*** Official ALEXANDER Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[PatrickDA]

I agree that the childhood sequence of 'Born on the Fourth
of July' is very well done, but it does nothing for me on
an emotional level. I just don't care about the setting nor
the characters. With Alexander, I'm crying when he snaps
back at Crateros for questioning the mission in India by
mentioning how many broken bones he has while Crateros
fires back with "We know my King and we Love you for it" that
just gets me everytime! The other problem I've got with
'Born on the Fourth of July' is Tom Cruise...I just can't
stand the very site of him and the film really falls apart
for me after the Vietnam scenes...way too political and in
a very judgmental, shallow way. By 'Nixon' you could see
that a true artist had been born! The point of 'Alexander'
was to not be in control (nor Any Given Sunday) and I greatly
prefer chaos at every moment!

 

[StephenP]

Patrick,
As one of the handfull of folks who like this film, I would like your opinion on which to buy and watch for the first time. I already have the theatrical version (unopened) and will gladly exchange it for the DC. If you could only keep one version of the film, which would it be? I have no problems with the implied sexual parts (I also love Queer as Folk,) but the Anthony Hopkins speeches have been reported as overlong by almost everyone who likes the film. As a film student and movie lover I wonder: which version is for me?

 

[PatrickDA]

Stephen - All I can say is that the Director's cut seems to
be playing better with people who didn't like the first cut
or didn't even see the first cut due to the bad reviews &
word-of-mouth. I'm afraid that both versions get an A- / 4
stars out of 5 from me...so it just depends on whether or
not Anthony Hopkins 'Amistad' act gets on your nerves. I
must go with the first cut (seven-month) because it has a
few scenes that I find setup relationships better than in
the Director's cut. However, I really like Stone going with
his original editing plan (as in script form) rather than
the format of the first cut imposed on him by Warner Bros.

 

[StephenP]

So you are saying the DC is closer to the original script?

 

[ChrisMatson]

I watched the DC of Alexander last night and got about what I expected from the reviews. The movie did not connect with me. I felt that the pacing was off, the editing was confusing, and the was acting mediocre across the board. I could not connect with Alexander or any other characters. There seemed to be a lack of focus and I was left wondering what Stone's point was.

 

[PatrickDA]

Stephen - From interviews Stone has given since this past
March, I've been able to pick up that the parallel structure
in the Director's Cut WAS the original structure in the
script, but when Warner Bros. pushed the film back a few
weeks in Sept. of last year it was not only to cut out the
love scene between Alexander and Bagoas, but to change the
parallel structure (except for Philip's assassination.)

In fact, I just found a quote from Stone...
"The idea I thought to solve it, and I think it is the
correct idea is to go with a parellel story of Alexander's
childhood and adulthood...looking for the echoes that occur
throughout his life because everything he did when young was
to some degree repeated when old. He acted out his mother
and his father's fantasies and their wishes. As children
often do and that WAS the intention and that WAS the script.
Somewhere during the hurried seven-month edit of this film,
and I say "hurried" because it was a huge film, but in that
hurried period, compromises and pressures as in every film
made, and I moved things around, because I was worried that
I was not being clear enough with this parellel story. And
I think I made a mistake. I think we should've left the boy
in the cave when he was young and never see Colin Farrell,
and go right to the battle at Gaugamela. And leave it as a
mystery. And then go back to these wonderful actors Val &
Angelina and we deliver the payoff of what really happened.
Because the central thesis of the movie is intended to be
Alexander's feelings about the murder of his father. As in
any Greek tragedy...the charge of patricide is a serious
disgrace."

 

[PatrickDA]

ChrisMatson - Ok, I'm sorry to use you as a punching bag,
but I've never understood how people could wonder about what
Stone's point was or that he didn't let us in on why our
hero Alexander did what he did.

First of all, I think Stone's point could be taken from the
last scene with Anthony Hopkins.."the dreamers exhaust us,
they kill us with their dreams"...not to mention "Foutune
favors the bold" & several quotes from Alexander like "Do
you want to live forever" etc., Secondly, he clearly sets up
Alexander's love of the myths and his strong desire to out
do or match his favorite Achilles, not to mention attempting
to live up to the desires of his mother and father. Oh, I
just thought of another quote "In his (Alexander's) presence,
by the light of Apollo, we were better than ourselves." And
it touches on "Pothos"...yearning, passion, desire, longing
and regret! If you have an understanding of the Greek Myths
and the basic culture at that time in history...really Stone
nails it!

Anyway, having seen the film ten times, it's so clear what
Stone was saying about and/or through the story of Alexander
that I just lose my mind when other people don't get it.

 

[Nathan V]

PatrickDA, I'm glad at least one other person besides me was able to connect strongly with the film and Stone's vision. As with his other films, there is something very addicting about this movie. It lingers in the head like few other films can.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Paul Case]

Count me in as another who was unexpectedly caught up in Stone's vision of Alexander. I took a chance and bought the Theatrical Cut dvd despite the terrible critical reception the film had received. I'm glad that I did and now plan on picking up the Director's Cut as well. Alexander is, in my opinion, a film that succeeds in spite of its obvious flaws because of the daring, inspiring, and ultimately brave artistry that Stone employed to bring his epic to life. It is an epic that dares to take risks and that isn't afraid to let its reach exceed its grasp. I'll take this brand of failure over many of our current pandering Hollywood "successes" any day of the week.

Thanks for the great and insightful posts in this thread. They have made me appreciate this film even more.

 

[David Wyckoff]

I have long had an interest in ancient history and Alexander in particular. I had read the Robin Fox book many years ago. I bought the DC and thoroughly enjoyed it after being luke-warm to the TC at the theater. I still plan on getting the TC if for nothing else the commentary track with Stone and the historian Fox which I assume is different from the DC. Has anyone listened to this yet? Thanks Nathan V for the excellent review. I thoroughly agree that this movie requires the use of one's brain. I;m not implying that those who don't enjoy it lack intelligence or anything. I totally understand why this doesn't appeal to many, but the mythical parallels were great. Alexander really was a "modern myth" in his own day. The amazing thing is that unlike Achilles and Heracles, we know he existed. I'm also a fan of Lawrence of Arabia, and I agree that both are quite complex characters. I think if L of A were released today, it probably would be "poo-pooed" as well.

 

[PatrickDA]

Paul Case & Nathan V,

I'm glad you both enjoyed the film and that my comments
made a difference. One aspect of nearly all the attacks
against the film by critics and media writers centered on
the film lacking any focus, point, or explanation as to the
motives of Alexander, but (as I wrote above) I think it's
VERY CLEAR what Stone was saying about Alexander. Sometimes
I wonder if half of these critics even saw the film or just
fell into the herd attacking Stone. Anyway, we're in the
minority on this one and we'll just have to accept it. I'd
have to agree that Stone's films can be very addictive and
the last two have contained a great number of "set piece"
sequences. 'Any Given Sunday' had the two games at the start
and end, Pacino's big speech moment before the last game,
and the lunch (Ben-Hur-style) between Jamie Foxx and Pacino.
'Alexander' had the two battles, Alexander's verbal conflict
with Cleitus, and Philip's assassination. Did Stone fail to
capture the true feeling of what Alexander's jounrey
must have been like in a Lawrence of Arabia or Fellowship of
the Ring way? Yes, he did...he blew that, BUT the only way
a filmmaker could reach that level of realism would be to
make three 3-hour movies about Alexander or make one 4-hour
version, which ISN'T going to happen! So considering what
was preventing him from making the only sort of film(s) that
could truly capture Alexander's greatness, I think Stone
pulled off a wonderful epic in the tradition of 'The Fall of
the Roman Empire' and brought two of the best battle scenes
ever filmed to the silver screen!

 

[PatrickDA]

David Wyckoff,

Unfortunately, most of Stone's comments from the Director's
Cut DVD ARE carried over to the theaterical cut DVD, but
they did add new comments to that commentary as well as add
Robin Lane Fox to the audio feature. However, I don't think
that should make a difference in buying or not buying the
DVD unless money is an issue.

 

[ChrisMatson]

How else is this supposed to be taken?
I enjoyed Lawrence of Arabia much more than Alexander.
I have enjoyed other "thinking" movies, like 2001, A.I., or Thin Red Line much more than Alexander.
I will leave this thread for fans of a flawed movie. I couldn't get into it.

 

[AlexCremers]

Well, another problem with this film is that it feels indeliberately campy at times. Scenes like the opening with Hopkins in the library are just done in bad taste and so are the scenes with Angela Jolie. There were just too many eyebrow raising moments. For instance, the use of accents in this film were laughable, especially the Scottish ones. The first hour (upbringing and intrigue) reminded me of 'I, Claudius' but lacking this series' brilliant writing. A sort of 'I, Claudius Lite', if you will.
For the most part and despite everything, 'Alexander' is watchable - some of the battle is pretty good and Val Kilmer does a fascinating king - but the feeling one is left with, betrays that Stone was out of his league.


------------
Alex Cremers

 

[StephenP]

Well, now I want to exchange my Theatrical edition for the DC after reading that Stone quote, thanks Patrick! If no one is willing to take back my unopened copy then I will just keep it and get the DC used at Blockbuster or somewhere, I hear that's the one all the rental places were sent.

 

[Paul Case]

I liked it after one viewing. Generally, a good rule of thumb to follow is to not watch a movie ten times if you didn't like it the first time around.

Unless, of course, it's The Phantom Menace.

 

[PatrickDA]

Actually, I had to see both 'Gladiator' and 'Collateral'
three times before I found myself warming up to them.
Sometimes you just don't get something at first, but then it
sticks with you!

 

[AlexCremers]

Yeah, I know what you mean, I had the same with '2001' and 'Citizen Kane'.






But 'Gladiator'? C'mon!





Alex

 

[PatrickDA]

Well, I was on a very anti-epic kick during the spring &
summer of 2000 leading to less than positive feelings
towards 'Gladiator' and 'The Patriot'

But when I saw both on DVD later, my opinion totally changed
with 'Gladiator' and only a little with 'The Patriot'

'Gladiator' is second to 'House of Mirth' for my Best Pic of
2000 award. 'Alexander' won my Best Pic award for '04.

'2001' I didn't really, really enjoy until about the 10th
time I saw it, but 'Citizen Kane' hit me from day one!

 

[Paul Case]

I don't think I've ever had the experience of liking a movie on later viewings after initially disliking it. I've certainly had my opinions of films that I already liked improve over susbsequent viewings, but that's fairly routine. Of course, if I don't like a movie initially, I rarely waste time watching it again. There are too many other movies out there to watch!