Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
55 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Exceptional, 10 Aug 2007
Oliver Stone hints at studio problems in the newly recorded introduction, citing that this version is the film he was able to finally put together with 'total creative freedom'. And it's magnificent. The first 45 minutes are breathtaking and almost an epic in themselves as we plunge headfirst into the (extended) battle of Gaugamela before slipping back into Alexander's past. The film is stronger for it's total re-edit as well as the inclusion of many scenes that add shades of character to the once faceless soldiers and generals in Alexander's army. Unlike previous versions of the film, the bond between Alexander and his men is palpable. Being allowed to breathe, the film is genuinely affecting in places (the soldier's death after Gaugemela and the last few moments between Phillip and Alexander) where as before it felt hurried, as though we had to get to the next big scene. The big moments are all there, in fact they are even stronger here, but the pacing greatly improves the emotional impact and allows a deeper understanding of the character development and motivation. It also feels as if you are watching an intelligent film taking the viewer on a journey that is both provocative and fascinating.
The India sequences are also extended, and again the battle scene is emotionally involving, creating a genuine moment where we intercut between Alexander the man and the boy, as he talks to Bucephalus before his last charge. The violence in the India sequence is also extremely graphic.
As in any version, Vangelis's score is a bonus and the film looks amazing. The performances are strong and Anthony Hopkins provides, I think, a new voice over for the duration of the film. It works in providing an anchor as the film is very non-linear.
I could go on, but you have to see it for yourself. It is finally an Oliver Stone film, as opposed to the compromise of the theatrical version and the second guessing (although greatly improved) 'Director's Cut'. THIS is the version to own, but with no extras at all, you'd be best to keep a hold of other versions for documentaries, commentaries etc.
An absolute epic. From the critical ravaging of the original release to this glorious masterpiece, it is an essential film for any serious film lover and DVD collector. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant...
|
|
|
55 of 57 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
INCREDIBLY IMPROVED!, 8 Aug 2007
I was always a fan of the original theatrical cut of Alexander; I found it to be a brave, dashing film which looked and sounded exquisite and had a genuine emotional kick to it. However, as much as I loved it, I could concede that certain parts detracted from the overall effect; namely certain dialogue, too much clunky exposition, perhaps not enough of Stone's Alexander showing himself to be 'great' on the battlefield and perhaps too much of Alexander weeping and sulking. With this new double disc DVD Im am very glad to say all of my personal reservations seem to have been addressed amd rectified!
We now get the sense of epic-ness through a greater spectrum of drama: the family scenes at Pella with Kilmer and Jolie are less distracting and domineering, both battles at Gaugamela and Multan benefit from added gore (sorry if that sounds childish but if a battle is to be horrifying and realistic then we should be allowed to watch the suffering. There isn't much more insulting to an audience than a film editor who robs us of emotional impact!) and tactical explanation, to a generally more lyrical and emotionally resonant narrative. All of the craziness is present and correct: the elephants, the infra-red battle, the Persian eunuchs, the dancing girls, Kilmer and Jolie CHEWING up scenery with their entertainingly demented performances, the larger than life (and achingly beautiful) Vangelis score...everything an epic movie should be is represented here with style, swagger and verve.
Homophopics will not be pleased (who cares?)to learn that the male on male relationaships are given more time and space to develop: for me, this serves to make the characters more sensitive and human; besides, the heteosexual relationaships are shown in far more graphic detail. I guess Stone was hoping that after 2300 years we would have gotten used to the idea but reports suggest many viewers (no elbows pointing at bible-belt USA) still have a problem with this kind of depiction.
But for those of us who are more sensible and open minded, Alexander Revisited represents an astounding example of epic filmmaking that topples the petty attempts like Troy.
Hollywood take note! Both Alexander and Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven have been improved ENORMOUSLY by being allowed longer running times. These are stories that require a large canvas to be told properly. Im very glad Oliver Stone didn't let this go and cut his losses; like Alexander himself, he persevered in the face of incredulity and his emerged, finally, with the masterpiece he set out to make. This is the stuff of Titans. I recommend this without hesitation.
|
|
|
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not As Bad As I Thought It Would Be!!!, 4 Jul 2008
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|