Alexander - Director's Cut (2-Disc Widescreen Special Edition)
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, David Bedella, Jessie Kamm, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Fiona O'Shaughnessy, Connor Paolo, Patrick Carroll (III), Brian Blessed, Peter Williamson, Morgan Christopher Ferris, Robert Earley, Aleczander Gordon, Christopher Plummer, Gary Stretch, John Kavanagh, Nick Dunning, Marie Meyer, Mick Lally, Colin FarrellDirector: Oliver Stone
Studio: Warner Home Video
MPAA Rating: Unrated
Format: AC-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Director's Cut, Dolby, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
Running Time: 167 minutes
DVD Release: August 2nd 2005
Buy DVD:
DVD Review
If you're determined to spend three hours with Oliver Stone's take on the personal and military struggles of ancient Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, you should know that Alexander (Colin Farrell, in blonde disarray) is not half so much fun as mom Olympias (Angelina Jolie) or his future wild bride Roxane (Rosario Dawson). Indeed, it's the women in Alex's life who provide the movie's most satisfying action: Jolie, sporting some kind of Russian accent, wraps herself in snakes while hissing promises of Farrell's destiny; Dawson disrobes and threatens to cut Farrell's throat before shtupping his brains out. The rest is leaden history, supposedly novel because it showcases epic battle sequences and addresses Alexander's great love for his buddy Hephaistion (Jared Leto). But the man-on-man romance is limited to teary hugs, and the battles are indecipherable messes-you have to wait for Anthony Hopkins' narration to tell you what happened (in fact, you have to wait for Hopkins' narration to tell you everything that happens). There's some spectacle on display but, alas, not much that is truly spectacular. --Steve Wiecking
User Reviews
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Movie - Rating: 2/5
I apologize the the children's author for mis-using the title of a very good book, but it seemed so right! Assuming that the Greeks lived much like the Oliver Stone asserts, and why not, then it was hard to be Macedonian, Greek, and royal. There is enough angst in this movie for the rest of Alexander's cut short life. Three hours of this much angst is three hours too much. I give it 2 stars for the scenery, the story that is probably pretty spot on, and the fact that someone had the good sense to have Sir Anthony Hopkins and Christpher Plummer in the movie. They are the redeeming features of the whole thing. But I would not recommend this movie to anyone looking for a more historical venue. Read a good book about it!! Sorry, Oliver, but it's JFK all over again. Plausible, but just not the case.
Lovely - Rating: 4/5
Stone's 'Alexander' has probably become more of a semi-obsession for myself than any other film of the past few years, and even though I'm not entirely convinced it's a GREAT film, I will stubbornly defend it -- or perhaps, reasonably express my admiration -- when criticism comes a'knockin'.
Reading so many comments on the film here and other places, some things boggle my mind. For starters -- the acting. How anyone could dare say the overall acting of the picture is bad is beyond me. Personally, I was not disappointed with any of the actors. And, truly, I think that as one watches the film more than once, they have more of an appreciation for the nuance captured within many of the characters. Jolie's character is a perfect example -- initially it's difficult to stomach her bizzare accent and seemingly over-the-top portrayal of Olympias, but after a few watches, it seems disrespectful and almost naive in dismissing her whole performance as merely 'ham-fisted' (that said, one thing that I still believe would have worked better is to cast an older actress for the part giving a more realistic age seperation with Alexander and his mother). It's these type of superficial first impressions that I think lend the film so much of its tremendously negative reputation.
Now, here is where I transition from forgiving to spiteful lambast at those who forsake the film with ludicrous, hateful spewings of unintelligence (and again, this is of course not all that dislike the film). In a day when few big-budgeted Hollywood films prove to be anything more than narcissistic, sophomoric celluloid, an ambitious, trying project like 'Alexander' comes along and gets cut to pieces. To me, 'so' few films capture the passionate energy that 'Alexander' possesses. 'So' few... Really. While there are definitely problems amidst its entirety, I have a hard time imagining some of the scenes in the film don't leave some viewers breathless. For example, the taut, confrontational bits (Alexander with Philip in Macedonia; Alexander with Cleitus in India) are some of the most expertly directed and acted I've seen in many a year. Remarkably edited and scored, with a raw verve that rarely comes about in a picture of this type, I can't help but be impressed each time these particular scenes come up. Perhaps even more arresting moments come from the battle sequences. The battle scenes, to me, are admirable first and foremost for the amount of detail shown within each shot, which proves to be an endlessly impressive feat that Stone ruthlessly strives for through the film (in and out of blood ridden chaos). Where so many epics are satisfied with visually zoning in on more focused matters (a technique that works to great effect when properly used), as to perhaps confine finances, 'Alexander' is always displaying its huge, wondrous and interesting Universe, which for me makes the film epic beyond epic. And yet, this sort of macro-vision makes for a restraint that allows the more intimite moments to capture that much more drama. As Alexander leaps on his horse and manically lurches after King Darius near the conclusion of the film's first battle sequence, Stone employs a cliche slow-motion effect that transcends its stereotype because the technique is withheld for some fifteen odd minutes up until that point. Courtesy a striking cue by Vangelis -- who's score is utterly invaluable to the theatrics herein -- what would appear hackneyed in lesser hands comes off as rousing in Stone's assertion. It's these widespread moments of artistry and cinematic virtue that make 'Alexander' what it is for me.
Where 'Alexander' faults more than anything I think is within its narrative, but again more viewings really evoke the sense of scale here -- it's SUCH a big film, with so much ambition, that it almost eats its own tail. Like most of my favorite films, one sitting just isn't enough, and even if you find yourself with complete distaste initially, chances are you would find at least some things to admire if you gave it another try, or at minimum respect it for its drive and aspirations. Furthermore the political subtext here doesn't seem to be that profound, and truthfully I take the film merely as a fictional account of a historical figure, while taking its historical accuracy with but a grain of salt (perhaps I am wrong in doing this, but I am no expert on the subject and care not to read the endless amounts of information, then attempting to decide what's 'right'). In this light, I believe it allows oneself to get past the debatably undeniable fact that Farrell's Alexander really isn't the type of leader any of us would have imagined (then again, he was so young -- I don't know how I could even conjure up a realistic character of such an age who conquered the known world). Even so, this is basically the bottom line for me: I really do love this film for its utter passion by near everyone involved, but if I had to write a seven page essay on the elements of the film I had quarrels with, I could. But as with my experience, when you love something with all of your heart, you are that much more forgiving when its inevitable flaws are exposed. Such is the case with me and 'Alexander'.
Compelling, Critical, Complex, with a Few Lost Opportunities - Rating: 4/5
Oliver Stone, along with Woody Allen, Martin Scorcese,and Stephen Speilberg, are arguably the most prolific maintream hollywood directors of the last quarter century. This doesn't mean they are not, at times, controversial, and Stone is probably the most controversial. JFK, Nixon, are like Alexander,
somehat fictionalizedc historical films. Moreover, in Alexander
Stone attempts to resurrect a lost breed (mostly from the mid 50's to the mid 60's- the apogee of American unquestioned power and imperialism) the historical epic. The epic, according to literary theorists, is often an attempt to give an almost divine
right to imperial escapades.
In this film, Stone offers an Epical blueprint (the probably closest relative is The Gladiator) of the rise and fall of empires.Anthony Hopkins, as narrator and Ptolmey, uses the term Orientalist is his description of Alexander's quest. Orientalism, of those who have read Edward Said's brilliant work of the same name, is the the slanted-imperialist attitude of Europe- and later the US- in viewing people from unfamiar cultures as inferior, sexual and violent heathens, and conquerable for their own good. This attitude which reached it's zenith in highly imperialitic 19th century Europe, and is an underlying attitude- and justification- for the US's current middle eastern preemptive and dehuhamizing aggressive policies.
The movie, itslf, is worth the time. The Macedonian flashbacks seem to take away from the building tension of the movie. It's good that Oliver is re-editing it. I would prefer Jolie as Alexamder's wife, Roxanna, rather than his mother. Firth, himself,is pretty good as Alexander but seems a bit too frail and introspective- but his "humane" proto-imperialistic/paternalistitic vision seems on the mark, and distinguishes him, and the movie. Also, their failure to defeat India and older and more evolved culture bespeaks of the limits of Empire- and Orientalism. However, I would have preferred a little more wisdom imparted from Alexander's teacher- and one of the world's greatest philosphers, Aristotle. But, perhaps, that's my own preference. This is not a European art film, nor does it intend to be.
One does not need to see this picture as conceptually and critically as I do to enjoy it, but to realize that there are many parallels in Alexander's quest to modern meglomaiac ventures does help one see this as a more cohesive and meaningful effort. Stone, the big picture histoical and cultural critic does it again; but the movie does still need a little tweeking.
Alexander (2-Disc Widescreen Special Edition) - Rating: 2/5
Great movie. The problem is in the medium of delivery. There are 2 dvds in the package. Each dvd contains approximately 1/2 of the movie. The audience/customer would be better served if the entire movie was on one dvd.
In addition, the 2nd dvd is defective. The scene where Alexander's father is assasinated consists of some normal footage, many lengthy 'still' pictures, no picture at all for a period of time, and a short period that looked like satelite feed was breaking -- all on a dvd that's supposed to be flawless.
Director's Cut edition...worse than the theatrical version - Rating: 2/5
I bought both edition of the DVD because I was attractive at first as the movie broadcast on TV station. However...after I saw the Director's Cut edition. I was disappointed. All the structure of the movie became worse in this edition. The connection became strange, too. Director cutted the parts that were good in the original theatrical edition. However, some terrible / strange parts ( especially some inflate acting...etc...) were kept. Besides, the movie loss its focus. I can't feel the great of Alexander. I can't feel his emotion and personality. I can't feel more about his friendship and relationship to his collague......etc......I saw the movie became fragile and inconherent......The director may try to express something but become %#$@#$.......
