Well, I found the added scenes to the director's cut of 'Nixon' to be as good
as anything in the first cut (esp. the meeting between Nixon and Helms), so
based on Stone's other efforts, I'd say there could be a great deal worth
looking at in this new cut.

By the way, GO VOLS!!!

I don't feel special as there are a number of others who liked 'Alexander' just
as much as I did. You might check out the couple of message boards dedicated
to film to find out just how many. It made a lot of money overseas and I'm
sure they'll enjoy this new cut as well, if Warner Bros. released it worldwide.
I'm not sure which companies have the home video rights outside of the U.S.
anyway.

"CLEARLY" to you, apparently. Not clearly to me... obviously.

Do his balls hang low?
Do they swing to and fro?

That man has a sack that would embarrass a bull elephant.

Honestly the movie isn't horrible. My reason for not liking it has to do with Angelina Jolie's atrocious acting, and the fact that after a while I was just wishing for Alexander to hurry up and die. The last hour really dragged.

Some of the battle scenes were nifty, and the little vixen he was married to was a joy to watch, but I almost felt like the film lasted longer than Alexander's actual life.

That's the only reason to watch it imo.

Oh, please! Grow up! What are you, 13?

Pot, meet kettle.

I was joking, but for some reason, I don't think the guy above my post was.

And its your job to judge? Don't be a hypocrite.

Anyways back to the topic, I liked Alexander. Not an amazing film but I really don't see what all the hate was for. I own a really neato R3 version...




But 4 hours? Count me out. I don't think I've ever seen a film that needed 4 hours to tell its story.

Lawrence of Arabia.

<---Never seen it.

Amen!

As a big fan of Stones who owns ever movie of his but Alexander, I have to agree that it was a mediocre movie. It wasn't terrible, but it's not very good either. I might rent to check out the new cut but will not be buying it. Sorry Oliver, the problem was not the homosexuality which you say made people stay away, it's that your last 2 films seem like they have been done by an aging film maker who has lost more "game" than Michael Jordan with the Wizards. Stick a fork in him, he's done!

What does Michael Jordan's short stint with the Wizards have to do with Oliver Stone's Alexander? In defense of Michael Jordan, he was on a bad team trying to carry the load night in night out, I don't think he failed or was done, his last season he played all 82 games for Washington with averages of 22/20 ppg, put him on a better team and he would have been deadly.

I did not like Alexander, so shoot me. Not the worst movie ever. But I could not sit through the 4 hr cut. I like the LOTR Exts, and I only watched them twice each.

I don't think the homosexuality kept people away either. You didn't see anything.

Three different versions of a film all in such a short short time, yikes.

First of all, Alexander the Gay DID hurt the box office! I think it clearly would've
been far more successful with the 'Braveheart' and 'Gladiator' crowd had it
NOT even touched on that subject matter. Now, Stone knew full well that the
money backers of the film would not stand for a full out gay sex scene of
some kind. In fact, Warner Bros. had to have a promise nothing beyond what
audiences would see on a typical 'Will and Grace' would be included in the
film for them (WB) to give their $35 million and North American distribution
rights. Also, Stone only showed Alexander at ages 11/12 and 19 during his
"younger" years and any sexual relationship between Colin and Jared would've
happened between that time. Therefore, even IF Stone would've been allowed
to show anything explicit, it didn't fit into the timeline Stone established in the
script. Anyway, I find it shockingly shallow people were upset by the
lack of sexual content in the film. As if the only way to show the relationship
between two men had to be through some detailed, overlong sex scene.
That is terrible! I guess people missed the two keys scenes in which both
characters expressed their love for each other, which is FAR MORE powerful
than some quickie in a tent.

Wait! The best battle scenes in film history and what is looking like his second
most successful domestic money maker, means it's time to stick a fork in him?
I don't think so! Another person who only likes somebody when the film geek
elite consider them to be 'hip' and then throws them to the trash ben once
they make any more than five or six films. Give me a break!

Stone got into a bit of trouble with fans of the film for making the 'Director's
Cut' actually shorter than the first cut, which meant cutting a few scenes
they (and myself) greatly enjoyed So, he's going back to make the ultimate
version of the film for his (and the films) fans. I think it's a very
wonderful and beautiful thing to do.

IMO, people hate the film so much because it represents another cinematic opportunity wasted (eg, Pearl Harbor). If you're going to make an epic, especially a historically-based one that's meant to be the definitive story, then you must get it right.

The disappointment is amplified because Oliver Stone is capable of making well-constructed films, therefore he's held to a higher standard of review.

I think it's screaming 'holy crap we didn't make nearly enough on this, we need to make up some cash fast'.

Unbelievable...

He's pulling a Ridley Scott ala Kingdom of Heaven. Except it was obvious that potential laid underneath KoH's original cut, in my opinion - it was just devoid of heart. I haven't seen the theatrical version of Alexander, so I cannot judge whether that cut posesses the same or not. However, the majority of the opinions that I've read have explained that it might be a lost cause as a "definitive" version of the story. Who knows.

BTW, RyoHazuki, that's a very sharp set.

While Glendalefalcon was exaggerating, are you seriously saying you had a problem with the battle scenes in the movie?

^ Obviously, I was referring to his statement. The scenes themselves were serviceable.