*** Official ALEXANDER Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Shawn_McD]

No the movie sucked...was boring..had bad pacing...no character developement.

It was a over dramatized documentary with grade b actors.

 

[JonZ]

"No the movie sucked...was boring..had bad pacing...no character developement"

I can say that about Two Towers, The Matrix films and alot of other films people around here worship.

Everyone has their own opinion. It wasnt great but I dont think it sucked.

U-Turn sucked.

 

[ChrisBEA]

I think the biggest thing working against the film was the structure, the way it was pretty much told in flashback by somebody who witnessed many, not all of the events, and this precluded us from really seeing everything. THis gave the narrative a rather disjointed feel. On top of that the acting was kind of silly.

I didn't care for the film, I was bored and want my three hours back.

 

[Nathan V]

All of the recent big budget epics have one thing in common- they feature a clear-cut protagonist that mainstream audiences can identify with. Though the films take place in different times, their heroes have rather modern sensibilities. William Wallace wants to free his country from tyranny. Maximus wants to avenge the death of his family. These are people with basic motives that everyone can understand. In addition, the protagonists are always badasses. They are hyper-masculine individuals that guys can root for and girls can swoon over. The fact of the matter is, with starting budgets north of $100 million, the big-budget historical epic is not the place to take risks. Think also about The Last Samurai, even The Patriot. Note how ‘safe’ these films all are. They appeal to every demographic. I love these films for what they are- among the best and most exhilarating viewing experience that mainstream cinema has to offer. My love for Braveheart borders on the obsessive, and I do like Gladiator a bit more than other people do.

But in the back of my head, whenever I’m watching these pictures, some small part of my brain wishes for the ultimate- an epic historical picture that doesn’t even think about catering to demographics. A film that depicts an ancient world, not simply by way of costumes and sets, but also the attitudes and ideas of the time. A film that doesn’t feel like it knows that it will be viewed by modern audiences, whose priority is not to please the casual moviegoer’s appetite and make a studio tons of money, but simply tries to be honest to the era and people it depicts. A picture that expects its viewers to be aware of the historical context in which it takes place and appreciate it not as a modern story transposed to another time, but as a (subjective, of course) window into another era. In short, a movie with balls.

With “Alexander: Director’s Cut,” Oliver Stone has delivered just such a film.

Miraculously financed by the great Moritz Borman’s always unnamed “powerful Europeans,” Oliver Stone’s new film is something of a cinematic breakthrough. It is a $155 million picture about a bold, insecure, effeminate, dream-chaser who wears his emotions on his sleeve. Not since Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia has there been a film on such a vast scale that concerns such a fascinating, multi-faceted character at its center. It depicts a completely different world, one that is almost foreign to our modern sensibilities. The pre-Christian world is an ancient world, one we can hardly pretend to understand. These are people with vastly different perceptions on many aspects of life. It is a movie about a man very much of these times, with an outlandishly different worldview than that of our own, who chased a dream as long as he possibly he could, driven by the love of his parents and conflict between them. It is a 3 hour picture crammed with eloquent, verbose dialogue, graphic violence, complex emotions, and pan-sexual and imperialistic sensibilities. That Oliver Stone would make a film so ridiculously unsuited for modern audiences does not surprise me. To me, the man has always been ahead of his time, boldly making pictures and going places no filmmaker has gone before (or again). As has been pointed out numerous times by the press, there are more than a few parallels between Stone’s career and that of Alexander’s. What the press, and it seems, just about everybody else, did not notice was the brazen originality of Stone’s latest feature.

I must include myself in this category, as my reaction upon seeing the film on its opening night was one of great disappointment. My friends and I, one a ‘film’ person and the other a ‘history’ person, sat there for 3 hours, listening to Anthony Hopkins’ wildly overlong speeches, Rosario Dawson’s unintentionally hilarious accent, interminable dialogue scenes, and a few moments that were just outright terrible. The audience sighed. It sniggered. It left. I felt the film had moments of brilliance, but had to conclude that it was not the masterpiece I had hoped for. Upon learning that Stone was recutting the picture, my ‘film’ friend and I had subsequent lengthy discussions of how the film could be improved- lose most of the Hopkins scenes, using him just as a framing device, minimizing Rosario Dawson’s role, emphasizing the parallels between Alexander’s young life in Greece and his travels abroad, minimize and maximize various specific scenes to clarify certain points we thought Stone was trying to make, and restructure the second and third acts to solve pacing issues. We thought maybe it’d be a good idea to intercut Alexander’s scenes with his parents with the stuff in the last half of the movie. We concluded that almost all the problems we had with the movie could be solved through editing. (we are both aspiring filmmakers)

My massive respect for Mr. Stone prompted me to buy the new cut, which I screened last night. I can certifiably say that the new cut is a genuine masterpiece. Stone and I must think alike, because he made precisely the exact same changes I had hoped for. The new cut is just as dynamic and fascinating as his earlier films. The intercutting of the second and third acts is hugely effective; parallels are drawn that I’d never before noticed, and the pacing problems are completely gone. The new structure allows for a time-jump that is massively effective, and one of my favorite moments in the film. Like JFK and Nixon, the film simply flows. A large number of scenes have subtle alterations, such as different takes or eliminations or additions of lines. Embarrassing moments such as Colin and Rosario’s kinfe fight or Colin and Leto’s pre-battle hugging scene are gone. The Indian battle scene seems to have been spruced up a little bit (not unlike the LOTR: EE battles)- the scene is literally jaw-dropping. I haven’t ever seen a battle of such primal ferocity. Think of the concentrated intensity of the football games in Any Given Sunday, and apply that intensity to a horse-elephant-foot battle in a dense forest. That’s what we have here. Val Kilmer is a wonder to watch; his party scene, where Colin rejects him and his banished, is filmmaking at its finest. Rosario Dawson now has three lines in the entire picture (Stone explains his choice of going with different accents on the commentary, stressing the multicultural aspect of the story and stating his dislike for period pictures in which all the characters speak the same british accent), and Jared Leto doesn’t have much more. He is still very much a presence in the film, though, and none of the film’s homosexual content has been removed, contrary to rumor. Though the film is populated with a large number of characters, none of them have very many lines, with the exception of Alexander and his parents. This is very much a film about the effects of parenthood, and the new cut stresses this point much more than the theatrical cut; in fact, it’s now the dominating theme that holds the film together.

Not enough can be said about Stone and Rodrigo “Amores Perros” Prieto’s staggering visuals. This is the first of the ‘new epics’ to use a full color palette, and it’s a joy to watch. This feels very much like lived-in world; like Ridley Scott’s films, the frame is always crammed with shapes and colors and movement. The recreation of Babylon in particular is very impressive. In my opinion the best American visual stylist working today, except perhaps Michael Mann, Stone has not lost his flair for unique camera angles and editing; he knows exactly how to stage a scene and when to tilt the frame, and his Soderberghian sound-discontinuity trick is used sparingly but extremely effectively here. Note how the camera almost drunkedly leers in on Colin’s face as Cleitus mocks him; the camera gliding past tall, dark figures in the film’s opening shot; the way the camera drifts away from Farrell in the middle of his requisite “rousing speech” to his massed soldiers, choosing instead to hover over the enemy; the shot of a grieving Farrell, the camera tilting him almost sideways; the gradual desaturation of color as the journey grows more tiresome for the soldiers; the watery blue opening credits, an attempt to immerse us in a different time and place; the intercutting of Jolie and Dawson when Farrell is choking her, and the montage of images fluttering past as Alexander lies on his deathbed, and of course the blood-red saturation after Farrell is knocked from his horse. The use of slow motion in that scene is breathtaking. I haven’t seen 120fps used so powerfully since Scorsese’s Last Temptation. Those of you who have seen Stone’s past films know the sort of visual and aural experience you’re in for.

As for Colin Farrell himself, his acting is, I think, very good. Contrary to Chris Rock’s suggestion, Russell Crowe would never have worked in this role; this is not a film about a badass. Alexander (in this script) is a completely different character, as discussed above. I can’t see why the theatrical cut was met with such derision; although it was peppered with flaws and didn’t feel like a completed film (unlike this new director’s cut), it was certainly watchable. How this film got nominated for Razzies is beyond me. That this film is so hated, even though it has been seen by so few, is a shame. I know HTF doesn’t care too much for Oliver Stone, but I encourage those who do admire his work to at least rent the new cut. Hopefully Warner’s generous dvd treatment of the film will allow it to achieve the recognition it deserves. Or maybe it won’t. I don’t know. Some films just really speak to certain people.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[JonZ]

"The Indian battle....the scene is literally jaw-dropping"

Yes it is. I watched it like 4 times last night.

"I know HTF doesn’t care too much for Oliver Stone"
I LOVE the films he did from 86-95(except TR)

Im curious about the Dir Cut - it sounds like alot of changes for missing under 10 minutes.

 

[Jordan_E]

I'm sorry, but ALEXANDER bored me to death. Maybe if I watch it again a while down the road it may grow on me; God knows this has happened more than once in the past. But I think the major factor was that I watched this movie after watching the brilliant DOWNFALL earlier in the day.

 

[PatrickDA]

Downfall was a fine historical epic that told a story that
needed to be told for future generations of not only
Germany, but the world! However, calling it brilliant is
a little over-the-top and I thought Hopkins really nailed
the part of Hitler a lot more fully in 'The Bunker' than
Mr. Ganz was able to do here. I don't know how somebody
could be bored by Alexander as my blood was pumping and my
tears were falling many times during the film. Some people
just don't like over-the-top operatic acting in certain
films, but I thought this was one case where it worked very
well much like Julie Taymor's Titus.

Oh, JonZ...While I agree that the Indian battle was quite
stunning, the true masterpiece is the Battle of Gaugamela!
That whole sequence has to be the best filmed battle in
cinema history! In fact, Alexander has one GREAT set piece
sequence after another unlike any film in recent memory!
Philip's assassination, Alexander's fight with Cleitus, the
cave scene between Philip and Alexander, not to mention the
two battle scenes, and Alexander confronting his troops in
India. Stone pulled off the same feat in Any Given Sunday.

While the Director's cut is only eight mins.
shorter, Stone removed some 17-20 mins. from the first
cut and included never-before-seen footage of 7-9 mins.
in this new cut. In addition, he retooled a few scenes.

 

[Cees Alons]

Patrick,

Interesting observations.

I ordered both, the Theatrical Cut and the director's Cut, and they arrived yesterday.

So my question to you is this: I think I want to see the TC first and the DC after that (perhaps even not immediately). Would you recommend that? Or should we see them the other way around?


Cees

 

[Jordan_E]

One man's brilliance is another's *meh*...

 

[AlexCremers]

The critics have it right. I tried it but it's not good.

 

[PatrickDA]

um...I'm not sure what to say about which version to watch
first. If you're worried at all about the reviews or the
public reaction, try the Director's Cut first. Otherwise I'd
watch the original (7-month) cut first, then try his 10-month
cut.

Alex - According to you why was it not good?

Jordan - Yeah, you're right! I can't stand Taxi Driver or
A Clockwork Orange...so some director's "masterpieces" don't
do much for me and yet their "minor" films really pack a
powerful punch to me!

 

[Jordan_E]

I'd take Full Metal Jacket over A Clockwork Orange any day myself...

 

[Cees Alons]

Patrick,

Thanks. I see. No, I'm not worried about someone else's reaction. Just judge for myself.


Cees

 

[Garrett Lundy]

I give the movie a 3 outa 5. Its an average film these days. Now for the low points, cause thats what you all like reading about!

1. Val Kilmer. Val actually did pretty good in this one, certainly better than his acting in The Saint or that godawful Batman movie. I think we can agree that Val isn't the worlds best actor, hes better than Kevin Costner in any of his Sci-Fi films, but still the role would have been best filled by someone else. Maybe Peter Stormare for that perfect mix of unlikeability & forceful personality. But in the end Mr. kilmer suffers from William Hurt syndrome, no matter what he tries to do...hey look, its Val Kilmer!

2. Angelina Jolie. Its been said, mostly by me, that Angelina Jolie only has one character: Lara Croft. Just imagine Lara Croft in different settings and you get Angelina's range. But this film dispells that myth! Angelina clearly can also do a very bad Bela Lugosi as Dracula impression! The snake fetish is intresting but it makes me think of her as a Hot Topic employee.

3. Colin Farrell. Obviously casted because of his looks. If I were making a $165,000,000 movie, I would certainly cast someone with, maybe, just a teeny-tiny bit more acting ability. Of course the film propbably wouldn't have been greenlight without some no-talent model headlining.

4. Length. the movie is about 25-30 minutes too long. You can make a long movie and have it be entertaining all the way through, but Alexander plods-along so often its great length only serves to make the audience increasingly aware of ass discomfort.

5. Stoopid Effects. Some people love the 'Indian battle' scene. I hate it! You might think its vibrant and "full of life", but IMHO anytime you have to resort to handheld "shakey cam" and rapid-fire cuts, you officialy have become an amateur battle director. Then after the shakey fiasco, lets film everything in RED! In Platoon it works because of excellant film-crafting we feel for the actors and are worried about their death. By this time we just want the movie to be over. Even the Red-Death scene lasts too long.

Things that wren't bad:

1. The Score. I watched the movie an hour ago and I cannot remember what any of the score sounded like. It could be worse, The Untouchables certainly has a score that kills braincells years later, but to be totally forgetable means its atleast unoffensive.

2. Man Love. Stone wants to press buttons! So he cuts the gay sex scene! Then he adds an uncomfortable straight sex scene! How AvantGarde'! Of course I am being sarcastic. Then again, I did just watch all of season 2 of Queer as Folk, which in comparison makes Alexander about as un-gay as something totally un-gay.

3. Production Values. They sure were nice! And no appearent CGI. Huzzah!

4. The Medusa Fight. When the shows up with a snake body was totally awesome! Then he carriers her head around in a sack!

 

[PatrickDA]

Garrett - um...I don't know what to say, but you're wrong
or at least misguided on about every point you made! I don't
have the time to go through them all nor do I have any
desire to do so. Best of luck in the future. Actually, I do
have a few comments...there was no gay sex because the film
wouldn't have even been made had there been any in the
script AND we don't know if Alexander still had sex with
men past his late-teen's/early 20's. Vangelis' score in one
of the best in many years and I've listened to the CD at
least 40 times. The effects worked perfectly in the two
battle sequences and I felt the French company did a great
job on the Babylon scenes. The movie wasn't long enough and
cut too much out of Alexander's life as it was...so I'd say
the film was too short. Jolie's accent was fine, Kilmer was
great, and so was Colin! You need to see Phone Booth and
Tigerland if you don't think he's a good actor.

 

[AlexCremers]

Because Val Kilmer is the only thing good about it.

After just seeing "I, Claudius" and "Titus", the script and direction of "Alexander" seem pretty poor, almost amateurish. Oliver Stone just doesn't seem to be feeling at home with this type of material.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Must have seen a different film.

 

[Vincent_P]

I have yet to see ALEXANDER, so I can't comment on Farrell's performance in it, but I think he's a terrific actor and far from a "no-talent model". Have you seen TIGERLAND, for example? Farrell has proven himself to have some tremendous acting chops. Perhaps he wasn't right for the role of ALEXANDER, but a "no-talent model" he is not.

As for Kilmer, he gave two of my favorite screen performances of the 1990s- as Jim Morrison in THE DOORS, and Doc Holliday in TOMBSTONE.

Vincent

 

[PatrickDA]

Alex - Stone seemed more than "at home" with the epic scope
of the piece. He grew up on that genre throughout the 50's
and 60's! I guess if you were wanting Braveheart or
Gladiator, you didn't get what you wanted. However, I feel
this was Stone's third best film and vastly superior to
any film I've seen since 'Master and Commander : The Far
Side of the World'

 

[AlexCremers]

Just watched the first 45 minutes of 'Born on the Fourth of July', and while it's not one of my favorite films, it already contained more moments of good film making than in whole 'Alexander'. Compared to 'July' and 'JFK', the Stone of 'Alexander' feels like a fish out of water, a director who lost his sense of control. Patrick, the last thing I expected was 'Braveheart' or 'Gladiator'.