comment #1

JD says ...

The previous director's cut was shorter than the theatrical version, if I remember correctly. It was an attempt to jazz-the-movie-up and make some more money/make-up for the film's poor box office showing in North America. This new DVD sounds like the Alexander version of Stone's epic JFK and Nixon laserdisc cuts. Presumably, since this is "unrated" (a term that no longer means anything), Rosario Dawson will be topless in every scene.

comment #2

actionman says ...

I saw World Trade Center with a Stone discussion a while back and he made mention of this. He said it would be 4 hours, it would be the film he ultimately intended on making/releasing, that it would have two intermissions. He called it his "Cecil B. Demille film". He made mention his anguish of the domestic failure of the movie both commercially and critically, though he was happy with how it did overseas. I still think it's a more than good epic, and that while flawed, was very unique and interesting in a lot of ways. I look forward to this new version. Stone is a true, passionate filmmaker, always has been and always will be.

comment #3

bachelorcool says ...

Still won't the change the fact of everyone talking in ridiculous Irish accents, like some godforsaken drama troupe from Dublin marooned on a desert island. Now if there was a Greek dub with English subtitles...

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

If I were to ever wander into this by mistake, I would definitely need whatever kind of chemical enhancement Jeffrey uses to get through the LOTR films. The original version was bad enough. Two more hours of it would be excruciating (and this from someone who loves costume epics and Oliver Stone films).

comment #5

Patrick says ...

The accents weren't ridiculous, if you've got
more than two brain cells working and paid
attention to why Stone went in that direction!

Anyway, I can't wait for this last try on Stone's
part to make it the masterpiece we (Stone and
Alexander fans) wanted it to be back in 2001.

comment #6

Patrick says ...

In a much more recent interivew, Stone said
it'll go for two hours, then have an intermission
before the last hour-and-a-half. Also, he said
this is the way he wanted to do the first cut,
but wasn't due to theater showings, etc. I
can't wait to see this. I've watched the other
two cuts about 20 times.

comment #7

bachelorcool says ...

"The accents weren't ridiculous, if you've got more than two brain cells working and paid attention to why Stone went in that direction!"

Please, enlighten my third braincell - why were characters in an historical Greek story and environment talking with Irish accents, and why should this not be disruptive to dramatic credibility?

comment #8

Spacesheik says ...

Apparently Patrick enjoyed the Angelina Jolie Bela Lugosi accent as well.

Best thing about the film was Val Kilmer.

comment #9

Pelham123 says ...

Here'e what Stone said about it in a recent Guardian UK interview:
"I went back and did a third version, which is coming out in America in February. And Warner Bros is very excited about it. I changed the structure and I went back to what it should have been. It should have been a road show. They don't make them anymore but this is for video, not for theatre. So it's three-and-a-half hours, two hours to the intermission, then a break and then it goes to the last hour-and-a- half. To me, because it starts with the Battle at Gaugamela instead of later, it changes the perspective of the entire movie. It was always a road show but I backed off it because it wasn't doable in America. So I took advantage of DVD and I hope you like the new version. It's the best, the clearest and it allows you the time to immerse yourself in that world."

comment #10

Patrick says ...

Oh, God! Not this crap again. Ok, here we go.
Stone used mainly Irish and Scottish actors
for the Macedonian parts to present how they
were viewed as 'hill people' or 'hicks' by the
Greeks. Thus, he wanted to throw in the class
and social differences between the Greeks and
Macedonians, but nobody in America (or England
for that matter) picked up on it. No big deal.
It certainly wasn't any more (or less) ridiculous
than the Roman epics using British accents for all
these decades.

comment #11

JD says ...

Whether you can find merit in Alexander or not, watching it 20 times (in only 2 years!) is mind-boggling. Even if it is a masterpiece, there are thousands of other movies you could be watching, Patrick.

comment #12

Patrick says ...

Spacesheik - Yes, I think it's her best performance.
She wasn't Macedonian or Greek and part of the
story (both in the film and in real life) was
a lot of people in the Macedonian power structure
didn't like her or Alexander because he wasn't
of "pure" blood due to his mother. So, she had
to sound different from King Phillip and the
other Macedonians.

I agree, Val Kilmer delivered his second or
third best performance in the film as King Phillip.

comment #13

Patrick says ...

JD - No, I don't agree. I'll watch what I care
to and 'Alexander' is far superior to the other
trash being released these days. I do see other
films, by the way.

comment #14

JD says ...

Still, 20 times? Even the very best movies ever made don't warrant that kind of repeat viewing so fast. You're really aggressive in your love of this movie. Do you try to conquer people who don't like it?

comment #15

Doug says ...

This reminds me of an exchange on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Lou has a staff meeting to discuss ways to improve the Six O'Clock News. Ted says, "Well, we could make it longer." And Lou says, "That would make it not so good stretched out."

comment #16

Patrick says ...

Nice quote Doug, but we aren't talking about
some hack 30-min. local news cast here. Stone
wouldn't have spend three months this summer
working on it, if he didn't feel like something
wasn't quite right about the first two versions.
Trust me, this will be the great film all of
us wanted the first two to be.

JD - Nope. I don't need to "conquer" people.
I do like to attack people for going after the
film based on false information and rumors.

comment #17

tholl-yung says ...

BTW. Below the Line News is showing Venus tonight. They're still taking reservations, and there are no restrictions on who can attend.

comment #18

Teh Awesome says ...

I just hope Stone records a new "Alexander" commentary track. Any word yet?

comment #19

Patrick says ...

The only bad news is that Stone hasn't done a
new commentary and there won't be a single extra
feature on the DVD. I just pray it's two disc's
instead of forcing a 220-225 min. on one disc.
Warner Bros. better not screw this up. There's
plenty of making-of stuff out there, so I can
understand why WB's not putting new special
features on this version. Getting the FULL
CUT of this film is good enough for the fans
out there. I thought we'd wait 10 years before
Stone would touch it again. To be getting this
only a year-and-a-half after the first two DVD's
were released is simply wonderful!

comment #20

actionman says ...

now we need terrence malick's original 6 hour cut of the thin red line that's sitting around in a FOX vault somewhere.

comment #21

Patrick says ...

A six-hour cut of 'The Thin Red Line' would be
GREAT!

comment #22

Mike Schaefer says ...

"Presumably, since this is "unrated" (a term that no longer means anything), Rosario Dawson will be topless in every scene."

Either that, or Jared Leto gives Colin Farrell one hell of a blowjob.

comment #23

alynch says ...

Did Terrence Malick ever truly consider having a six-hour cut or was it just one of those preliminary cuts in the early stages of the editing process?

comment #24

Spacesheik says ...

"A six-hour cut of 'The Thin Red Line' would be
GREAT!"

Patrick you jest!

i can only handle 2 hours of footage concerning blades of grass!!

comment #25

Spacesheik says ...

Problem with ALEXANDER was Colin Farrell I cant buy him as the conqueror and whenver I see the 16 year old scenes with that ridiculous wig i get the giggles

I wonder what Stone did with the Anthony Hopkins pedantic scenes with him wobbling about from one side of the room to another

the movie has problems - i dont know how Stone can fix the damn thing: I dont mind the Scottish accents it delineates class well but Rosario Dawson and her scenes ("Joo loove heeeem?") are ridiculous as well, not to mention Jolies scenes with the snakes and such.

the casting and performances are the main problem with the film not the chronology

comment #26

jeffmcm says ...

LOL, Mike Schaefer.

comment #27

Patrick says ...

Spacesheik - Oh, my God! Where to begin!

First, Colin doesn't have a wig on in ANY part
of the film. He only had on hair extentions at
different times. The scenes you're talking about
didn't take place when Alexander was 16, but when
he was 19 or 20. Secondly, there was only one
or two Scottish accents, the rest were clearly
Irish. How was Ms. Dawson supposed to sound? I
mean come on, buddy! She was a rural princess and
I thought that accent captured her perfectly.
The snakes were well researched as being fact
and were apart of the Queen's religion. Colin
Farrell is the only actor of the right age and
with support from the 'money' that could've
played the part. Could this or that actor have done
a better job in the role? Maybe, but they were
either not interested in the role, too old, or
not big enough for the 'money' to support casting
them at the time the film was going into production.
Colin had the energy, passion, sex appeal,
muscle, cockiness, et. al. for the part! He was
perfect!

comment #28

actionman says ...

"Did Terrence Malick ever truly consider having a six-hour cut or was it just one of those preliminary cuts in the early stages of the editing process?"

I have been hearing for years that Malick's first cut of the film--and the first cut he handed to the studio--was a shade under 6 hours. Fox, naturally, flipped out and told him no way....but I have heard that the original cut is sitting somewhere inside of a Fox vault.

I also wish New Line would release the original 2 hour 50 min cut of The New World that was released in NY/LA for one week last year...or the 3hour 30 min first cut that was trimmed to the 2hour 50 min cut...Malick, and Stone for that matter, are true artists and anyone who appreciates their work is a true film lover.

comment #29

Argen says ...

I love Malick beyond words, but I'd hate to think that my status as a film lover hangs on whether I appreciate Stone's entire canon, particularly of late. I mean, I know it doesn't. I realize that's an arbitrary rule you invent for yourself and expect others to follow. I'm just saying it really holds no weight in these parts.

comment #30

Ju-osh says ...

I didn't really like Alexander the one time I watched it, but I'm surprised to see folks here dissing Patrick for liking it as much as he does. Attack the film all you want, but part of being a movie-geek is loving films that noone else loves or loves for the same reasons as you. Patrick clearly LOVES Alexander, and though I can't for the life of me understand why, I've gotta admit, I like the guy for sticking around this thread as long as he has, retorting every single criticism thrown the film's way. He's obviously spent whatever time he has left after watching the film 20x thinking about it and why he's so obsessed with it. Hell, he doesn't even really care that you think he's nuts for loving the film as much as he does -- he only wants you to show the film some respect and to hell with him! The guy strikes me as a minor-league Ed Wood in this way, and I mean that as a sincere compliment.

comment #31

Argen says ...

So, just lay down and take it when he calls you an idiot for not loving WORLD TRADE CENTER and considering it a monumental achievement of filmed entertainment.

comment #32

tholl-yung says ...

Has anyone ever seen the shooting script for TTRL; or one that contains scenes which were shot, but cut out?

comment #33

tholl-yung says ...

Having read through this whole thing, I'm impressed with Patrick too. Together with Pelhams 123's quote from Oliver Stone, I'm psyched to see it. Ever wonder why older films don't get recut? Reds wasn't recut, for instance. With the invention of transfering original uncut negative to video at the time it's processed in the lab, no version of any film ever has to be final. It is conceivable that "The Thin Red Line" can never be recut.

comment #34

christian says ...

Malick did have a six day cut prepared to coincide with the anniversary of the Six Day war, but he realized it would be too subtle a reference so he shortened it to a four day eight hour version with ten hour intermission. He later re-edited down to two days, three nights but studio pressure led to the three hour release cut.

comment #35

christian says ...

And apparently, Stone is working on a cut that will last the actual length of the Macedonian empire.

comment #36

tholl-yung says ...

Not without extra shooting he's not. To get a six hour movie, you need a six hour shooting script.

comment #37

christian says ...

Not if you're incorporating footage sans dialogue. Stone actually shows the construction of the empire brick by brick.

comment #38

tholl-yung says ...

Funny you should say that, because Wikipedia in the trivia section of "The Thin Red Line" says, "Reportedly the first assembled cut ran at over six hours, with (Billy Bob)Thornton contributing three hours of narrative voice-over material.[citation needed] The significant editing also resulted in many of the well-known cast members who received higher billing ultimately being on screen for only a brief period. John Travolta and George Clooney's parts, which ended up as barely more than cameo appearances, highlight this best."

comment #39

Argen says ...

No, christian's right, T. Holly. Malick literally has a dix day cut of the film.

Now that we've cleared that up I'd like to interest you in these new Glengarry estates. Florida real estate. Can't be beat.

comment #40

Argen says ...

Meant to say "six day".

"Dix Day" was an annual event when I was in Catholic school. That crazy Father Nordling.

comment #41

tholl-yung says ...

Keep mixing it up. You're never gonna see The Thin Red Line recut because they're probably aren't video masters of the uncut(circumcised) negative.

comment #42

tholl-yung says ...

Honestly, what's the oldest theatrically released film you've ever seen RE-CUT for the home video or DVD market (not re-cut for tv or in-flight entertainment) and not re-mastered from the theatrical cut, but actually re-edited?

comment #43

christian says ...

STAR TREK: DIRECTOR'S CUT comes to mind...

every george lucas film...

comment #44

tholl-yung says ...

It's difficult to address specific instances, so let me rephrase the question: When did re-cutting movies for the after-theatrical market take off? Approximately what year?

comment #45

tholl-yung says ...

jeffmcm says around '92 with Blade Runner and The Abyss.

comment #46

Patrick says ...

Still, 'Alexander' must have the record for
most number of DIFFERENT CUTS (NOT just deleted
scenes edited into the film) released within a
year or two (or EVER?) in cinema history!

comment #47

Argen says ...

Well, damn. I envy that record.

comment #48

tholl-yung says ...

Patrick, you speak -- true, there are limitations. Everytime I look up one of these director cut's I see they are re-storied with deleted material not re-edited. The more you change from the theatrical release, the more expensive the re-do. And the old stuff, without video masters, well you can just forget about it.

comment #49

Sean says ...

"Honestly, what's the oldest theatrically released film you've ever seen RE-CUT for the home video or DVD market (not re-cut for tv or in-flight entertainment) and not re-mastered from the theatrical cut, but actually re-edited?"

Man, nobody can go back further than 1979? For shame.

'Spartacus' leaps to mind, but I think that at least one of the Image restorations of Chaplin's films reinserted scenes deleted prior to the theatrical release (as opposed to 'Modern Times' or 'The Kid', where there were multiple theatrical cuts over the years, and the different restorations were done to different prints). Either 'A Woman of Paris' or 'A King In New York', I think. But 'Spartacus' is a definite one.

comment #50

Sean says ...

"Still, 'Alexander' must have the record for
most number of DIFFERENT CUTS (NOT just deleted
scenes edited into the film) released within a
year or two (or EVER?) in cinema history!"

'Manhunter' had four distinct versions released within a few years of each other. (Two of them were in one release, so that is three releases, four cuts.) And I think they *still* haven't released the proper theatrical cut in widescreen.

comment #51

Argen says ...

Good ones, Sean. Also throw in the original WICKER MAN, which was re-edited after footage was found on its way to be landfill years after its release.

comment #52

tholl-yung says ...

Good stuff Sean. "'The Kid', where there were multiple theatrical cuts over the years, and the different restorations were done to different prints." Everything is very specific in terms of "how'd they do that." If you don't want jump cuts, you dupe neg that you know you'll be reusing or cutting differently, before you cut in to it for the first time. Magic film cutters has a machine that will re-splice negative without losing a frame, but it is a desperate operation, that is not done without complete anguish, because it's usually the result of a mistake.

As a general and practical point, it's "the invention of transfering original un-cut negative to video at the time it's processed in the lab" that has created a world in which "no version of any film ever has to be final" and it is conceivable that in 1994, "The Thin Red Line" was processed and cut in a film-only editing room, making it, for practical purposes, not able to be re-cut. The mid 90's were the transition years from film-only to dual video/film rooms. Editing crews actually got larger because there were two sets of personnel, and productions had to make hard, financially significant, decisions about whether to be dual or film-only, because transferring to video was expensive and not offset by reductions elsewhere, except in the low budget world, where you went video only in a hurry.

I'm still curious to know what you all think, because I don't know. What year, approximately, did re-cutting movies for the theatrical after-market (i.e. home video or DVD) take off?