Film

BigGayDeal.com

Oliver Stone Promises to Restore Alexander's Foreskin

Farrell_letoOliver Stone has announced he'll be releasing an uncut version of his epic Alexander starring Colin Farrell and Jared Leto. This new DVD-only version will expand the film's running time from 168 minutes to a whopping 220 minutes.

Said Stone: "This thing has haunted me. By truncating it into three hours, we lost things that were important. This version allows you to immerse yourself in the classical world."

When I originally saw the film I was somewhat shocked at the extent of the gay romance it actually retained.

Perhaps the director is just haunted by the fact that Brokeback and not Alexander wears the gay romantic epic crown, or perhaps for Stone too much of his own directing is never enough. In any case, I'm not sure how many will be able to sit through a longer version of this film, unless of course, Stone chooses to graphically reveal the myriad ways in which Alexander was defeated by Hephaiston's thighs.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. That movie was such a clunker - I can't imagine that an extra 52 minutes of footage would make it watchable. Stone should just put the deleted scenes of Colin and Leto rolling around naked on animal skins onto youtube and be done with it.

    Posted by: mp | Sep 11, 2006 3:12:51 PM


  2. When I saw it I was amazed at the LACK of the love story. Yeah, Hephaiston was around, repeatedly, but I never saw and meeting of hearts, and real love, just mawkish glances, mentioned before, as Hephaiston's makeup got more and more pronounced.

    If they were so strongly in love, why werent't they side-by-side more often. Why didn't they interact as soldiers more often. To me, the love was pretty invisible.

    Alan

    Posted by: alan | Sep 11, 2006 3:38:00 PM


  3. ...not to mention that 52 more minutes of bad wigs might undo me. . . .

    Posted by: alan | Sep 11, 2006 3:39:13 PM


  4. It must also be pointed out that the original DVD release of this film was edited down a bit from the theatrical version, was it not? I remember people saying some of the more gay stuff was removed to please the "Christians" who spending so much money on their copies of "The Passion of Christ"

    Posted by: Bryce | Sep 11, 2006 3:39:41 PM


  5. Do people still care? The movie is like more than a year old. Who cares if he adds the gay scenes or not at this point, lol, it is besides the point.

    Posted by: Frank | Sep 11, 2006 4:05:38 PM


  6. I doubt the "Christians" give a fuck.

    Posted by: Tom | Sep 11, 2006 4:53:54 PM


  7. It was clash of the overrated titans that summer; we had "Alexander" going up against that GOD AWFUL dog, "Troy". Both were abysmal, however, if I had to choose, "Alexander" would be my preferred dreck viewing. I saw the same overt homosexual tones in "Alexander" as were in "Mountains of the Moon" about a decade ago (a recount of the Lewis & Clark expedition). I actually thought Stone brought the right balance forward. Just a looooong, pedantic story line. Troy was pure dreck. Period.

    Rad

    Posted by: Rad | Sep 11, 2006 5:18:50 PM


  8. There were two versions initially released on DVD - the 'theatrical' version that had what little gay content there was, and the 'Director's Cut' that was shorter and had the gay content removed. Will this third version at least have a kiss between Colin and Jared?

    Oliver Stone is a jerk. He claimed his movie flopped because of the gay content - then how does he account for the success of Brokeback Mountain? His movie tanked because it was terrible.

    Posted by: ams | Sep 11, 2006 5:21:24 PM


  9. yeah, this movie pretty much sucked. I don't really think that adding any addtional "gayness" to it would make it better, it would just be good for the momentary thrill of seeing two good looking actors getting it on (or whatever). Then it would be over and the rest of the movie would just continue to suck (no pun intended).

    Posted by: ric | Sep 11, 2006 5:27:08 PM


  10. Alexande was incredibly boring. I actually took the time to wash the dishes while it played in the background.

    Posted by: Lady Heather | Sep 11, 2006 5:40:15 PM


  11. Alexander made quiet alot of money, outside then US. Similarily Johnny Depps Pirates, has made more money outside the states.
    I saw Alexander 3 times in Ireland, where it was number one!
    It's a great film, the "gay" stuff is destracting because "gay" means something different today. And it's an uncomfortable subject for "gay" guys even today, if it's not in a Will and Grace/ Birdcage formatt that is.
    Buy the book the film is based on. And.
    When it comes out in the next version, watch it, with an open mind, you will enjoy it.
    :) slainté

    Posted by: lala | Sep 11, 2006 6:45:16 PM


  12. My complaint was that if you DIDN'T know the history of Alexander the warrior and of his relationship with "What's-his-name", you just coundn't follow the action...nor understand WHY the knowing-glances and all the mooning-sighes. Like on Cable-TV, the film almost needs to stop...a learned-pundit appears with charts and explanations of what just happened...and then the film continues to the next action-sequence.

    Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Sep 11, 2006 6:47:59 PM


  13. The story of Hephaiston and Alexander is one of the most powerful, most beautiful love stories in human history. I hated what Oliver Stone did to their story. I hated what he did to Alexander. I think Colin Farrell was totally miscast and Oliver's dialogue was totally overwritten in all the wrong places. The musical score was hideous and ruined the film. In fact, Jared Leto was the only good thing, IMVHO, in the film. If, by releasing the uncut version he lets us see the relationship between Alexander ad the love of his life develop, I say, fine. I'll give it a try. But getting past that musical score and the prospect of more of Angelina's rantings and paunchy Val Kilmer's ravings is daunting to say the least. Stone needs to totally re-edit the film, and re-score it. He might be able to salvage something.Oh, and maybe he could photoshop someone else in to play Alexander.
    Anyone. Matthew McConnaughey, Orlando Bloom, Anyone but Colin. And I LIKE Colin. Just not as Alexander.

    Posted by: moonbeams | Sep 11, 2006 6:49:58 PM


  14. OK, sure, the movie didn't work, but it had moments of greatness, particularly in the last third; the red-tinged battle scene was masterful.

    I'll take a lesser Oliver Stone then, say, a "great" Brett Ratner movie any day.

    Posted by: jjabely | Sep 11, 2006 7:33:11 PM


  15. Does anybody care what Oliver Stone does anyway?

    Posted by: Roscoe | Sep 11, 2006 8:21:43 PM


  16. Best headline on your site this year...Had me laugh out loud!

    Posted by: Bill | Sep 11, 2006 8:59:26 PM


  17. wow, i didn't know that both colin & jared were uncut...i'da thunk differently

    Posted by: basis4insanity | Sep 11, 2006 10:02:37 PM


  18. Two things:

    1. I saw the DVD, so I guess I saw the 'sanitized' version.

    2. I don't give a shit about Oliver Stone, I just wanted to see the historic war epic and LOVE STORY!

    Sheesh!

    Posted by: Alan | Sep 12, 2006 1:38:30 AM


  19. OK the REAL reasons why the movie tanked;

    1. Because the actual story of Alexander is boring...most epics are ...except the Mummy if that movie counts.

    2. ALL...not just the gay but all the juicy bits were cut out of the cinema release as well as the DVD release (which was crazy)

    I read an article that said that Val Kilmer would on purpose stuff up the sex scenes between him and Angelina so that he could do them time and time again (not a bad plan actually)...but if you noticed in the movie...there was no Val Kilmer and Angelina sex scene.

    Oliver Stone is a whimp for letting the media tell him what his movie's should contain

    Posted by: Steve | Sep 12, 2006 3:26:54 AM


  20. I guess for Americans they found the movie boring. I LOVED the movie! And by the way Americans the movie grossed over 130 million OUTSIDE the United States. We international folk LOVED the movie. Yes I have the DVD theatrical cut! And I will purchase the new version. I think people forget that Stone was FORCED to remove the homosexuality. All I hope for is MORE GAY CONTENT! I personally thought Brokeback Mountain was the more BORING movie. I found it to be too slow. I liked Alexander the movie was about Alexander the PERSON it wasn't an epic.

    Posted by: Jack Twist | Sep 12, 2006 10:23:06 PM


  21. I liked Alexander more than anyone else I know but I will still be the first to admit that it was a flawed work in its original theatrical version. It would be a stronger film if the relationship between Alexander and Hephastian had been made more explicit and been allowed to be the films emotional center. I think in the pre-Brokeback world there was a lot of fear on the studios part in making a male-male relationship central in this manner.

    There were also a few specific scenes with Colin that were unintentionally funny in the original cut and these would be best toned down.

    Revised Directors Cut's are a perfectly viable option for salvaging films that were originally compromised. Of course, things can go the other way too as with the longer edition of Donnie Darko which was way too expository and destroyed the charm of the original. I think there may be a great film lurking somewhere in Alexander...we'll see.

    Posted by: Jerry J. | Sep 16, 2006 2:13:44 PM


  22. I found that Ben Hur had more homosexual overtones, Than Alexander...
    I found Alexander to be a Great film...

    Posted by: Stan | Oct 9, 2006 10:34:11 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Pope Hate, Ben Affleck, Touchscreen iPod?« «