Alexander [Director's Cut, 2-Disc Special Edition]

Why does this EXTENDED CUT say 167 minutes and the THEATRICAL CUT say 175?

Isn't the extended cut supposed to be longer?

We're reporting what Warner Bros. have listed at their official press site. That is all we can tell you until we have the disc in hand.

What is known, however, is that the version released to theaters was 175 minutes long. If the Director's Cut is, indeed, 167 minutes, perhaps Oliver Stone lopped off a few extraneous minutes. A Director's Cut does not necessarily mean that things have been added. Nothing may have been added at all and some scenes deleted. Or perhaps more was cut than added.

Remember, this version is labeled a "Director's Cut," not an extended cut. Who knows the mind of a director.

John

This is NOT an extended cut.

In response to audiences' angry reactions to the movie's interminable length, Oliver Stone shortened it to make it play "better".

Gonna take more than 8 minutes to make this beast seem shorter.

Question: why is this version's aspect ratio 2:40:1 and the theatrical cut 2:35:1?

"...why is this version's aspect ratio 2:40:1 and the theatrical cut 2:35:1?" --Onijay

This is one of the great mysteries of life. It's why we have religions.

Many of WB's films are appearing with 2.40:1 ratios announced on their DVD cases, even though they were supposedly filmed (or matted) at 2.35:1, and even though the actual dimensions on the DVD transfer are usually always less wide.

I will change the ratio in the DVD Details to reflect its more probable dimensions.

John

oh... this actually isn't 2:40:1?

Is it really that noticeable a difference anyways?

The only problem that I have with 2:35:1 is that my TV doesn't have a film ratio for it. I can watch 16x9 fine, the next one up and 2:40:1 without black bars by adjusting the film ratio, but I am unable to choose 2:35:1, so I'm stuck with those black bars (albeit they are extremely chopped at each side), and no, my TV does not simply zoom in on the image, it stretches the film to a more accurate size so that it is proportional with the image, so that squares are indeed still squares and not rectangles, circles and ovals, so on and so forth. Anyways, just wondering. And one more thing... are there actually any film transfers for DVD in 2:40:1? I am yet to come across one.

Onijay,

I don't know. Do you mean are there any films made with an original aspect ratio of 2.40:1 (yes) or any that actually show up on disc at 2.40:1 (not any that I've seen)?

Also, I was a little puzzled by your saying, "I can watch 16x9 fine, the next one up and 2:40:1 without black bars," and later saying, "are there actually any film transfers for DVD in 2:40:1? I am yet to come across one."

John

What I mean to say is that my TV supports that format, so I technically can watch 2:40:1 fine, however I am yet to.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification

My friend and I were so tempted to walk out of the theater.

We just kept thinking.... it's gonna get better soon right?

But that moment never came, and my 3 hours are forever lost.

I agree with John that Oliver Stone skipped some battles that made Alexander great and also didnt care for his long speeches.
Hey John, i liked the likes and dislikes in this review, try to include it in future reviews too.

See Ya

"Hey John, i liked the likes and dislikes in this review, try to include it in future reviews too." --Patsy

Thanks, Patsy. Actually, I try to include my likes as well as my dislikes in every review, but this time because of the length of the review, I thought it would be easier for the reader to separate and digest the points if I numberd each of them.

John

John,

Great review John!8). Why invest so much time in writing likes/dislikes when the movie itself is crappy to begin with?. John I would like to see likes/dislikes of How Freddie got fingered.;)

--Ranjan

"Why invest so much time in writing likes/dislikes when the movie itself is crappy to begin with?" --Ranjan

Well, fair is fair. Except in the case of "Freddy," where the list of dislikes would be too long for most readers to suffer through.

John

Based on the description of the back covers, both the Theatrical and Director versions, include the same aditional material (the only difference is the lenght of the movie)
But the Teatrical version is cut in 2 parts (therefore you need to change discs in the middle of the film) which is absurd in our present time, to be forced to do so, since the Director version of the film indeed is stored complete in 1 disc (therefore you don't change discs)
The question is which version to buy?... well if you hate chanching discs (most of us do) like we did with long VHS movies, then buy the Director version.
I believe splitting the Theatrical version in 2 discs is absurd and cheap, when longer films have been stored in one disc, like The Ten Commandments (including audio 5.1 and subtitles in several languages and full lenght audio commentary) so there's no justification for it.
Also what's the point in releasing 2 versions of the same film (and at the same time) i think it's better to release the best version at first and get it over with, specially when the only distinction in two versions, is the lenght of the film.

I don't find it a problem having to switch over to a second disc. I do it all the time with my extended versions of LOTR. Fact is, when a film is rather long and to produce the best picture quality and bit rate, it is best when the film extends onto a second disc.

Then again, think how freaking lazy it sounds to complain about having to place in a second disc. The pure aggony of having to put down the Twinkie and actually get up off the sofa to put in a second disc. God forbid any of us should ever have exercise. Oh, the pain of having to hit that Open Try button, take out disc #1 and place in disc #2 . . . Good God my arms and legs are getting muscle cramps as we speak!

Bottom line is, it's not whether a film is spread across two discs, but whether the picture quality and bit rate are the best possible. And believe me, I'll take picture quality over the pain steaking aggony of changing or flipping discs. Than again, here's a novel idea, how about buying a Carrousel DVD player?

"Also what's the point in releasing 2 versions of the same film (and at the same time) i think it's better to release the best version at first and get it over with"

I can't believe genbar actually endorses double-dipping... that's just wrong...

And so what if you have to swap discs? Geez! 85 minutes housed on one disc and 90 on the other produces almost twice the level of detail and reduces compression artifacts and just about everything else as compared to putting 175 minutes of data on one double-layered disc. Make sense?

Actually, I myself am planing to buy Alexander on tuesday, but when I do, I'm getting the original. From what i've heard, the directors cut is a real disjointed mess and is much worse then the original. John, if you could get the original and review that one to see if this may be true, it would be very appriciated.

Also is there any chance that the regular version might not have the disc change since that cover art was printed a while ago, maybe they decided to put it on one disc?

"John, if you could get the original and review that one to see if this may be true, it would be very appriciated." --Jarrodi

Time is usually the enemy. In the case of "Alexander," however, it's not only a lack of time that prevents me from making a detailed comparison of the two versions, it's a lack of interest.

John

Just so I can be 100% clear on this, which cut of the film had the footage hinting at Alexanders homosexuality cut out? To me it's important to have that footage intact because it's the historically accurate version instead of the politically correct.

Both versions allude to Alexander's homosexuality, but as I didn't see the theatrical version I couldn't say which one alludes to it more strongly. Certainly, the Director's Cut makes his sexual preferences quite clear.

John

In the Theatrical Cut, Alexander actually asks his male friend to spend the night with him in bed. From what I can tell, there are only smoldering glances in the Director's Cut.

"In the Theatrical Cut, Alexander actually asks his male friend to spend the night with him in bed. From what I can tell, there are only smoldering glances in the Director's Cut." --Eddie

The scene is still there in the Director's Cut.

John

John,

I relied on a capsule review in "The New York Times" to my detriment, then. :@

Eddie

I have bought the Theatrical Version and find it to be long and all but it can be at time entertaining my friend brougth the Directors Cut and he said it is a mess but other than all that the DVD itself it impressive with the menu's and features.

"I relied on a capsule review in "The New York Times" --Eddie

Hey, who ya gonna trust, me or the "Times"?

John

Over on IMDB, in the discussion area for Alexander, in the one titled "Anybody like the Director's Cut more?" there are some fairly detailed comments about the differences between the two versions. On the whole, the verdict seems to be the Director's Cut is a significant improvement - though how reliable that is, I dunno.

Sounds like Anthony Hopkins' on screen parts were shaved down and there was some reordering and so on. Oh, and I guess you get to see Colin's bum now (which appears to be a big crowd pleaser).

For me, I watched the Theatrical Release (no problem getting up and changing the disc). I generally liked it, though I could have done without Angelina's accent. But I am curious now about the Director's version.

Just to clarify... i don't endorse double dipping, all the contrary, i hate it!
My point was that they should have released the best version at first and get it over with; in this case the Director's cut only, and forget completely about releasing the Thetrical version, specially if they had to split it in two, and planned to release both at the same time, it simply doesn't make sense...
Did anybody preffered to buy the Theatrical version of The Chronicles of Riddick, when the Director's version was released at the same time, with the exact additional material and a longer cut of the film?
I hate the idea of purchasing a DVD movie that months or years later is released again in a new version with more adittional material than previous editions... i agree that it's better to have the option to select at first which version to buy, rather to purchase every new DVD version of a film released, but not everybody has the benefit to do so.
Films such like the Spiderman or Harry Potter movies, have been released for years in DVD Region 4, in Fullscreen edition only... should anybody accept it and buy them, when clearly they will not satisfy you completely and Widescreen editions do exist?
Alexander Director's Cut DVD in Region 4 was released without the second disc containing the 3 part documentary, therefore not everybody has the opportunity of choosing freely what to buy, you're forced to accept was is availible.
Again i don't endorse double dipping, but more importantly i don't accept the imposition to buy a DVD that i know could have been released better, specially when such product actually exists, but some executive had the bright idea, not to make them availible for all.

talk about going in circles. Make some sense! This Director's Cut is shorter, so it may not be preferable to some, as others would want the extra seven minutes. Splitting the discs should be nothing to complain about. And the rest I have no idea what the hell you're saying, going off into fullscreen Harry Potters and such. Whatever dude.

I do make sense in my words Onijay, 7 extra minutes don't justify splitting a movie in 2 parts, specially when they're other cases of longer movies stored in one DVD with top quality video.
As for the rest, i expressed my point of view respectfully to others, including you... if you don't mind switching discs, or disagree with my point of view, that's ok...
But i hope you can realize that others live beyond the US and Canada borders, who don't have the benefit of choosing freely among several DVD versions of the same movie, that we're forced to accept what it's availible regardless if it's satisfying or not, and do share my point of view...i see no point in continue this conversation, best wishes and good luck

Go right ahead and say what you want, don't let anyone stop you. I understand that my comments might seem somewhat harsh, and I don't think you're a bad person or anything, I have nothing against you, but I really don't understand what your point is. I may not have accurately conveyed my sense of confusion to you but I digress, we've prolonged this useless thread for long enough.

The movie is a mess but i dont know which ever way you look at it the movie will be for what it is. The only positive thing i can say is Oliver Stone did have a unique vision and the visuals are the most entertaining thing about the film the acting is average but not on the level as they should be.