Which Alexander Poll
 

Which Alexander version are you getting?

The theatrical, which I actually liked quite a bit. I may Netflix the "director's cut" at some point for the curiosity factor, but I think it's unfortunate that that Stone felt the need to cater to the red staters (especially since his belief that the film bombed because of its gay content is probably misguided).

Maybe you need a 'both' and 'neither' option in the poll.

I'll probably rent one (or both) before I decide, and will probably use this poll as a gauge as to which to rent first.

I think it's funny that so many people believed one out of context quote instead of waiting for the actual release.

From Entertainment Weekly this week:
"[W]hile eight minutes have been snipped from the wayward epic, rumors that the Macedonian conqueror would emerge miraculously hetero prove unfounded. ... No, as Stone himself explains in his painstakingly informative/discursive/batty commentary, the intent was to restructure Alexander so that the hero's fraught Greek childhood with battling parents runs more clearly in parallel with his later conquests of Babylon and on and on."

That said, if you watched the theatrical cut and were told that the homosexuality had been severely cut back, you'd believe it, because it's barely there. That's what made it so funny when Stone blamed that for the movie's failure.

My answer to the poll: I'm mildly curious about the director's cut, enough that if somebody offered to pay me to take a copy and put it on my shelf, I might consider it. Otherwise, nothing, thanks.

i may rent it to see what its about, but wont be buying it as there are far to many other movies i want first

i'll probably get the theatrical version from CH some day just in order to be able to see it........

I'm going to go with the theatrical cut.

I will probably give the director's cut a chance.

It's unfortunate that <b>flaming Blue Staters</b> like you continue bring up this issue, ESPECIALLY after the DVDTalk review of the director's cut actually says that the director's cut has MORE "gay" stuff in it than the theatrical cut.

The irony, and thus the problem here, is Stone's politics. Oliver Stone hasn't made a good film since, I'd argue, Platoon. JFK was about as realistic as Jet Li's ability to pull off his moves without wires. Alexander started to get bad press right off the bat from all the critics, NOT because of the gay material, but because the movie was a mess (according to the critics). I'll hold judgment until I see in a couple weeks whenever I get the DVD. Oliver blamed the failure of his movie in the American demographic because of his politics.

BTW, I live in a Blue State, but in a RED region. If it weren't for Chicago and Cook County, Illinois would have probably went Red. We in the rural sticks don't need government assistance to wipe our ass, like the city slickers apparently do.

<i>Mod edit: Come on Mike you've been here long enough to know generalizations like that are discouraged. You're free to state your opinion on the topic but please leave the needless rhetoric out of it.<i>

Both.

http://www.cocktailguiden.com/cockta...derssister.jpg

1 oz gin
1 oz creme de cacao
1 oz sweet cream


...though at times I get the harder gin/vodka version....

Pro-B

no neither option...its rigged

I suggest you read that review again and pay attention to what is actually said in it.

My understanding is that the Director's Cut is faster paced but even more of a convoluted mess, which I find very hard to accomplish given what I saw in theaters.

FWIW, I am a liberal and can say that Alexander bombed because quite frankly, it was a bad movie. I remember being embarrassed by Stone's comments when I read them, as I knew that meant he couldn't accept either criticism or the fact that his pet project was a piece of shit, a very well shot piece of shit, but nonetheless.

That said, I will probably get the Director's Cut because I love to watch trainwreck movies under the influence of alcohol and I found the theatrical cut way too long, so I have no reason to even entertain the notion of watching that version again. As long as it's not missing a lot of Angelina, I'm fine.

I'm thinking wait until they are both available for a 2 for $20 deal.

Can you read? I said that I thought Stone's opinion - which he has stated more than once - that the film's failure was largely due to middle America's resistance to gay themes was misguided. In other words, I don't think he's right. I was basically defending you - but you blew it.

Also, what the hell is a flaming Blue Stater? It sounds delicious.

From the DVD Talk review:

"The problem is that removing many bits of important character development that were deemed "too gay" by audiences has deprived other remaining scenes of their proper context. The quasi love story between Alexander and Hephaistion is still a big part of the movie, but now the scenes they have together actually seem more melodramatic than before. Rather than the intended effect of toning down that aspect of the movie, Stone has unintentionally made it more histrionic and "gay" than it previously was."

This muddies the issue. Did Stone try to make the film less "gay" and fail? Or is the "director's cut" an intentional act of defiance against the presumed demands of mainstream audiences released under the guise of a more heterosexual cut?

I voted for the Director's Cut in hopes that it's a better movie than the Theatrical Cut.

I'm on the fence here. I can't imagine buying it solely because the trailers looked so absolutely freakin' horrible they kept me from actually seeing the movie! I'll netflix it and decide then.

buy the theatrical, netlix the directors cut... Im in the minority, because I really enjoyed this movie.

As of now, I shall get the Theatrical Version.

In the future, I shall probably by the DC and find someone to make a custome DVD case to make Alexander a 3-discer.

You try to help him out and he makes an attack;typical of a Republican nimrod. You shouldn't be surprised.

I might Netflix one version, but this is definitely a movie that is worth owning just because it's such a trainwreck, similar to Verhoeven's Showgirls.

Don't even bother with him...with ML's past history of blatant statements, misquoting, making false claims, and above all being utterly offensive to other members of the forum...including his derogatory "signatures"...I would not bother considering his claims.


BTW...Lowry...I do happen to live in Cook County...and your post is utterly offensive to me.

Regards,
Pro-B

Oh, and name calling is so very adult. Mike may be over the top and even misguided on occasion, but the opposite side starts slinging trash just the same after he posts.

Back to the topic at hand. I am tempted to buy neither. The reviews are just so bad for this film. I will probably rent the theatrical. If I don't rent it, I may buy it when it hits the <$10 mark.

ML supporter here! :rock2:

Oh and.... theatrical for me.

On the one hand, congratulations for not derailing the thread by bringing up Michael Moore. On the other hand, is it possible for you to disagree with somebody without insulting them? Or bringing up politics?

Oh, I guess not.

PS: Maybe it's just because I went to one of those flaming Blue State universeries, but I'm pretty sure that somebody saying something is true based on a belief that they hold is *not* ironic.

I'm actually kinda surprised you don't like 'Any Given Sunday'. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, but it's got a lot of good stuff in it. But from what I know of your taste, I think it'd be up your alley, if you haven't seen it. [The basic idea of the movie is that football players are the modern day gladiators.]

I think it's interesting when people go after JFK on the facts (but especially to say it's not realistic because you found out after watching, and enjoying, it that certain facts were false ... if you believed it while watching it, doesn't that mean it is realistic?). Granting that many, if not all, of the theories in it are absurd, I think 'JFK' does a fantastic job of capturing the mood and feeling of a pretty scary time period -- the aftermath of the first presidential assassination in sixty years, and the only one in the modern era. And it's difficult to say that a movie which states that Jim Garrison believed all these crazy things is inaccurate or untrue.

It's just too bad that Stone is completely nuts on the commentary track. I grant you that.

I'm curious what you'll think of it, but, honestly, this is a terrible movie to blind buy.

That's silly; you yourself proudly state that most of the country is intolerant of homosexuality and that any sort of expression of homosexuality on film is "cramming it down people's throats" which they're likely (not to mention "right", or at least "within their rights") to reject. I know you two don't share politics, so it can't just be a political belief that leads to that idea.

He blamed the failure of his movie on the American demographic because he's too thin-skinned to acknowledge that he made a bad movie. Reading 'Killer Instinct', I tend to think he's surrounded by yes-men.

I think it's unfortunate when you flaming Blue Staters cram your politics down the throats of people who want to read and talk about movies.

You feel offended because Cook County and Chicago and its huge Democratic political machine has a state-wide effect that doesn't necessarily represent the rest of the state? During the '04 election, the only blue areas were around the urban areas and a few college towns (where much of the student body is from Chicago). So my statement stands. If it weren't for the millions of Democrats in Chicago, Illinois would be at least a swing state as it was in the past. And after the mess Blagojevich has made of it, it just may be in '08.

I didn't bring up Michael Moore. I'm talking about Oliver Stone.

If directors and actors would leave their politics out of their work, so would I when discussing their work.

I did too and I considered myself liberal when I went there, but I couldn't wait to get out of there because it was too liberal for me.

I have seen 'Any Given Sunday' and I really didn't care for it, not because of the subject matter, but because it was a bore of a movie. Much like 'Alexander' might be.

Well, to be honest, I did believe the theories set out in the movie, but once I learned otherwise, I changed my mind on the matter, as anybody should when confronted with the real facts.

Well, it just may be, but I'm a sucker for historical epics. I'll give it a watch to see what I think about. I'm usually pretty leenient on movies on whether or not they suck, so I'll give it a chance.

I'm just going on the fact that everytime a pro-homosexual referendum or legislation comes up in elections or in Congress, it's struck down. 11 states had gay marriage on the ballot last year and all 11 struck it down, including the very liberal state of Oregon, so again, the American people aren't ready to openly accept the lifestyle.

That I agree with. Stone's ego has gotten the best of him and he obviously refuses to accept that he can make a bad movie. Quite frankly, when I first learned that Alexander was a Oliver Stone film, I thought, "Great, this should be good." But when it as creamed by the critics and at the box office, and he came out and made the gay "excuse", then that's when I lost all respect for him.

I'm not a flaming Blue Stater. I'm a Red Voter in a Blue State.

NO!!! I feel offended because you made a very broad generalization, as you usually do, and attacked anyone that might be living there with a derogatory remark regardless of political orientation. I happen to live in the same county.

Furthermore your deliberate attempts to deliver a political punch, anytime and anywhere you can (including your mandatory offensive signatures) was what ThatGuamGuy partially addressed...if I could assume on his behalf...yet again you act like you have no clue what he is talking about. And who cares what your political orientation is. Just act like a mature person (??) and even when you wish to deliver an out of context remark...act with a tact.


Regards,
Pro-B

This entire thing started with the second post and a reference to 'red staters'.

I also take issue with many of the 'liberal' mandatory offensive signatures.

Maybe we should keep politics out of the signatures.

Edit to add: Forgot why I clicked this thread. I'll get the DC.

:grouphug:

I'm looking to get one of these versions tomorrow, so tell me exactly what is the diffrence between the two versions? Is it only the gay content or is it more than that? Can someone explain, then i'll make my decision on which copy to get.

Better?

What does the film Alexander have to do with politics and voting?

I blind bought the Theatrical from CH. I'll probably watch it sometime late this month. I know a lot of people didn't like it, but I love these types of movies and even though I'm sure there'll be parts I don't like, I know I'll probably like it overall. Everyone said Troy sucked too, but I liked it.



Stew

Nothing. So tell Stone that, and discussions like this about his movies would never happen.

Like I said, when directors and actors start leaving politics out of their work, I'll leave it out of discussions concerning their work. Until then...

You'll need a 4-discer. The theatrical cut is split over two discs, but the dc is not.

I couldn't care less what color state I'm in. If I was so insecure of myself that I thought a movie would make me gay, I'd just rent something else.

Why do some people have to carry on about every little thing when there are so many really important issues and problems out there to solve?

BTW, the movie is a bore, the only real reason to avoid it.

what are the odds of both versions coming out later in a two discer seamless branching?