Alexander - Director's Cut [DVD] [2004]

Before I begin to compare both the Theatrical DVD Version (2 Discs) and the Alexander Directors Cut Edition (1 Disc) I would just like to inform everyone that this film is actually very very good. I believe that the critics basically had fun in panning Oliver Stones picture and I urge everyone not to watch this film due to those reviews.

Alexander is brilliant. It is historically accurate in many ways and tells a near on complete and interesting story of his life (as the film is three hours long).

Oliver Stone shows his directorial talent by creating many unforgetable images and excellent scenery and backdrops. And the BATTLE SCENES, well, they are just superb. Both the sandy battle at Gualamela and the huge invasion of India at the end of the film are both excellent with some quality cinematography and a great musical soundtrack to back them up. If you are going to watch Alexander just for the battle scenes then believe me, you will not be dissapointed!

Now I come to comparing the DVDs.
As most DVD Talk forums would agree with me, this version, the two disc theatrical version is so much better than the directors cut. I have seen both and would tell anyone to purcahse this version instead. The directors cut is shorter and has way too many flashbacks (nine years before, ten years after, nine years on, 2 years later) making the direcots cut DVD a mess/shambles which could esialy confuse anyone. If you are buying this DVD for the action then it doesn't matter what version you buy because there are no alterations in the action sequences at all, both are the same.
Overall, the Direcotrs Cut DVD is in a huge mess and is actually shorter than the original film which really is a bad thing. The theatrical version is a three hour 2 disc film which tells the COMPLETE story of Alexander and hasen't missed anything out at all. The only downside is that the theatrical version is spread over 2 discs so you have to change discs in between film but I actully prefer this as you can watch what is a three hour epic in two smaller chunks. The directors cut is all on one disc but has cut out nearly 15 minutes of the film and has only had some scenes 're-configured' with hardly any 'decent' scenes being added. Hence I would urge all to purchase the 2 disc theatrical version. It may cost more but it is worth it.

On the whole, Alexander is actually an excellent film and I ugre everyone to ignore what the critics have said and wtahc this tremendous epic (with some quality battle scenes included). I would also like to say that if you are going to buy Alexander get the Theatrical 2 Disc Special Edition and not the directors cut.

Three-and-a-half stars, actually.

The story of Alexander is so broad in scope it would be impossible to do it justice, but Oliver Stone has made a bold attempt at it. Some scenes work quite well. An example is the Battle of Gaugamela, with which Stone begins the epic (conflating it with the battle of Granicus in which Cleitus actually saved Alexander's life). Although I am not usually an enthusiast of battle scenes in glorious technicolor, I found Stone's depiction of Alexander's third major battle with Darius III quite thrilling. I was very interested in seeing the sarissas--the Macedonian long (and heavy) pikes--in action. I also appreciated Stone's labeling of the left, right, and center wings in an attempt to clarify Alexander's strategy of attacking the enemy at its strongest point rather than its weakest.

I found the Battle of the Hydaspes River with Porus less convincing. For one thing, Stone placed the mutiny at the Hypahsis before the battle with Porus and not after (In addition to facing monsoons, rotting clothes, fungus, disease, and poisonous snakes, the army had to face King Porus and his elephants--the last straw on what by that time was a 17,000 mile march that made the troops demand that Alexander turn back). For another, the actual account of the Macedonian army on one side of the Hydaspes River (the Jhelum) and the Indian army on the other side paralleling and trying to psych each other out is so much more exciting. Although the rearing and roaring of the elephants (and the resulting bloody mess) was effective, the armies did not fight in the middle of a tree-glutted jungle, but on a sandy spot where there was room to maneuver. Since Stone also conflated the Hydaspes (in which the 31-year old Bucephalus died from injuries) with the Battle with the Mallians, where Alexander was shot in the lung, the surrender of Porus to Alexander (one of the great moments) got dropped. In fact Stone stole Porus' line of wanting to be treated like a king, and reassigned it to Stateira at Babylon, who wanted to be treated like a princess (big deal!).

In addition to the Gaugamela scene, the flashbacks worked quite well; in fact, I think the flashbacks to Alexander's childhood and youth, probably worked the best as far as explicating the story, which is actually a bit of a mess after Babylon.

And while I can see that it might not be practical, not to mention impossible, to present all the highlights of the saga, the omission of Alexander's burning of Persepolis is simply inexcusable; and Stone also missed a couple of great opportunities, first, by not showing Alexander's armies moving through the burning oil fields between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and next, by omitting the "Macedonian flyers" climbing of the Soghdian rock, which is where Alexander is said to have met and married Roxane (Her introduction to Alexander in the movie, not to mention the animalistic love scene that seems to have been intended to demonstrate Alexander's latent heterosexuality to those who are bothered by Hephaistion and Bagoas, was both tacky and lame).

As for the characters, Anthony Hopkins gave the elderly Ptolemy--dictating his memoirs--a touch of class (But did Ptolemy's scribes who are shown following him around with their laptop papyrus desks really have pens that didn't need to be dipped into ink?); and Christopher Plummer made a suitably distinguished Aristotle. However, I could have done without Angelina Jolie's pseudo-Epirot accent; and Colin Farrel's five-o'clock shadow made him look more like Alexander the Wimp. Stone also omitted major characters that would have added immensely to the plot, including Callisthenes, Aristotle's nephew who objected to Alexander's dressing in Persian style and making the Macedonians prostrate themselves on the ground (plot-points that got lost in this production), and Stone also omitted Aristander of Telmessus, Alexander's soothsayer and damage-control czar, who used the omens to explain Alexander's increasingly bizarre behavior as he moved farther away from civilization.

I did not see the first versions of this film, so I cannot compare this one with them; and while I found "Alexander Revisited" interesting--partly because the actual story is so fascinating--I feel that Oliver Stone missed the sweeping scope that the story would have had at the hands--say--of David Lean. But then David Lean probably would have had the good sense not to attempt an epic of such magnitude.

What a shame Oliver Stone ruined this potential blockbuster!
It does portray the life of Alexander historically, with accuracy. That is about as far as it goes. The casting was the worst since Troy. My feeling was that half the actors were miscast and the thought of Angelina Jolie being Alexander's mum, makes the mind boggle. The big battle scene is confused and unclear. If you compare it to the battles in 'Kingdom of Heaven' you can see that there is no comparison at all. In short it was woefully inadequate and will make it impossible for another director like Ridley Scott to pick up the baton for we have now lost Alexander's story to a lot of irish twits running amok in what seemed an aimless film. Sorry, there are much better films around. Don't waste your time on this one.