Product Description

CONQUERING 90% ON THE KNOWN WORLD BY THE AGE OF 25, ALEXANDER THE GREAT LED HIS ARMIES THROUGH 22,000 MILES OF SIEGES & CONQUESTS IN JUST 8 YEARS. THE WORLD WE KNOW TODAY MIGHT NEVERBEEN IF NOT FOR ALEXANDER'S BLOODY, YET UNIFYING, CONQUEST.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #45717 in DVD
• Brand: Warner Brothers
• Released on: 2005-08-02
• Rating: Unrated
• Aspect ratio: 2.40:1
• Formats: AC-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Director's Cut, Dolby, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: English, Spanish, French
• Number of discs: 2
• Dimensions: .40 pounds
• Running time: 175 minutes

Amazon.com
For better or worse (and in this case, it's mostly for better), Oliver Stone's Alexander Revisited should stand as the definitive version of Stone's much-maligned epic about the great Asian conqueror. Following the DVD release of his previous Director's Cut, Stone offers a video introduction here, explaining why he felt a third and final attempt at refining his film was necessary. Essentially, he's using this opportunity to re-create the "road show" format of the Biblical epics of the 1950s and '60s, with a three-and-a-half-hour running time (with an intermission at the two-hour mark) including 45 minutes of previously unseen footage. Stone has also significantly restructured the film, resulting in substantial (if not exactly redemptive) improvements in its narrative flow. Alexander (played in a torrent of emotions by Colin Farrell) is dying as the film opens, his final moments serving to bookend the film's epic story, which incorporates flashback sequences to flesh out the Macedonian king's back-story involving the turbulent battle of fate between his father, King Philip (Val Kilmer) and his scheming sorceress mother Olympia (Angelina Jolie, ridiculous accent and all), who insists that Alexander is literally a child of the gods.

In Stone's final cut, epic battles remain chaotic (although Alexander's strategy is somewhat easier to follow, with on-screen titles indicating left, right, and center during his army's greatest maneuvers) and the ultra-violent battles are more graphically gory than ever (hence their "unrated" status). The animalistic lovemaking of Alexander and his barbarian bride Roxana (Rosario Dawson) is slightly extended (with Dawson as ravishing as ever), and Stone's additional footage also improves the overall arc of Alexander's relationship with his closest generals and male companions, although his most intimate homosexual encounters remain mostly discreet. As Alexander Revisited makes clear, the film's weaknesses remain unavoidable, but Stone deserves credit for recognizing how a longer running time, and more disciplined narrative structure, would bring Alexander closer to the respect it never earned from critics and filmgoers alike. This is unquestionably a better film than it used to be, leaving us to wonder why it took three separate efforts to shape Alexander into its best possible presentation. --Jeff Shannon

DVD Features
Oliver Stone's director's cut of Alexander is unusual in that it's actually shorter than the theatrical version (167 minutes to 175). That's apparent early, as 15 minutes of footage--largely political manipulations and such--have been removed from the first hour of the movie, and it's an improvement to get to the action more quickly. Two of the major scenes aren't gone, however, but moved to later in the movie as flashbacks. The other notable change is a reduction of the homosexuality subtext. Those changes are often subtle--in the balcony scene, Alexander still tells Hephaistion that he loves him, but no longer that he needs him, and he no longer asks him to spend the night. In his commentary track, Stone answers his critics by saying that he toned down the sexuality because the hype around it was detracting from Alexander's basic story. And in the original cut, he didn't include overt homosexuality because "there's no evidence of that." He also criticizes moviegoing audiences for (1) having short attention spans (which is why he shortened the original cut), (2) not liking "teaching movies" (so he trimmed the first Aristotle scene), and (3) not being able to understand that in B.C. the numbers go down as the years go by (so he removed the time references from the theatrical cut). He doesn't discuss all the other additions and deletions, but has plenty to say about the historical Alexander. All in all, the director's cut does seem like a better-paced version of the movie, but it's still not a must-see.

On the second disc are three documentaries (80 minutes total) collecting behind-the-scenes footage, interviews (mostly with the crew), and some effects notes. They're rather indistinguishable from each other and might have been edited into a shorter, tighter single unit. There's also a four-minute featurette of composer Vangelis at his keyboard and discussing his craft. --David Horiuchi

From The New Yorker
Beware the long-cherished project. That is one of the lessons handed down by Oliver Stone's bio-pic of Alexander the Great, upon which the director has ruminated for many years. Somebody less obsessed by the undertaking might have given us less to laugh about; as things stand, we gaze at Colin Farrell, in the leading role, and wonder if Alexander was impelled to reach the limits of the known world purely in order to forget the tragedy of his wig. Farrell looks deeply grieved in his part, as does Jared Leto, who has the unhappy task of portraying Hephaistion, the general's abiding lover. The story, narrated by the aged Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) and unfolding in flashback, takes us from a princely boyhood in Macedonia, under the raging rule of Val Kilmer, to the rout of Darius at Gaugamela in 331 B.C. (clearly the heart of the picture, with a wild beat), and so on, eastward, all the way to an elephant-infested India. Many viewers will find nearly three hours of plotless history, alternately savage and sluggish, a little hard to stomach, and they will turn with relief to those performers who treat the whole enterprise as the highest form of kitsch-Angelina Jolie, as Alexander's mother, and Rosario Dawson, as his wife. When these two are onscreen, all thoughts of Homeric heroism are flung aside, and we can settle down to enjoy the movie for what it is: the "Showgirls" of the ancient world. -Anthony Lane
Copyright © 2006 The New Yorker

Customer Reviews

Alexander Revisited...a review from one who has the 3 DVD's
Oliver Stone's Alexander Revisited is now something of a masterwork. He is given the chance to tell the story as he would have originally liked to have presented it. The 45 minutes of extra's are true extra's...spread out in short 2 to 5 second edits...to more lengthly exchanges that happily include Brian Blessed as the Physical Instructor, Christopher Plummer as Aristotle and quite a bit more voice over and character addition from Anthony Hopkins as the aged Ptolemy.
The action starts almost immediately with a longer, more graphic version of the Battle of Gaugemela (Wonderfully undertaken, Stone paying homage to the great Sergei Bondarchuk with those terrific panning shots) and then works backwards through Alexanders youth. The film moves forward and backwards from there yet the new subtitles give you the year and how long, before or after, from the previous scene. It is quite instructive to anyone the slighest bit confused and is a superb history lesson. Also good are longer dancing scenes with Roxanna's troupe and Bogoas' troupe...both superb, filmic scenes...beautifully done. The Bogoas character (Francisco Bosch) is also expanded and made far more sympathetic.
The Indian Battle (wonderfully filmed in Thailand) is also more graphic as are some of the more intimate scenes yet nothing is without merit. This is not 2007, it's 330BC and mores and the concept of battle, honor, fidelity etc were different for those times. I for one, praise Mr. Stone for a very accurate feel and presence...and even minor characters are explained in far greater detail...such as the young Guardsman who killed Philip (Kilmer)...in a flashback we see his motives. It is now far more beautifully edited...from a master filmaker who values editing, JFK gets my vote as the best edited film of all time.
I am giving it 5 Stars...a masterpiece. Do watch the Stone introduction, he says it better than I..."If you liked the original you'll love this, if you hated the original you'll hate this even more!" Now there is a man!
The only part I am saddened about is that over the end titles Vangelis' epic piece 'Titans' is still only 2 minutes long...yet it fits the edit...and I would urge you to purchase the CD for the complete 4 minute version...one of the best pieces of film music I felt ever written.

More true to history than people think
I originally sat on the fence in my opinion of the theatre release of Alexander, but Alexander Revisited has won me over as admirer of the film. The new cut has a truly epic feel and the leading characters are portrayed with more breadth and depth. In particular, the climactic crises of Alexander's career are conveyed more intelligibly and convincingly than before. I am the author of both academic articles and non-fiction books on Alexander, so I feel I should comment particularly on the historical accuracy of the film. In my opinion Alexander Revisited is notably honest, daring and sincere in its pursuit of historical accuracy. Although Oliver has deliberately conflated events which actually occurred at different times and places into single scenes (I think he had to in order to tell the whole story in a single film), almost everything has some kind of historical basis in the group of 2000 year old accounts, which provide most of our knowledge of Alexander. For example, such details as Cleitus severing the arm of a Persian about to strike Alexander, the incident with the monkeys in India and Alexander's visit to the wounded after the battle are all in the sources. Even that eagle is mentioned by Curtius. Furthermore, many snippets of dialogue are based on words actually said to have been spoken by Alexander: e.g. "He too is Alexander", "So would I if I were Parmenion", "It is a lovely thing to live with courage..." Great attention to historical detail was also paid to the costumes and scenery. Babylon was particularly good - the ziggurat, the flowers and the caged big cats were all really there when Alexander drove into the city in a chariot. Overall, Alexander Revisited gives a more authentic sense of the real history than any other film about the ancient world that I can think of. Gladiator was a great film, but its greatness owed more to Marvel comic strip principles of action and violence than to its setting in ancient Rome. Alexander Revisited is a great film because it tells one of the most compelling human stories in all of history with faithfulness, drama and pathos.

Alexander Stoned
There aren't too many epic filmakers these days, and just about all of them court controversy at some point in their careers. Oliver Stone is just that kind of a man. From "JFK" to the recent "World Trade Center," he is not afraid to make decisions that will rankle people. Such is the case with his glorious mess, "Alexander." Everything about this movie is so right that the total failure of the film to connect can only lie on Stone's shoulders.

Colin Farrell plays Alexander as a troubled Mama's boy. The much debated 'gay content' is limited to googely-eyes shared between Farrell and Jared Leto (the hottest sex scene is when Rosario Dawson and Farrell get it on). Everyone - from Farrell to Val Kilmer, speaks as if Macedonia was Northern Ireland. Except Angelina Jolie, who plays Alexander's mother like she just left a gig doing Natasha voice overs for "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoons. Kilmer, by the way, is nothing short of brilliant as King Phillip. I didn't even recognize him at first, he is so enveloped in the role.

The filming itself is rich, lush, beautiful. So what does Stone do with it? Everyone stands up and makes speeches. Over and over, people talk on and on through scenes that go way beyond their need. Anthony Hopkin's voice overs give the film a much needed narrative connectivity, yet Hopkins himself barely appears. When he DOES show up, it is to pontificate like he's onstage at some Shakespearian production.

The battle scenes are mammoth, chaotic, splendid. That is, unless you want to have any indication of who is fighting who. Then, all the thrown dust and swirling camera work leave you guessing. Same with the bizarrely intercut timelines. You will have several WTF moments as you try to figure out not just the what, but the when an activity is taking place. Be patient and you will be rewarded with the spectacle of Alexander's final battle in India, with charging elephants and stunning scenery.

When comparing "Alexander" to "Troy" or "Kingdom Of Heaven," Stone's movie falls somewhere between the two. "Alexander" is more an accurate portrayal of Alexander than "Troy's" bungling of Homer's Iliad, (at least Stone didn't flinch away from bi-sexuality they way Wolfgang Peterson did with Achilles in "Troy"), but Troy never felt like it was dragging in pace. One the other hand, Colin Farell and the cast of "Alexander" are far more convincing than "Kingdom Of Heaven," even if I believe Ridley Scott managed to craft the more watchable movie.

It's too bad that all this amazing work is left floundering in chaos, becuase "Alexander" had all the making of a brilliant movie. It is so ambitious that I can't help but add the fourth star, but I suspect that a few more edits might have made this a more choherent movie. We all know Oliver Stone has it in him, after all, he made a movie that was mostly two hours of men buried in rubble fascinating. Why "Alexander" seems like it was left as rubble mystefies me.