Alexander:The Ultimate Cut (BD) [Blu-ray]

The film:It's kind of funny how popular entertainment works. All I remember hearing about Oliver Stone's "Alexander" is that it was a horribly acted, poorly constructed shambles of a movie. Scanning the torrent of vituperative scorn heaped upon this film will give you an idea of the climate at the time of its release. Needless to say, I was dubious. Any movie that scores lower than Jessica Simpson's "Dukes of Hazzard" must be an abomination, right?However, I am a Stone fan, and was inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt. I loved JFK, Nixon and Natural Born Killers, and enjoyed Any Given Sunday and The Doors. At his best, Stone excels at getting truly absorbing character portraits up on the screen, and setting them against an expansive backdrop which captures the essence of the period.Alexander, starring Collin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Anthony Hopkins, Jared Leto and Christopher Plummer, both succeeds and fails in these categories. Some of the characters are endlessly fascinating, some are rather threadbare. Certain aspects of the period are wonderfully represented, and some are sort of left up to the viewer to fill in the blanks. Some performances are pitch perfect, others, while enjoyable, are painfully weird and out of place. All told, Alexander is somewhat weak in comparison with Stone's best.So why did I enjoy it so much?Looking at the above-listed stars, it's easy to see that Stone has assembled a particularly good ensemble cast. The weakest of the bunch are Farrell and Jolie. However, each actor does an admirable job of creating a character, Farrell and Jolie included. If anything, Jolie's performance is hampered only by her youth (she is only one year Farrell's senior, yet plays his mother), and her wretched accent (somewhere between Eartha Kitt and Austin Powers' Frau Farbissina). Farrell's performance is just a bit shallow - he looks heroic and manly in battle sequences, certainly, but doesn't do much beyond that. Sometimes, he really seems to nail complex emotions. Other times, it's just a bit poster-board and flat.The rest of the cast, however, including the lesser-known supporting players in Alexander's army, are uniformly terrific. Particularly good are Plummer as Aristotle, Kilmer as a drunken King Philip, Hopkins as an aged Ptolemy, and Jared Leto as Alexander's male lover, Hephaistion. Rosario Dawson plays Alexander's asian bride Roxane, though beyond her pendulous naked breasts and dancing ability, I can't say I got much out of it (Dawson really shines in 2005's Sin City, though). To me, though, the performance that makes the movie what it is is by Connor Paolo, as a young Alexander. This 14 year-old actor absolutely nails the portrayal of a young, idealistic prince with adolescent dreams of grandeur. This portrayal really lends a depth to the later plot, acted by Farrell, which Farrell himself really doesn't provide.But any Stone movie review eventually comes down to Stone himself. How well did he construct the story, and how well did he execute it and edit it together?My main gripe with the story of Alexander is its naivete. I really have to wonder how historically accurate it is to portray Alexander as an idealistic dreamer who longed to unite the world in a Pax Romana-esque explosion of culture and personal improvement. Certainly, all of these things may have been present in the man, and they may have been ancillary effects of his conquest, but it is pretty tough to swallow as Farrell dreamily describes his vision of a great society to his male lover Leto. The story functions much better when Alexander is instead portrayed as a conqueror impelled by his family demons to push across the globe for something he knows not what.Nonetheless, the film is truly wondrous at times in its evocation of ancient times and places - Babylon is a singular cinematic achievement - utilizing CGI nearly seamlessly to truly give the impression of a "wonder of the world." Similarly teriffic cinematography and composition are achieved in portrayals of India, Egypt and the steppes of the Himalayas. The scenes of Greece and Macedonia also shine, especially in HD, really placing you there in the time. This film is Stone at his finest visually, creating a world which draws you in.I for one really liked the way the so-called "gay" element of the movie was handled - watching Alexander provides one of the better explications of the homosexual "lover-beloved" relationships that were present in Hellenistic noble circles. Again, this concept was grounded by scenes of the young Alexander and Hephaiston being taught by Aristotle about the idealistic virtues of manly love - scenes which brought into sharp focus what could have seemed gratuitous homoerotic later scenes between Leto, Farrell, and a few others. It's a part of Greek history, and Stone kept it in as a big theme, instead of bending to anachronistic puritanism. Kudos to him for that.Besides Stone's possible anachronistic interpretation of Alexander's world-uniting motives, historically, this film really can't be faulted. It is true to the sources we have, be they Plutarch and Herodotus, or more modern scholars. Those sources may be tinged by legend or political agenda, but they are all we have. This is a movie which you could show a professor, who would be hard pressed to point out a major error (unlike the barely recognizable "history" of "Kingdom of Heaven.") I would also say, as is Stone's talent, this movie makes you feel like YOU ARE THERE. I would show this film to students to get them excited about the Hellenistic period. (Though at 214 minutes, it might take two class periods...)As you have read, this cut is 214 minutes. Certainly, this is a long movie. But Stone, in his ability to create scene and to really transport the viewer, makes this movie fly by. It felt like 2 hours, not 3 and a half. Stone has re-ordered the fragmented structure of the film. The previous director's cut grouped various scenes closer together by time period - Alexander's childhood was one big chunk, then his travels were another, intercut with his early reign and death. This cut, on the other hand, basically takes the two time periods (childhood through early reign; travels across Asia and death) and skips back and forth between them, each line running roughly forward. Both cuts can be followed, especially if you have some knowledge of Greek history. I have to say I prefer the first director's cut a bit, since I found the childhood scenes so strong, it was nice to have them in a chunk. But this cut still works. The added material fleshes out the side characters much better than the previous two cuts, which is welcome in any case.Alexander is an enigmatic movie. It fails at so much, but only because it tried for so much. I was completely absorbed and never bored once during the 3.5 hour running time. I felt transported to the world it created, and my emotions were stirred in a simplistic way by the scenes of glory and adventure on the screen. Ptolemy (played by Hopkins) utters a line which might serve as the movie's epitaph: "His failures were grander than others' successes." So true of Stone. He wears his ambition on his sleeve, is rarely if ever subtle, and draws a lot of critical fire for this. Yet the explosion of creativity which results, whether it succeeds or fails, is never boring. I recommend Alexander for this reason alone.Let me put it another way: This is a movie that got critically bashed, and I can't really discern why. It's better than "Dukes of Hazzard." It's also better than "Revenge of the Sith," a film from around the same time which received many positive reviews despite its bizarre dialogue, paper-thin character motivations, and plot holes. It's got its problems, but it is also big fun if you're a fan of the historical epic genre, the director, or of the historical period.The disc:As far as the quality of the Blu-Ray presentation, let me put it simply. I own Planet Earth, 2001, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Prestige, all renowned for their sterling HD transfers. Alexander tops them all in terms of detail and color. You know how some Blu-Ray discs look fine enough, but really seem like something a particularly good DVD could do? The aforementioned "Kingdom of Heaven" is one such disc to me. This Blu-Ray presentation leaves you with no doubt. This is High Definition, pure and simple, and no 480p DVD disc could do what this disc does. On my 50" SXRD display, the detail is overwhelming, the color is beyond rich and vibrant, and the 3-dimensionality is extraordinary, especially in the festival scene in Greece, the scene in the cold mountain pass, and in the Babylon entrance scene. At its best, this is THE demo disc to really show off your system. There are a few spots where black levels falter (such as the palace in India) or flesh tones are a little hot (Aristotle springs to mind), but these flaws represent 5 minutes or so out of a 214 minute experience. The rest of the film is nothing short of flawless, and the visual splendor aids in drawing you into the film.The extra materials also excel - two commentaries including a director's track and a historical overview by Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox, two documentaries with amazing behind the scenes access, and a bevy of other features. Really first rate.If you like history, this is a movie to get. If you like great HD, this disc is a no-brainer. If you like neat and tidy 90 minute films which spoon feed you the plot and who to root for/against, this is NOT the movie for you. It is complex, confusing at times, ambiguous in its morality, violent, lusty, raw, and disgusting. But that's history... have you ever read the bible? Yeesh. This is a movie which inspires love and hate all at once. I for one find it utterly spellbinding, even though I am well aware of its flaws. In the end, I think this is completely appropriate for its subject matter: Alexander the Great, a historical figure who, warts and all, you can't simply ignore and would do well to study. I give this disc 5 stars for its technical brilliance, its creative spark, and its sheer, mesmeric "movie magic."

I received the movie on the 16th of March 2024 from USPS in perfect condition! The audio is GREAT in my surround sound system like in the theater and video is clear and the color tones are breath taking!! I liked the role Anthony Hopkins character as the story teller Socrates and the reflective impact Alexander had on him and hopefully HISTORY!! This movie had intirgue, mayhem and military battles to glore!! Life in the Ancient Times was very intense and grisly!! I can see a man’s life span would be quite short and painful even if he survived any injury on the battlefield!! This movie showed how woman were treated and viewed by men in all stages of life!! I wasn’t aware that this movie was produced by Oliver Stone!! All of the actors such as Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Jared Leto, Rosario Dawson and Anthony Hopkins plus all of the supporting cast members added a unique perspective to the Ancient Greeks and Persians of that era!!I want to thank AMAZON for listing this CLASSIC movie in your inventory!!! KUDOS!!

I've just finished viewing the full-length DVD of Oliver Stone's Alexander. I chose this over the shorter "Director's Cut" because I wanted to see what the cinema audiences saw. My personal opinion was that if anyone could bring the longer-and-larger-than-life story of Alexander to the screen, this is basically it.I'm astonished that it got such dreadful reviews, particularly in the U.S. Yes, there are flaws (which I'll get to), but overall, I think the film is to be commended for what it's been able to capture, not for the areas in which it's failed.The flaws, some (remarkably few) historical; others discretionary:Historically, there is an inevitable compression of events. There were several attempted mutinies and attempts on Alexander's life which Stone has chosen to compress into just a couple of scenes. Especially the final battle in India, although beautifully filmed, was glaringly unrepresentative: Alexander's near-fatal (some would say eventually fatal) arrow wound was sustained as he vaulted over the city walls, not when he was out battling in a forest. The point being that this act of tremendous (foolhardy?) heroism galvanised the Macedonian troops, who rushed after Alexander and secured a great victory. Also, Alexander's famous stallion Bucephalus did not die in that battle--although he did die at a ripe old age in India at a later date.The entire film after the Indian battle scene seems greatly foreshortened: Hephaestion's death seems almost occur almost immediately after the return to Babylon, and Alexander's own occurs seemingly within a fortnight of Hephaestion's (in reality it was about 8 months afterwards, during which time he oversaw a very elaborate, almost godlike, funeral for his boon companion/lover)All in all, though, I can see why Stone made the choices he did--he's certainly far less guilty of revisionism and editorialising than the screenwriters of many other historical films--both recent and earlier (including the lifeless 1955 version of Alexander The Great with Richard Burton, whose only recommendation for the role was that he was short).OK. To the film: Let's get this wierd homophobic thing out of the way. Most Greeks of that period, including Alexander's father, Phillip, a randy old sod if ever there was one, indulged themselves to a greater or lesser extent with boys. Where Alexander was different was that he and Hephaestion were very close in age and their emotional bond (who knows when the sexual thing petered out) was lifelong--basically, Hephaestion was Alexander's (soul)mate until they both died. This is historical fact, not speculation, and Stone deserves credit for not sweeping this under the rug--at least not until the director's cut which, purportedly, reduced the scenes with Hephaestion considerably.Colin Farrell is terrific as Alexander, "pocks and all." He shows the weaknesses, the emotional vulnerablility and insecurities, as well as Alexander's sometimes foolhardy heroic side. What I miss is that there's a bit too much of Alexander the battling soldier (I know this sounds ironic when there are only two major battle sequences) and a bit too little of Alexander the meticulous planner and administrator. I suppose scenes of Alexander in his tent issuing edicts and going over paperwork might have bored audiences.Also, it was, I think, a mistake to flashback to Phillip's death in Macedonia near the end of the film. A linear narration would have helped audiences follow the story, and Stone could still have used brief flashbacks at psycologically relevant points.Two minor quibbles: Alexander is said to have been blond and green-eyed. I wish they'd had Farrell wear contact lenses instead of having his very expressive black Irish eyes staring out from under rather sporadically bleached eyebrows; his hair was also bleached in that typical Hollywood manner that assumes all blonds are Scandinavian-fair, instead of being the honey-blond of Greek blonds. Also the accents, commented on by several reviewers, were a distraction. All of Alexander's fellow Macedonians, including Jared Leto's carefully modulated Hephaestion and Val Kilmer's excellent King Phillip, seemed to speak in more-or-less of an Irish brogue--presumably to match Farrell's own; Angelina Jolie, whose otherwise very effective if strangely ageless Olympias, spoke in a vaguely Russian accent which, I think, was not a wise choice. Olympias was not from Macedonia, but she was hardly a Soviet war bride. Who knows how Roxane actually spoke, but the vaguely gutteral accent used by Rosario Dawson is equally distracting.The film is visually arresting, particularly the Babylonin sets. All in all, other than the somewhat truncated final half (why not make a longer film à la the 4-hour Cleopatra or Lawrence of Arabia? Especially for DVD release) I thought the film was psychologically sound and surprisingly good and well-acted.

Es gab genau eine Szene, die mir seit damals im Gedächtnis blieb und das war die, wo Alexander gegen Poros gegenüberstand. Selbst beim erneuten Gucken des Films nach vielen Jahren fand ich diese Szene bemerkenswert gut gemacht.Das unerwartete Färben ins rote Spektrum nach der Verwundung mag auf den ersten Blick ungewöhnlich sein, jedoch hätte die Stelle dann keinen bleibenden Eindruck hinterlassen.Es gibt weitere Stellen im Film, die deutlich machen, dass dieser mehr Potenzial hatte, was leider nicht ausgenutzt wurde.Eventuell wäre der Film bei heutiger Erstveröffentlichung besser angekommen, wenn man z. B. den neuesten Napoleon-Film bedenkt und was sonst noch aus historischen Persönlichkeiten gemacht wird in gewissen Dokus/Filmen.Alexander ist historisch korrekter als manch andere Filme, nimmt sich jedoch auch Freiheiten und interpretiert Alexander als eine tragische Heldenfigur, die, wie andere griechische Legenden auch, den Weg des Leidens ertragen muss und dafür unsterblich bleibt.Der große Hang zur historischen Korrektheit mag mitunter dafür verantwortlich sein, weshalb der Film ein Flop war, da er nicht wie andere große Filme auf das Mainstream-Publikum geschnitten war.Andere wiederum bemängeln die schlechte Schauspielleistung der Hauptdarsteller sowie wichtigen Nebenfiguren, was aus meiner Sicht unverständlich ist.Einzig Angelina Jolie wirkt für mich wie eine Fehlbesetzung: In der englischen Sprache hat sie einen merkwürdigen Akzent und irgendwie kauft man ihr die Rolle der Mutter nicht so richtig ab.Was ich kritisch an Alexander sehe, ist die Art wie Szenen in die Länge gezogen wurden. Dies betrifft nicht alle Szenen, sondern die Tanzszenen sowie einige Szenen wo nur geredet wird oder manch Szenen in den Schlachten. Ein früherer Schnitt ins nächste Bild wäre an vielen Stellen besser gewesen.Die Sex-Szene empfinde ich als unnötig, zumal diese zu lang ist, jedoch kann man diese zumindest überspringen.Wofür der Film nichts kann, ist die Altersfreigabe: Ab 12 Jahren ist sehr großzügig angesetzt, da wäre eine FSK ab 16 Jahren eher angebracht zwecks der Darstellung der Gewalt.Es gibt mehrere Versionen des Films, was für mich ein Indiz ist, dass Oliver Stone mit der Kinofassung nicht zufrieden war (was darauf hindeutet, dass er anscheinend den Film nicht so haben wollte wie die Kinofassung es zeigt und eventuell wollte das Studio es anders als Oliver Stone).The Final Cut soll alles enthalten, was Stone in Alexander haben wollte. Dementsprechend ist diese Fassung die längste und die Vergangenheit des Alexander wurde so in den Film eingebaut, dass man Parallelen zu der Gegenwart und seiner Vergangenheit sehen kann, was ich als eine interessante Wahl betrachte.Ich bevorzuge den Final Cut.Aus meiner Sicht hatte dieser Film Potenzial mehr aus sich herauszuholen. Er ist nicht so schlecht wie von den meisten dargestellt, aber eben nicht fürs einfache Publikum gemacht und somit ist es klar, dass viele den Film als langweilig betrachten oder schlecht gemacht.Insgesamt ist Alexander für mich ein Film, der mit Leidenschaft kreiert wurde, jedoch durch seine Schwächen runtergezogen wird.Doch lieber gucke ich mir einen Film an, bei dem man merkt, dass dahinter Liebe und Arbeit steckt als einen Film, der nur der reinen Geldmacherei dient und politisch korrekt sein möchte (was bei denm Großteil der heutigen Filme bzw. seit einigen Jahren ersichtlich ist).Auch wenn mein größter Kritikpunkt sich durch den größten Teil des Films zieht, bin ich froh, dass ich diesen Film in meiner Sammlung habe.

I fell in love with the movie because of the soundtrack by Vangelis. Later on I became very interested of Alexander because of this movie. This version is the best in my opinion. I've seen it many times and I will watch it many times more.

El producto llegó puntual y en perfecto estado.Hay tres versiones en total de la película "Alejandro Magno": A parte de La versión de los cines, está "Alexander - The Ultimate Cut" y esta última, "Alexander - Revisited The Final Cut". Recomendable si te encanta la película, porque no tienen nada que ver estas dos últimas versiones a la primera estrenada en los cines en 2005.Si las quieren comprar tengan en cuenta el idioma,ya que no hay traducción al castellano en ambos films.Ultimate Cut viene sin traducción al castellano y con subtítulos en español.Revisited Final Cut viene sin traducción y sin subtítulos.

スペシャルエディションDVDを持っているが、ノーカット版が見たくて購入。日本版がないのが残念である。これを見てまず思ったのが、前のDVDでも感じた疑問、何故この映画があれほどアメリカで酷評されたのか、不可解としか言いようがない。反戦で知られるオリバー・ストーン監督への批判か、ホモセクシャルへの保守層の嫌悪、歴史的な不正確さへの反発、どれを取っても全く理解しがたい。「アレクサンダー」は映画、ドラマでありドキュメンタリーではない。ホモセクシャルについては今年のアカデミー賞の候補に成っている作品も在る為、不当な批判のようにみえるし、、アレクサンダーはバイセクシャルで古代ギリシャでは容認されていた事実である。この作品はストーン監督によるアレクサンダーのヒューマンドラマ（メアリー・ルノーの影響をかなり受けているが）であり、単なる英雄叙事詩ではない。実際のアレクサンダーはこの映画のように繊細さも持ち合わせているが、もっと複雑で大胆なスケールの大きな人物である。戦闘場面や有名なエピソードも少なく、その点では不満だが、3時間でアレクサンダーの一生を描くのは監督も言っているように無理がある。それでも、ガウガメラの戦いの場面は素晴らしく、アレクサンダーを掘り下げた映画としてはとても良く出来ている。アメリカでの批判は観客の西洋古代史に対する知識のなさも関係しているのか、ヨーロッパや中東、トルコなどアレクサンダーが関わった国では、公開時20か国で一位''''を記録したと言われている。コリン・ファレルも私はこの映画でファンになったのだが、繊細な演技でアクションもほとんど本人がこなし、この役に誠心誠意取り組んでいた様子がうかがえる。金髪、アクセントなど全くナンセンスなことで批判されたのに深く同情している。アレクサンダーは古代資料でイエロー、ライオンのような髪と記述されており、辺境のマケドニア人がキングズイングリッシュを話す方がおかしい。ストーン監督が史実にこだわったのだろう。オリバー・ストーン監督のThe Untold History of United Statesも素晴らしかったのに、活躍の場が減っているように思う。アメリカンコミックのスーパーヒーローやリメイクばかりがヒットしている現在のハリウッド映画に失望している。西洋古代史を学んだ者として、このような映画がもっと評価される事を願っている。

Bueno, luego de leer muchas opiniones de más de algún comprador amargado e insatisfecho, me doy cuenta que juzgan de manera muy equivocada esta película:1_ Primero lo que por la vista encanta: la fotografía es magnífica, los acercamientos en los enfoques de los personajes me encantan, la escenografía y el vestuario están de maravilla.2_ LA INTERPRETACIÓN DE ANGELINA JOLIE ESTÁ PARA DEJAR FRÍO A CUALQUIERA, MAGNÍFICA ACTRIZ, SE LLEVA LA PELÍCULA Y A TODOS DE PASADA, ENCARNA A LA PERFECCIÓN A OLIMPIA CON UN ACTUAR ASTUTO Y MUY MAQUIAVÉLICO A FAVOR DE ENTRONAR A SU HIJO HASTA LA CÚSPIDE Y LO LOGRÓ.3_ Para los que querían una película llena de batallas y se quejan hasta el llanto por ello, pues parecen niños, les aconsejo que se descarguen un videojuego para que puedan vivirlas en todo momento. Una buena película no solo es el campo de batalla, sino lo que se trama en lo oculto para dar lugar a guerras y claro que en esto algunas mujeres de la antigüedad se pintaban solas, pues se movían como serpientes.4_ Se quejan de que parece más una telenovela, pero pierden de vista que al interior de los palacios las familias reales entre diálogos iban planeando de forma oscura cómo ir conquistando más poder y territorios, eran estrategas y las mujeres muy hábiles para influir en los reyes, príncipes y por consecuencia en los ejércitos y el mundo antiguo.Claro que era importante ver las emociones, los diálogos, las tramas maquiavélicas, los consejos de Olimpia, etc.INSISTO, SI QUERÍAN SOLO BATALLAS PUES DESCÁRGUENSE UN VIDEOJUEGO.🕹️5_ 📌 Y POR ÚLTIMO Y NO POR ELLO MENOS IMPORTANTE:JUZGARON A ESTA PELÍCULA DESDE LA HOMOFOBIA Y NO COMO CRÍTICOS IMPARCIALES, ABUNDAN LOS COMENTARIOS CONTRA ALEJANDRO POR SUS INCLINACIONES HACIA OTROS HOMBRES.¿¿¿ PUES QUÉ QUERÍAN ??? LEAN UN POCO MÁS ACERCA DEL MUNDO ANTIGUO, EN AQUELLOS TIEMPOS EN MUCHOS IMPERIOS, REINOS, ETC. ERA NORMAL EL AMOR ENTRE HOMBRES, CLARO QUE SI LO JUZGAN DESDE LA ACTUALIDAD, PUES ES COMPRENSIBLE QUE QUIERAN PRENDERLE FUEGO A ESTA PELÍCULA QUE ENCARGARON, LES TOCA LAS FIBRAS MÁS SENSIBLES DE SU MACHISMO E INTOLERANCIA POR LA DIVERSIDAD Y SE LES CAE LA IMAGEN QUE EN MENTE TENÍAN Y ESPERABAN DE SU HÉROE ALEJANDRO Y VIENEN AQUÍ A LLORAR PORQUE LA PELÍCULA NO ERA COMO USTEDES ESPERABAN Y QUERÍAN, PARA LA OTRA HAGAN USTEDES SU PELÍCULA Y VUELVAN UNA CARNICERÍA TODO EL DESARROLLO, CON VISCERAS Y SANGRE LLOVIENDO Y SALTANDO POR TODOS LADOS.