Alexander, Revisited: The Final Cut (Two-Disc Special Edition)

Oliver Stone did an outstanding job of re-editing his original version of Alexander. This film is over three hours long, but worth every frame. We don't know much about Alexander the Great other than many cities were named after him in the ancient world, and he was one of the greatest Generals and warriors at that time in history before the common era (BCE). His battles are still studied today at military academies. His tomb was lost when Egypt fell to Rome during Cleopatra's time on the throne. Thankfully, a female archaeologist is searching for Alexander's tomb even now in Alexandria. But to the meat of this review, Colin Farrell's superb portrayal of Alexander was one of his greatest acting achievements in my humble opinion. I'm a lay historian and have seen most of the films on Alexander, as well as studied and researched his life. Farrell's performance stands out as the best and most believable. Watching the film, you can feel that Farrell took the role seriously. He makes the audience believe that he is Alexander the Great. Obviously, Director Stone used dramatic license to make the film more interesting, but he managed to include most of Alexander's known written history. The cinematography was surreal, captivating, and beautiful, especially the scenes in Babylon. The energetic battle scenes were extremely intense and graphic. The supporting cast was outstanding as well, with Anthony Hopkins, Joseph Morgan (The Originals-Klaus), Rosario Dawson, and the late Val Kilmer as King Philip Alexander's father, and Angelina Jolie as Alexander's mother, Olympias, along with Jared Leto as Hephaistion, Alexander's lifelong friend and lover, and the late great Christopher Plummer as Aristotle. I've watched the film several times and always discover previously missed easter eggs. Alexander Revisited is one of the 21st century's epic historical films. If you love history, sweeping drama, and extraordinary acting, don't miss this one.

As a fan of classic epic films such as Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, El Cid, and The Ten Commandments, as well as modern epics such as The Right Stuff, Ghandi, and Braveheart, I can tell you that this film belongs among them. Epic filmmaking--that is, films that go on for 3 hours plus and tell grand, sweeping tales of colossal figures in adventurous times--requires that things be done differently from more earthbound movies, and so are to be judged with a wider scope. From beginning to end the cinematography must capture the vastness and beauty of the hero's world, in breathtaking and flawless fashion. The battle scenes must be superbly choreographed, scaled, and amassed. The music must be dramatic, sweeping, and evocative. The panoply of main characters must be in sufficient number to weave an interesting dramatic web whose threads take time to satisfactorily unravel. The overall cast must number in the thousands. The sets and costumes must be luxuriously, ornately, and authentically magnificent. The main character must be--and be rendered--riveting to watch through charismatic, if not gifted, acting. The dialogue must dramatically evoke epic times while still sounding useful. And the directing must be skilled enough to combine all of these elements in such a way that the audience is taken on the same journey the main character takes, thereby becoming utterly transported into that character's mind and world. If you think about it, Mr. Stone had a Herculean Labor here: To bring Alexander "The Great" down from the ivory pedestal he's resided upon in bust for 2300 years, into our modern times so that we might try to understand him as "The Man" inside four hours. No other figure in human history has been so guilded by legend, or obscured by such legendary true accomplishments. How does one begin to get a sense of this man--his thoughts, feelings, vulnerabilities, that secret inner life? Yes, we know what he DID. But who WAS he? This film delivers on all that. So kindly overlook the at-times overmatched acting by Colin Farrell and his youthful peers. Turn a blind eye toward the gross miscasting of Val Kilmer as Alexander's father, Phillip II. Cover your ears as Angelina Jolie snarls and claws her way through one overbearing scene after another, even as she looks every inch Alexander's mother Olympias. Bear with Alexander's old general Ptolemy, ably played as usual by Sir Anthony Hopkins, as he meanders through his own ruminations about who Alexander was in the course of narration. Lie back on the couch and breathe as Oliver Stone beats the Oedipal horse into pudding. The truth is, even those numerous flaws fail to detract from the impact of this film: To put you down on the earth as it was in Alexander's day, and experience what it might have been like to be him--in battle, in love, in friendship, in tragedy, conquering most of the known world. By the end, you will feel as if you've really KNOWN the man. That's what epic filmmaking is all about. And if it took Olie three tries to get it right, so what? What matters is that he got it RIGHT. And we get to enjoy it. (P.S.: The packaging and overall production quality are superb. Really beautiful. That it's selling for about five bucks is itself a wonder of the world.)

I have been a fan of "sword and sandal" movies since the late 50's. I think this is one of the very best, but you probably need to be somewhat knowledgeable of the historical background to truly appreciate it. Alexander is presented as a man of his time and culture rather than as a modern hero, which might be off-putting for some viewers. The film gets unusually high marks for historical accuracy and, inevitably, the story is too complex and full of paradoxes and uncertainties for nice straightforward storytelling - another negative from the standpoint of the "entertain me" moviegoer. However, it is a feast for the fan of ancient history and the sets and battle scenes are mind-bogglingly good. The acting is uneven, but Farrell pours his heart and soul into the role and deserves the highest accolades. Yes, the movie, like its subject, has numerous flaws. It is unwieldy, there are probably too many flashbacks and melodramatic moments. But there are many scenes that I will never forget - and have not forgotten since I saw the original version in the theater. I think Ptolemy said it best: (paraphrasing) "Oliver Stone's Alexander is a failure, but his failure towers over the successes of others." It is probably impossible to do justice to Alexander the Great's life in a movie, but Stone came closer than I would have thought possible.

I have never been able to watch this film on television with it being cut to shreds for commercials. Nor did I see the much criticised cinema release. But Alexander Re-Visited, the Final Cut, is a masterpiece of cinema. The performance of Colin Farrell, from a young man to his death, the changes in his appearance, his emotional range, are just exceptional. So is Angelina Jolie in her role as his mother, Olympia. The real Olympia was far worse than the one presented in the film. This version follows historical events fairly closely, and the two battle scenes - which represent more than a dozen that the real Alexander fought - are bloody and brutal. But it is through these were see Alexander's ability to enthuse his men, to lead, to plan and even to read the landscape, the daylight etc. While some might find the gay scenes awkward, the real Alexander is believed to have been bi-sexual, which was nothing controversial in those times. Vangelis' music is brilliant. Like Cleopatra, this film, in time, will be viewed as the classic it really is, and as close to history as it could get. I live in Sydney, Australia, which at present has an Alexander exhibition at a major museum. This exhibition is so close to the film's story that it is uncanny. Both are excellent.

This Cut made me happy! I liked the theatrical version okay. The Director's Cut was alright, but this Final Cut did the same thing for me that the Director's Cut for Kingdom of Heaven did: I watched it and went, "Now this is what they meant to show! This makes more sense!" Stone went for the heart and for the glory that Alexander was in life, start to finish, and to me, he did not disappoint in this Cut. It's kind of funny to me, that the reviews I've found for this movie always seem to: 1) glorify Val Kilmer's performance [and it was good], 2) vilify Angelina Jolie's performance [I found her true to Olympias, who always seemed to have an agenda], 3) complain about the homosexual tendencies [do you know ANYTHING about Alexander or ancient Greece?], and 4) moan about the movie being boring [how the hell is a war movie boring?] Kilmer as Phillip II was amazing; I alternately hated Phillip and felt him tender at the same time, and Kilmer doesn't usually do it for me, but he was AWESOME in this role. Jolie--I always like her acting, and to me, she did the snake worshipping Olympias justice, even if the snake worshipping Olympias was weird unto herself; one thing is for certain-- she loved her son... how is a different story. Farrell's Alexander was amazing, but then again, I'm not sure that Colin Farrell has a bad turn of a role, usually it's a script that gets him. Leto as Hephaistion was beautifully done, and I'm not usually a Leto fan when it comes to him and movies. How the hell do people find a movie about conquering the world boring? Especially when, as Aristotle puts it in the movie, "the known world" was pretty small? Alexander was way ahead of his time, and to watch his destiny unfold before his eyes, to watch each decision he made, whether or not it was one everyone agreed with, affect the WORLD, had to be mind-blowing. Ptolemy spoke of his death at the end of the movie, saying that "Alexander's great heart finally gave out." I think that was a perfect way to describe it: from what I've read from Plutarch and Arrian and Curtius-- people who never met the man, but relied on writings we've mostly never seen to make their own-- Alexander had such a big heart and such a keen mind for strategy, and when he put those two together, there was nothing he couldn't accomplish. Stone and Farrell captured that perfectly in this film.

There are a few positive things about this movie, which I'll mention first. The battle scenes are as chaotic and bloody as one might imagine an actual battle would be in those times. What I found interesting was the labeling of the lines, such as "Macedonian Center", etc., plus the sweeping aerial shots in the desert scene, so one had the sense of strategy on the battlefield. Costuming, armor and the depiction of cities such as Babylon appeared to be historically accurate, or at least attempted to do so. However, I think the memory of Alexander the Great would have been better served if there were more exposition of the battles and the strategies employed by Alexander which got him to the starting point of the movie, the Battle of Gaugemela. Given the length of this version, it was disappointing that so little attention was given to Alexander's mind, and deep understanding of tactics. Instead, we were subjected to a soap opera of love and intrigue, of high emotions and sub-plots, which degraded the victories of Alexander almost to the level of "luck". The constant pedal point of sexuality, bi-sexuality, homosexuality and an (implied) incestuous relationship between Alexander and his mother, was a diversion from the story of the history of Alexander's accomplishments. The music had the potential of conveying great moments in a warrior's life; moments of humanity and true nobility of spirit. However, it was underutilized throughout. The accents were ridiculous - WHAT is that accent of Jolie's??! It really started to get on my nerves. We hear others with Irish brogues or cultivated British accents. What the heck?! And the camera work - don't get me started! The extreme close-ups, over and over again, are also tiresome. Do we really need to see the pores in their faces and their nose-hairs??? And, in the India battle scene, after Alexander is wounded, all of a sudden we're thrown back into a 1960's LSD-type effect of wild colors and sharp contrasts, which very nearly had me expect to hear "Strawberry Fields Forever" at any moment. "Wha-a-a-a-a-a- the---?!" And, I have to agree with other reviewers re: the flashbacks. Although the years are subtitled, and Anthony Hopkins' voice over gives some context, it is overall very disjointed and truly doesn't function in the telling of a story. I was very disappointed in this movie; it had so much potential to truly be great; to bring a bit of Alexander - the concepts of strategic warfare and nation-building (and LIBRARIES!) - to present generations. At the end, despite some interesting observations by Hopkins' Ptolemy, we are still left wondering, "SO....uh, what did Alexander do and HOW DID HE DO IT? Hollywood is a poor substitute for actual history; it were better that we visit our local library, and crack open a book or two to glean some of the wisdom from Alexander the Great's life.

This is a pretty amazing film. It has a highly talented cast yet there is a tendency to overacting that makes the film to have more in common with 1950s Hollywood epics like "The Ten Commandments" rather than with more naturalistic, realistic contemporary films. Since all the actors overact, with the exceptions of Christopher Plummer as Aristotle, Anthony Hopkins as the aged Ptolemy, and Jared Leto as Hephaestus, the blame must reside with the director. The historic record would point to Alexander the Great as a tremendous egomaniacal and charismatic leader. Yet here the script tries to elevate Alexander's mission beyond conquest and discovery into some vague concept of universal respect for diversity which may be a contemporary value but was probably not a value of the ancient world of conquest. Listen to the dialogue where Alexander argues with his generals about his desire that they take wives and produce children among the nations they overcome rather than focus on returning to their wives and children in Macedonia with vast treasures and slaves. An argument could be made that he wished to find a way to sustain his victories, which may occur if the victor impregnates the vanquished and establishes kingdoms overseen by the children of these marriages and unions. Great leaders wish to sustain their victories and intermarriage with the defeated nations and tribes may have indeed been Alexander's strategy. Certainly he followed this strategy with this marriage to Roxannas. But if this was truly the case then why was Alexander also compelled to follow a path of discovery to the ends of the known world, particularly in demonstrating that beyond India is the origin of the Nile which, if followed, would bring him and his troops back to the Mediterranean Sea. The speeches delivered by Alexander to his troops wavered in theme from appealing to their desire for conquest and treasure, to that of becoming rules of these new vanquished worlds, to that of discovering the Nile beyond India which will lead them to their homes. Eventually all the arguments fail and he must return or risk total mutiny. The homosexuality of Alexander is presented in an interesting manner in the film. Alexander seems to have a permanent emotional attachment to his childhood friend Hephaestus but is sexually drawn to the Persian slave boy that becomes his lover. In the first half of the film he asks Hephaestus to sleep with him but he gradually transitions to the Persian slave boy without losing his attachment to Hephaestus as his most honest and trusted companion. His attachment to his wife seems to be one whereby he wished to create a dynasty among the people he conquered. Maybe the film reflects the truth that it is rare that any human relationship will meet all needs. The film is visually stunning, as beautiful as any Biblical or Ancient world epic produced in the last 40 years. Yet the narrative sequence is too jolting, bouncing back and forth in time too often. The film would have been further strengthened by a chronological presentation and the inclusion of Alexander's conquest of Greece and Egypt to give a full presentation of the size of this young man's military achievements.

Based on the several iterations that this film has evolved through, Oliver Stone tried to re-create the tone of those old-fashioned epic films (those old movies that were long, historical or religious in nature, and had intermissions...) but fails admirably. He fails, in my opinion, in a most watchable catastrophic fashion, and because of that, I found myself admiring his chutzpah. The story has been well described in these various reviews. It's a dizzying attempt to cover the life of Alexander The Great. Many terrific actors (Kilmer, Jolie, etc.) give it their all. You can see them trying...even Colin Farrell. You can't say he doesn't commit to the role. Much has been written about the emphasis on homosexuality in this cut, and it is pervasive. I mean that the relationship with Hephaestion (Jared Leto) is arguably the central plot of the film. This apparently accurately reflects historical data...but Stone almost makes it into a political statement. I just found it a little weird that it was emphasized SO much. I heard someone say that this film made "Rent" look like "Dirty Harry." I don't know if I'd go THAT far, but I see their point. It is beautifully shot; the war scenes are done well...technically it is what you would expect. From a storytelling perspective, this is an unqualified disaster. The timeshifting back and forth is so disorienting, even the titling doesn't help. ("Eight years earlier", "Four years later"...back and forth...back and forth...) The lines alternate between literate and cheesy, but all good epics have some of that... Anyways...I guess what I'm trying to say is that you kinda have to see this to believe it. But that's not a huge recommendation...

Ho comprato il dvd e purtroppo da nessuna parte era indicato che si trattava di un prodotto Regione 1. Nel titolo c'è scritto Edizione Germania e questo è molto fuorviante. Giudizio negativo per le informazioni sbagliate, non per il prodotto in sè. Non lo restituisco perché avendolo pagato 6 euro probabilmente mi costerebbe di più.

Good!

This movie has all of the usual Oliver Stone characteristics one typically finds in his work. Like his previous films, "Alexander Revisited" is long, controversial, and filled with thought-provoking conspiracies. It raises questions and inspires discussions about "The Great" one, and more specifically what/who drove him to do what he did; namely his mother and father (but then again, we always blame our mothers and fathers for our faults). The movie is very much "alpha-male" with its gory, long, war scenes, and open homosexuality. This movie is definitely not for everyone, particularly not children (or even teenagers), and as such, can not be used as an educational teaching tool. This is too bad, as there are several good points made in the movie. One can always view the other two available, shorter versions, which are not available on this final cut version. The other thing that I did not like about this final version, is that the movie is only available with the English soundtrack and subtitles. Still, this is a movie worth watching, if you have the stomach for it.

It gives us a portrait of this contreversial great conquerer. After revising the real story on Wikepedia, we can see the real for the fantasy in this DVD. Anyway, Collin Farrel give us a great performance too..

Battle scenes are very good.