Not always, but increasingly, long versions published afterwards can ensure that a film that was received with mixed reactions at the cinema, shines in new glory. The best example of this is still Ridley Scott’s seminal crusade epic ‘Kingdom of Heaven’. Although the theatrical version can be described as extremely solid, the director’s version of the historical spectacle is actually one of the best works from the creator of “Blade Runner”.
A very similar case occurs with “Alexander” by cult provocateur Oliver Stone (“Natural Born Killers”). In the cinema, the story about the legendary conqueror has to be mercilessly ignored, which is of course also due to the rather weak reaction of the press. In the almost thirty-minute longer final cut, the qualities of the film become very clear – and these are not solely based on the enormous visual power of the production, which is estimated to cost more than 150 million dollars.
You didn’t like “Alexander” at the time and you only know the film in the theatrical version (or not at all)? Then take a look at the final version, which you can currently stream for a fee on Amazon Prime Video:
That’s what ‘Alexander’ is about
In 300 BC, the young Macedonian king Alexander (Colin Farrell) set out with the Greek army to bring the feared Persian empire to its knees. In a campaign that lasted eight years, his forces invaded India and Egypt, laying the foundation for the spread of Greek culture and the later triumph of the Roman Empire.
Alexander was deeply influenced in his youth. The home of his Macedonian parents offers him protection, but father Philip (Val Kilmer) and mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) are constantly involved in a small war with each other. The king is a cunning warlord and a rough, boorish drunkard who despises his wife. As a result, he becomes increasingly estranged from his son. Alexander eventually rebels against his father and kills him at the age of 20 to be declared heir apparent.
An impressive epic
It turns out to be an extremely complicated undertaking to consider Alexander the Great today as a human being and not as a hugely mythologized legendary figure. But even during his lifetime, the general, who commanded a force of more than 100,000 men, was a legend. Oliver Stone, however, is not interested in full-blooded heroic glorification here; instead, he wants to show that people are most lonely when they are surrounded by myths.
‘Alexander’ is not about historical accuracy, which you can only expect to a limited extent from a feature film. Instead, like most of Oliver Stone’s works, the whole thing is seen as a character study. In this case it is a particularly subtle story that unfolds in both breadth and depth. Although the visual expectations of a monumental film are effortlessly fulfilled in terms of beautiful sets, impressive landscape shots and imposing crowd and battle scenes, ‘Alexander’ is not a huge film at its core, but rather a soft film.
Oliver Stone wants to look behind the all-powerful facade of the young conqueror and finds a vulnerable person longing for love whose tragedy would become legend. But all military-tactical exploits are unable to hide its true essence. In his shortcomings and vulnerability, Alexander, played by Colin Farrell (“The Banshees Of Inisherin”), is a special figure, especially in modern historical cinema. And not just because his soft facial features contradict the classic, super-straight hero iconography.
Author: Pascal Reis
Source : Film Starts
I am Dawid Malan, a news reporter for 24 Instant News. I specialize in celebrity and entertainment news, writing stories that capture the attention of readers from all walks of life. My work has been featured in some of the world’s leading publications and I am passionate about delivering quality content to my readers.
