Alexander: Director's Cut (Thai DVD)

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 23 Jun 2005, 12:01

Reviewed here

Alexander is a muddled movie. It had so much potential, largely squandered by a bad choice of lead – a problem only compounded by the decision to change everybody else’s accent in the movie rather than his. The battles sequences are disappointing and brief considering the length of this account and the injudicious decisions over content remain irrespective of the new cut we receive. The framing makes the video transfer disappointing and the lip-synch makes an otherwise powerful soundtrack irritating. The second disc of extras is so jumbled that it is almost worth avoiding. It is all such a shame; with the promise of being Oliver Stone’s dream production, it cannot help but disappoint. Still, if you go into it expecting problems then you can still learn a great deal about a figure in history worth knowing more about and enjoy some moments of glory.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 23 Jun 2005, 12:06

hmm, the lip sync isue is the killer for me here, i will wait for a version that improves this area... for the record I really really enjoyed this film and felt it should have been another 2 hours long as they missed out some of the best battles!

m.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 23 Jun 2005, 12:10

I really want to see this, but my expectations are quite low.

Casimir says in the review that making a film about Alexander would be difficult, perhaps it would've been better as a mini-series.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 23 Jun 2005, 13:08

well it was bizarre in that it theres a lot of talking and not much action. But then did we really expect any less from Stone? yes a mini series perhaps, more of the story would have been good...

bisc, will you like it? I'm not sure, it ain't no mortal kombat or the usual popcorn flicks that we share a love of. In my view its just a really great interpretation of something ive read a lot about.

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 23 Jun 2005, 13:13

In short; boring and uninspiring. Farrel was truly miscast imo. I thought Troy was better - but I wouldn't rate it as a good film.

(Talking about the theatrical cut, which even at PAL speedup was to long IMO).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Jun 2005, 19:02

No way was Troy better than Alexander. I loved Alexander also.

It would've been nice if we'd seen some more story. For example:

* I never knew he was anointed a Pharaoh in Egypt.
* Alexander started a brutal revolution by killing all his elders before becoming King. It was only touched upon.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Jun 2005, 22:54

It may be because Thai dvds are quite inconsistent and some are crap and bugged to hell. I always expect Thai dvds to be like this piece of crap and this just adds more to my case, a lot of Thai dvds are pathetic shit.

and Troy pisses all over Alexander in every way. (except Angelina Jolie).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Aug 2005, 21:34

I've just finished listening to the Stone commentary on Alexander: DC and it's clear many, many people have misunderstood Alexander.

For example that review mentions the use of the Irish accent which I agree first seems odd but actually it's deliberate to give the Macedonian's a Celtic edge as according to Stone they originate from the Celts. Angelina Jolie doesn't have a Irish accent as she's not Macedonian.

Say what you will about Stone but he's a very interesting man and a very knowledge one. He does his homework.

I am also not sure if the reviewer has actually seen the Theatrical Cut (just like the DVD Times review of the Thai DVD) as it's a different film from the Director's Cut in much more ways than the reviewer comments on.

Mostly Stone has made lots of minor changes here and there but 2-3 sequences have been moved from the first act to the second and third acts. I personally didn't like this but the reviewer doesn't even mention it, it's blatantly obvious to those who've seen both cuts.

I suspect the Thai DVD isn't the Director's Cut at all but am just guessing.

After seeing the DC I'd decided I prefer the TC but listening to the commentary made me think maybe Stone is right.

After giving it more thought I re-decided you shouldn't base your opinion on which cut is better based on the director's opinion but rather which you prefer. In the end I prefer the theatrical cut, sure some of the changes are nice but I dislike how Stone has moved things around.

This film works better in a linear form. By constantly skipping back and forth between the past and present you are jarred away from the current events.

For a detailed comparison check out this review:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=16903

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 21 Aug 2005, 13:43

bradavon wrote:For example that review mentions the use of the Irish accent which I agree first seems odd but actually it's deliberate to give the Macedonian's a Celtic edge as according to Stone they originate from the Celts. Angelina Jolie doesn't have a Irish accent as she's not Macedonian.

The accents from that age have been long lost to time. They could be speaking backwards Engrish and it wouldn't matter, no one who's lived eons knows what it actually sounded like.

After giving it more thought I re-decided you shouldn't base your opinion on which cut is better based on the director's opinion but rather which you prefer.

Totally dude, form your own opinion. (Eg I prefer the TCs of Alien and T2 to their extended cuts) Plus the Alexander "DC" is just an after-the-fact to try to produce a version which people will think sucks less. Judging from all the reviews I've read thus far, he failed.

Stone just like most filmmakers has his off days. Born on the Fourth of July, JFK and Any Given Sunday for example were excellent IMO; while Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Alexander were complete bollocks.