comment #1

High Chaparral says ...

I have a DVD of the longer cut already - it came as part of the Oliver Stone boxset that was released in 2000 or 2001.

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

I am so there for that DVD. The scene between Sam Waterston as the CIA Director and Nixon is in my opinion the greatest deleted scene ever filmed.

Why return to the Presidency? I really wish Oliver Stone had made a film about every major President, just like Shakespeare wrote a play about every major King.

Probably my favorite moment of the midnight screening of PINEAPPLE EXPRESS was the potheads going wild for the W trailer.

comment #3

scooterzz says ...

i got the screener of this last week and both the outer sleeve and actual jacket list the running time as APPROX. 213 Min.....i guess they gave themselves some room for bad math...

comment #4

JasonGeyer says ...

Maybe some stuff got cut, also.

28 new minutes - 5 minutes of trims= tighter cut?

comment #5

televisiontears says ...

The Nixon/Helms scene is brilliant stuff, but in the 2-disc set I have, it appears to be a small step up from raw footage. I kept waiting for a time code to pop up. I'm guessing this double dip will fix that.

The old director's cut also features what is probably the worst scene Stone has ever filmed, in which Pat decides to let Nixon run again in the most schmaltzy manner imaginable.

"Do you really want this?"
"Yeah, Pat! More than anything!"
"Oh, Dick!"

They proceed to share an abomination of what looks like mouth-to-mouth contact, which has since drained every sexy thought I've had about Joan Allen from my traumatized libido. Now whenever I see her face, the haunting memory of that lurid, evil kiss infests my being and gives me the polar opposite of boner.

Great film, though.

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

Sort of peripherally related, but those of us wishing for our RFK biopic are getting the Chris Columbus treatment of it. I'm not linking ropesofsilicon for fear it's childlike prose will infect me, but look it up.

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

Haha I like that I say childlike and then fuck up 'its'.

comment #8

actionman says ...

Nixon is a tour de force masterpiece and the most underrated film of Stone's career.

comment #9

Edward says ...

Joan Allen is one of our great film actors; she was superb in Nixon. I'm assuming the awful looking Deathrace is a paycheck film for her, not that she doesn't deserve it.

comment #10

cjKennedy says ...

Columbus should've tackled someone bland and unremarkable like Millard Fillmore. It suits his non-style.

comment #11

alynch says ...

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that they're selling it as a new director's cut. I've owned the director's cut for years.

comment #12

dre says ...

That Sam Waterston scene is in the director's cut I own already too. And yeah, it's an excellent scene.

Thank God this movie has gained respect over the years. When it came out I think the only guy who saw it for what it was (the year's best film) was Owen Glieberman.

comment #13

StoneFan1 says ...

I've seen it over a 100 times! Stone's best film! I saw
it four times in the theater between Dec. '95 and
April of '96.

The scene between Pat and Richard Nixon once he
decides to run in 1968 does feel odd. I wouldn't
call it the worst scene in the film though. That
goes to the Julie Nixon Eisenhower-Richard Nixon
bounding moment while he's drinking milk and eating
cookies. Anyway, Stone had to show Pat didn't
want him to run after the loss to Pat Brown in 1962,
but in the end she went along with his '68 run, so
you had to have a little conflict, but resolve it
quickly. I think the suddenness of her reversal is
the main problem I have with it. Plus, the film
doesn't earn the "we've always wanted to change
America" line since we (the audience) were never
shown Pat and Richard talking about their desires
as a political couple nor are we given much
evidence that Pat cares about politics or the
future of the country in the least bit. Overall, the
Nixon family moments are the ONLY weak parts
of an otherwise flawless masterpiece.

Now, the best moments would include;
- Nixon's visit to the Lincoln Memorial scene, which
basically lays down Stone's political thesis about
America post-World War II.
- Citizen Kane redux dinner scene between Pat
and Tricky Dick. "Sometimes I understand why they
hate you" is a great line, perfectly delivered by
Joan Allen.
- Hannah and Richard scene during the funeral for
Nixon's brother. "Strength in this life; happiness in
the next"
- Acceptance speech at Republican National
Convention in 1968; Hopkins nails it!
- Helms Vs. Nixon - Powerful stuff! Stone lays
down his personal thesis on what happened to
JFK in this scene. Sam Waterston kicks Hopkins
around in a way no other actor has ever done.
- Nixon saying his creed during the height of
Watergate; "A man doesn't cry. You don't cry. I
don't cry. You fight!" Hopkins (as usual) NAILS IT!
- Final scenes! Hopkins and Sorvino crying; Henry
says "this isn't going to leak, is it?" - Of course, it
did! Nixon's last stand walking through the halls of
the White House. "When they look are you, they
see what they want to be. When they look at me,
they see what they are." BEST LINE IN ANY STONE
FILM and one of the best of the 90's.

I could go on, but I'll stop.

comment #14

StoneFan1 says ...

By the way, Mr. Wells once said "Nixon" was an
"honorable failure" for Stone. Well, if that's true,
then no director in history has ever had a success.
I also doubt if Jeff has watched the film more than
once, which really isn't being fair to something so
complex and overpowering as "Nixon." I hope the
price is low enough that some people on this blog
give it a shot who haven't watched it before.

comment #15

kinks541 says ...

Jesus, StoneFan1. How many times have you sat through "Alexander"?

Oh, and televisiontears, the term for the polor opposite of boner:

"Soft-on."

comment #16

EOTW says ...

F'n love NIXON. 1995 was a GREAT year for movies. Gotta pick this up and agree about the Helms scene.

Out of curiousity, is ALEXANDER worth sitting through? I've always meant to check it out but never have. What can I say? It's reputation proceeds it. Anyone dig it?

comment #17

StoneFan1 says ...

I've watched all, or parts of, "Alexander" between
30-40 times. Four times in the theater. I think it's
Stone's third best film and my pick for Best Film of
2004. The second "Director's Cut" is the best
version to see.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

EOTW: Not if you count Kids and Empire Records.

comment #19

frankbooth says ...

StoneFan,

Are you serious? If you're a parapalegic or have some kind of auto-imune disorder that prevents you from going outside, disregard what I'm about to say: how could anyone possibly watch ANY film that many times? I've seen Blue Velvet fifteen, maybe twenty times since its release, and that's counting VHS/DVD -- even though I technically don't consider that truly "seeing it," because it's one of those rare films that require total immersion. But I do try to go whenever it's playing nearby, which usually works out about just right, since it inevitably plays the local art houses at least once a year. But keep in mind that the original release was over twenty years ago, and that I'm frankbooth!

By the time I've seen a movie three times, I began anticipating edits. I find myself thinking "okay, we cut to an over-the-shoulder shot when he says "foot." I start to pick apart line readings or oddly pronounced words. I wait for music cues. Basically, I can't enjoy the film because I get ahead of it. So how can you stand it?

I've wanted to bring this topic up for awhile, so thanks for giving me an excuse. This isn't an attack (you really might want to get out more, but that's your business) It's an honest question:

How many of you have seen a film thirty or more times (especially in a relatively short time-frame, say...ten years) and why don't you get burned out on it? Aren't you afraid of ruining your favorites? Or it as if you're transfixed and magically in the moment again, which is what happens to me with BV? I'm genuinely curious.

comment #20

Herry2008 says ...

[Deleted]

comment #21

EOTW says ...

DZ: It is if you count Heat, Nixon.

comment #22

JChasse says ...

And 1939 was a horseshit year for film, DZ, if you count "Divorce in Montevideo" and "The Man They Could Not Hang".

comment #23

Count Thread says ...

"Vietnam was a nightmare. It's amazing that the same characters have returned and sold us another war.''

Kennedy and LBJ returned, and nobody told me? Darn.

comment #24

markj says ...

I'd love to see a Stone film about Clinton. The Lewinsky scene would be a classic!

comment #25

StoneFan1 says ...

frankbooth - No, I don't think it's a problem to see a
film over and over again. I don't anticipate cuts or
even chucks of dialogue. In fact, each time I watch
a film (if I really like it) it is close to a first time
viewing experience. I can anticipate scenes or
moments that I like, but nothing more than that. I'm
not one of those people who can recount exact
lines from movies no matter how many times I
watch the film. I don't like to watch a film as though
I'm a machine. When I said "30-40 times" in
reference to "Alexander," I'd say only 15-20 of
those have been from start to finish viewings, but I
have gone back on DVD to see the key set piece
sequences. Now, with "Nixon," I'd say start-to-
finish viewings are in the 40-50 range with another
40-50 "look-in" viewings of certain sences or just
running into it on cable, etc.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Thread: Rummy and Cheney's more like it.

comment #27

Edward says ...

There are many films I love, but I don't think I've seen any of my favorites more than an half-dozen times. The one first run film I saw in a theater more than twice was Coppola's "One From the Heart." I've seen Eraserhead multiple times, but that was at midnight showings and I was altered in one way or another.

comment #28

Richardson says ...

"Out of curiousity, is ALEXANDER worth sitting through?"

Not in the slightest. I liked every single Oliver Stone movie I had seen prior to that, even including 'U-Turn' and 'Any Given Sunday', and I think 'Heaven and Earth' is an underrated film which would be flat out great if not for the terrible on-the-nose speech which sums it up... and there is not a single frame of 'Alexander' which is any good at all.

When the two best performances and characters in an Oliver Stone movie are the two women, you know there's a problem somewhere.

This movie completely destroyed my faith in Oliver Stone and damaged my belief that an artist could be so good at their craft that anything they make is inherently worth seeing.

comment #29

Richardson says ...

"How many of you have seen a film thirty or more times (especially in a relatively short time-frame, say...ten years) and why don't you get burned out on it?"

For the most part, these are comedies I loved when I was a kid, and would watch very, very frequently. Some of them have translated, and are still comedies I love, but oftentimes, they're just good background to throw on. I can put a comedy I love on and it's like music; I know all the beats and can stop paying attention for big chunks of time, but there are certain parts that will grab my attention if I want to watch them.

I can't imagine watching 'Alexander' 30 times. I barely made it through once, and that was because I couldn't believe it would continue to be as bad as it was. I figured at least the battle scene should be good. It wasn't. It was terrible.

comment #30

Catman says ...

I loath Stone's politics - this is a man who would make a hero of Fidel Castro, remember, but did want to say something positive about "Alexander". I thought it stunk as a theatrical cut, and the second version didn't do much either, but "The Final Cut", although still all over the place, I think is a fascinating effort to try and see and understand the world as it was 2,000 years ago. Most of what was cut in the earlier versions were the quiet moments of people talking and trying to make sense of the world and what they're doing. Kilmer gets some extra time that greatly helps his role, and Farrell, although still wildly miscast, comes across better. It's too bad this isn't the version that was released. It would still have bombed, but I think people would have recognized it as a flawed but honorable film instead of some wierd Angelina Jolie vehicle. The HD-DVD version is really nice too - it shows that some of the scenes are the most spectacular things that Stone has ever done.

comment #31

StoneFan1 says ...

Here we go again with the stupid "Alexander"
bashing...

"some wierd Angelina Jolie vehicle" - When was
the film EVER that? NEVER, is the answer. It was
a Colin Farrell vehicle, if anything based on WB
domestic ad campaign. Actually, WB game equal
time in the ads to Kilmer, Jolie, Farrell, Hopkins,
and Dawson.

"flawed" Ok, every film is flawed in one way or
another (except for maybe "Rear Window"), so
that isn't an argument against it (or for it).

You "loath" Stone's politics, SO WHAT? That
shouldn't have ANY say in whether you see, like
or hate his films.

It's 3,200 years ago, not 2,000.

I don't think Kilmer got any extra time in any of
the cuts. If anything, his role is trimmed a bit in
the second cut.

Now, for the post above...

"there is not a single frame of 'Alexander' which is
any good at all" That is one of the more ridiclous
statements I've read in quite some time. Even if you
HATE the film, I'd say there are at least 1,500
frames that could be screen capped, printed, and
hung on the walls of some film lovers house.

"When the two best performances and characters
in an Oliver Stone movie are the two women, you
know there's a problem somewhere." Whoa! Why
is that? So Stone, Mann, Scorsese and even
Spielberg aren't the best directors of female actors
or female characters, but the statement above is
laughable. "Heaven and Earth" featured a great
female character and performance, "Nixon" had
Joan Allen as Pat Nixon, "World Trade Center" had
two strong characters and performances. Yes, he
seems to have it out for women in general based
on "Wall Street," the mother in "Born on the Fourth
of July," and a few others, but that doesn't mean a
film directed by Stone is bad if the female actors
deliver the best performances. Also, you have
Lewis in "NBK."

"completely destroyed my faith in Oliver Stone" Yep,
I'd say that you've officially lost it. One film can't be
that bad and "Alexander" (even if you hate it) isn't
that bad. End of story. Take a chill pill, watch it
again without thinking of "Gladiator" or "Braveheart"
and see what you think. A lot of people went into it
expecting a strong male character killing people for
three hours and that certainly wasn't what most
people got. Thankfully, as far as I'm concerned.

comment #32

StoneFan1 says ...

Oh, one more thing, I just noticed the tired line of
"Farrell is miscast"....Tell me, WHO WOULD YOU
HAVE CAST THAT THE MONEY PEOPLE
WOULD'VE ALLOWED YOU TO CAST, HUH?
We're talking about $150 million here people! You
don't take risks with that kind of money and you
don't cast unknown actors, end of story! Now, I
agree some unknown actor from Greece would've
been fine, but that simply wasn't going to happen.
They were also RUSHING the whole production
in an attempt to beat the Universal / DreamWorks
"Alexander" film, so I think that hurt the overall
production from day one. They should've had 120
shooting days instead of 94, even Stone has
said that.