexandrian (and more), Robin Lane Fox, was the historical consultant to the film.The result of the restructuring is that, in effect, we have two films running at the same time - Alexander in Macedonia, and Alexander abroad. The (new) film opens on Alexander's deathbed, and then we move forward forty years to see and hear Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) dictating his memoirs in Egyptian Alexandria. Ptolemy's commentary is heard at various points throughout the film and binds the whole story together, summing him up in an extended passage at the very end.The film swiftly moves to the epic battle of Gaugamela, where a full twenty minutes is spent on makeshift speeches and then the gore of war. I do not know if the words put into Alexander's mouth in the film are in any way true to history, but the constant references to Greek freedom as opposed to Persian tyranny made me uncomfortable, as if this was in some way Stone condoning the debacle of Iraq, Gaugamela being sited in the Kurdish part of that blighted state. But then we see the twelve-year old Alexander being taught by Aristotle (Christopher Plummer) in which he warns his young charge that, "The East has a way of swallowing young men and their dreams." (An "I told you so!" to Bush?)The battle is portrayed on a truly massive scale with an unexpected focus on tactics, the screen bearing references to the "Macedonian left", the "Macedonian right", etc. The scenes of the two great battles portrayed (the other being that of Hydaspes on the Indian frontier) are true gorefests. Some battle scenes unfortunately suffer from undercranking (slowing the film when shooting and then speeding it back up for the screen) and there are some editing problems too throughout the film - at one point Angelina Jolie speaks without her lips moving (but, then, given her character, maybe this was intentional).No review of this film can fail to mention the prevalence of Irish accents amongst the Macedonians. Even the young Alexander aged twelve has an Irish accent, so full marks for consistency. Maybe other reviewers know why Oliver Stone did this, and I know it has come in for some criticism, but for me, once it was noted, it was soon forgotten as the film progressed. And when all is said and done, would the film be better with American accents?The more times I watched this movie, the more I appreciated its strengths. The death of Philip and the acclamation of Alexander are particularly well-handled. The cast as a whole give true and convincing performances. The fine music by Vangelis (who else?) provides complete support for the visuals of tension, romance, exoticism, and glory, so much so that I bought the CD. I could even appreciate Oliver Stone's own appearance for a couple of seconds on-screen.In the end, I had to concede that this movie's epic scale, matched by its assured intimacy, its power to carry the viewer along and its power to move, could only mean that it had to have five stars.

Let me start by saying this is the only cut of this movie that I've ever seen. I'm aware of the scathing reception Alexander recieved upon release, but I'm not entirely sure of why as I never saw the theatrical release.As an unbiased viewer going into this experience with no expectations, I have to say that I imagine this is a vast improvement over it's original form. There were some questionable performance choices in terms of acting and accents, and the plot jumps back and forth a little too much for my taste. Aside from this I found Alexander to be a riveting watch, with fantastic battle sequences and gloriously rendered locations, particularly Babylon. It's not quite in the same league as some of the other historical big hitters from this era, but it's certainly worth your time!

Great purchase. 5/5.. Go get it.. N O W

Alexander Revisited is, as the man himself states at the beginning of this version of the film, Oliver Stone's final, artistically free edit of the film, an edition which 'includes everything I wanted to include'. For anyone who watched the previous versions of the film and found them reasonably enjoyable and watchable, if seriously flawed - and I count myself amongst them - it's an editing basis which promises great things; possibly an entirely new angle of appreciation. Sadly, that turns out to be almost wholly not the case.The length of the film and structure are altered, on the face of it, quite significantly, with the film playing now at over three hours and being graced with an intermission half way through. This attempt on Stone's part to recreate the epic scale of 'sword and sandals' behemoths of old is one which works surprisingly well, in so far as the film is still watchable; although I couldn't detect any noticeable change in the overall mood. Frankly, it may be a wider canvass, but it is a remarkably unchanged one in the fundamentals. It feels and plays more like a longer director's cut than a genuinely new edit of the film. There is, alas, no transformation of the original material here. You soon realise that all of the old problems are still there - the difference being that they are now merely writ larger.The central issue which largely crippled the earlier versions is still present; the lack of any persuasive emotional depth. In a film which tries it's hardest to flesh out Alexander the man, as opposed to simply Alexander the conqueror or warlord, this is deeply unsatisfying. But Alexander's most enduring and passionate relationship in his life, and the supremely obvious choice for a focus to any legitimate film centring on him as an individual, as a human being - that with Hephaestion - still remains the elephant in the living room, the issue which the film still cannot fully address in any kind of coherent manner. Jared Leto's low-key perfomance is better than has sometimes been suggested, particularly with benefit of this extended version, but the whole issue is dealt with in much too perfunctory and superficial way to be persuasive. What created the bond between Hepahestion and Alexander, and what is the real dynamic of it? These questions are never answered, nor even reasonably hinted at. We are still, on the whole, left with the previous situation of insincere-seeming hugs and furtive glances.In all fairness, to suggest that this implies some kind of Hollywood weakness at tackling the subject of homosexual relationships may be premature, since a similar lack of overall form bedevils the other key relationships. Val Kilmer fits into the role of Philip of Macedon brilliantly, but the strange, unsatisfying, oedipal trinity between Philip, Olympias and Alexander is still there. We still have a lot of huffing and puffing and no real spirit which carries us along; Alexander charges into Olympias' room, accuses her of Philip's murder, they scream and shout, and within minutes they are reconciled. It all seems too superficial, too lacking in any kind of thematic drum beat. All Alexander's relationships are never adequately resolved, nor are we ever sure what to make of them. The film still does not seem particularly sure what to make of them itself. Colin Farrell runs a perfectly competent and moderately convincing perfomance as Alexander, but he is still wedded to a script which never seems to excite or provoke, or raise Alexander beyond the favourable but conservative historical template of Robin Lane Fox. We are told a variety of things by Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) but rarely do we feel fully convinced. The film is still dry and much too concerned with telling us the basic story, rather than getting on and making that story come alive for the screen.The film is still, alas, too restrained, too lacking in confidence. It needed to charge headlong into the subject of Alexander's personal relationships with a will and a total disregard for convention, or else - the more commercially palatable option - largely ignore them and simplify them to the basics, and focus on making the film a big-scale Hollywood bloodfest. In the end, even in this final edit, it can still not fully commit itself to either.Alexander, like all biographical films, is a difficult one to judge if a viewer has a good knowledge of the subject in question. You are basically familiar with the tale. Baring massive artistic license, you are not in for any big surprises in terms of the story. But good films of this genre can bring out a new angle on a familiar yarn through persuasive characterisation and a good script, two things which Alexander, even at the ultimate stage, is not able to really summon up. That is a great shame for a film which aims high, but if this edit of the film succeeds in anything, it is in finally confirming that the definitive modern film version of Alexander of Macedon's life is still to be made.

I fell in love with the movie because of the soundtrack by Vangelis. Later on I became very interested of Alexander because of this movie. This version is the best in my opinion. I've seen it many times and I will watch it many times more.

El producto llegó puntual y en perfecto estado.Hay tres versiones en total de la película "Alejandro Magno": A parte de La versión de los cines, está "Alexander - The Ultimate Cut" y esta última, "Alexander - Revisited The Final Cut". Recomendable si te encanta la película, porque no tienen nada que ver estas dos últimas versiones a la primera estrenada en los cines en 2005.Si las quieren comprar tengan en cuenta el idioma,ya que no hay traducción al castellano en ambos films.Ultimate Cut viene sin traducción al castellano y con subtítulos en español.Revisited Final Cut viene sin traducción y sin subtítulos.

Esta reseña es de la versión director’s cut de Alexander, la versión extendida de la película de Oliver Stone. Para quien tenga dudas sobre adquirirla o no, está en versión original pero con subtítulos en español latino neutro. Por lo tanto se puede reproducir en cualquier bluray y se puede entender todo sin problemas. La versión vale mucho la pena, si os gustó la de cine no os la perdais, dudo que la eidten nunca en España.

Film vituperato e sicuramente sottovalutato, Alexander è un kolossal intenso, drammatico e potente. Crescita, sogni, fantasmi, imprese e conquiste di uno dei più grandi condottieri della storia, visionario che già in quell'epoca immaginava un mondo unito, libero nello scambio di culture e merci. Recitazione a mio avviso ottima da parte del cast, musiche di Vangelis (l'autore della colonna sonora di Blade Runner, per intenderci...), epicità a non finire e grande cura nella realizzazione delle scene di guerra. Quest'edizione è abbastanza ricca: due blu-ray, ognuno contenente una versione del film e dei contenuti speciali. La prima versione è la "Ultimate cut", della durata di ben tre ore e mezza e con un montaggio diverso rispetto alla versione classica; è presente in lingua originale con la possibilità di sottotitoli e l'ho trovata molto godibile, specie per chi già conosce bene il film. L'altra versione è quella cinematografica, uscita in tutte le sale del mondo circa dieci anni fa. Raro trovare prodotti simili sul mercato nostrano, specie se parliamo di film leggermente datati come questo. Un plauso, quindi, alla scelta di quest'edizione. Unica pecca, secondo me, i contenuti speciali: sono ricchissimi, ci sono ore di materiale, ma si soffermano soprattutto su reportage dietro le quinte e non li ho trovati super-eccitanti. A parte questo neo, prodotto eccellente. Consigliato.

Regisseur Oliver Stone hat eine einzigartiges und brillantes Gemälde des Menschen ALEXANDER geschaffen, eine Filmbiografie, die nicht in Hollywoodklischees abgleitet. Und Hauptdarsteller Colin Farrell spielt nicht Alexander den Großen, er taucht in diese Rolle ein. Er füllt Alexander mit all seiner Tragik, seinen Träumen und seinen Idealen an und schafft eine unglaublich imposante und vor allem glaubwürdige Figur. Ihm gegenüber steht Angelina Jolie (Schlange), die Olympias eine Eindringlichkeit einhaucht, wie es wahrscheinlich nur wenige Schauspielerinnen geschafft hätten. Jolies Darstellung von Alexanders Mutter ist voller Zorn und Kraft, die einem förmlich entgegenspringt. Der dritte im Bunde ist Val Kilmer (Adler), der in seiner Rolle als König Philipp kaum wiederzuerkennen ist. Seine Darstellung ist ähnlich brillant wie in THE DOORS und überzeugt auf der ganzen Linie. Aber Stone macht es dem Zuschauer nicht leicht, der es gewöhnt ist bedient zu werden. ALEXANDER ist kein Pocornkino, sondern anspruchsvoll, intelligent und intellektuell. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Regisseuren nimmt Stone den Zuschauer nicht bei der Hand, sondern lässt ihn alleine und verwirrt zwischen den gewaltigen Schlachtreihen der makedonisch-griechischen Armee herumirren. Genau wie in Filmen wie NATURAL BORN KILLER, NIXON oder JFK muss der Zuschauer auch bei ALEXANDER mitdenken! ALEXANDER ist wie eine großartige Oper, in deren vollen Genuss man auch nur kommt, wenn man Hintergründe und Protagonisten kennt. Unbedarfte Zuschauer sehen ein paar schöne Kulissen, ein paar eindrucksvolle Szenen, aber wie alles zusammenhängt und um was es geht, bleibt dem Unwissenden verborgen. Oliver Stone pfeift auf Hollywoods Einheitsbrei. ALEXANDER ist ein europäischer Film und ein elitärer Film zugleich. Wer aber zum Kreis der Eingeweihten gehört, für den ist ALEXANDER ein Hochgenuss. Denn Stone gelingt das Unglaubliche: fast akribisch bleibt er an seiner Vorlage, der Alexander-Biografie des Historikers Robin Lane Fox. Natürlich ist die Zeit im Kino begrenzt und daher müssen viele Szenen dem Zeitdruck weichen, aber der Grundtenor wird von Stone deutlich herausgearbeitet. Er stellt Alexander als Mensch dar, der bewundernswert und bemitleidenswert zur gleichen Zeit ist. Immer wieder betont auch der Hauptprotagonist selbst, dass Ruhm und Heldentum unzertrennlich mit Leid verbunden sind. Und von der ersten Minute des Films ist dem Zuschauer diese Tragik bewusst, denn die Handlung beginnt mit dem Tod des makedonischen Eroberers.Zugegebenermaßen verfällt Stone einer gewissen Begeisterung, die mit einer Verharmlosung von Alexanders Taten einhergeht. Dass der makedonische Feldherr beispielsweise eine Rebellion in Theben beenden ließ, indem er 6.000 Menschen hinrichten und 30.000 versklavte ließ, wird nur in einem Nebensatz erwähnt. Aber Stone ist sich dieser Verklärung durchaus bewusst und erklärt dem Zuschauer durch den Erzähler Ptolemäus: "Hat ein Mann wie Alexander jemals wirklich existiert? Nein, natürlich nicht! Wir idealisieren ihn. Wir machen ihn besser, als er war."Alexander ist der Erbe der großen Helden, er soll angeblich mit der Ilias unter dem Kopfkissen geschlafen haben und er sah sich als Sohn des Zeus und Nachkomme des Achilles. Mit großer Begeisterung zieht Stone die Parallelen zwischen Alexander und den klassischen Sagen. Alexander lebt den Traum des Herakles und begibt sich auf die Suche nach den Grenzen der Welt, doch was er findet ist das niemals endende Leid des Prometheus. Zu allem Unglück tritt er auch in die Fußstampfen von Ödipus, gibt sich die Schuld am Tod seines Vaters und heiratet symbolisch seine eigene Mutter. Ein Held der antiken Sagenwelt bekommt sein ganz eigenes Denkmal durch Alexander: Der mächtige Achilles. Nichts hat Alexander so sehr fasziniert wie die Liebe zwischen Achilles und Patroklos. Und so zelebriert Alexander seine Liebe zu Hephaistion geradezu, immer mit dem Wissen, dass eines Tages jemand auch seine Achillesferse finden wird. Erst durch die Parallelen zu all diesen Halbgöttern, wird Alexanders menschliche Fehlbarkeit verdeutlicht.Und wenn ein Mensch 330 Jahre vor Christi Geburt den modernen und geradezu utopischen Traum hat, die Völker zu verschmelzen, damit sie gegenseitig von ihren Errungenschaften profitieren können, dann hat er es verdient, der "Große" genannt zu werden.