The different cuts of Alexander are fascinating. I know some people thought it was ridiculous, but each new cut was making millions of dollars in profit in the home video market of that era. It was the perfect scenario for Oliver Stone to use trial-and-error to find the best cut. And honestly, a film of that size probably needed to be edited for ten years.

It's similar with Apocalypse Now, which was such a huge editing job that Coppola had to try out at least four different cuts (Cannes, theatrical, Redux, Final) before he felt like he had addressed all of the challenges. And Final Cut really feels like he finally found the right balance and smoothed everything out. I think there was an awkward jump cut at one point in every edit until Final Cut, where he finally, decades later, figured out how to fix it.

Maybe most impressive to me is The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, because it's the most extensively revised. It's a complete overhaul of the movie, a complete re-think of the structure and focus of the movie. It doesn't feel as perfectly-honed as Apocalypse Now: Final Cut, but it feels like it works a lot better than the previous cuts. With more skill and more distance, he really addressed the core issues in an editorially insightful way.

Coppola is a very clever editor. So is Stone. Their recuts are fascinating.

With Blade Runner, I think I slightly prefer the work print to the theatrical/international cut, but generally, you can see each cut improving over the last. Final Cut > Director's Cut > Workprint > Theatrical/International. I'm a little surprised that there is any controversy about the Final Cut being the best one. That seems obvious to me. Same with the Final Cut of Apocalypse Now.

Too bad there isn't a bigger market for recuts like in the golden age of DVD. I wish there was more support and incentive for filmmakers to recut their movies if they want to. As long as the original version is available, I say keep remixing and refining all day long.