*** Official ALEXANDER Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Adams]

That's too bad. I love when Jolie shows it off. She is so BEAUTIFUL!

 

[WilliamG]

RE: The Score

I never felt 'connected' to the movie through the music here. To me, it seemed somewhat disjointed with the action on the screen. Really, as I was watching the credits, it surprised me to learn that Vangelis scored this movie.

 

[PatH]

To the quote that says people don't get into this film on first viewing: Many films warrant a second viewing, but I don't think many will get this far. I saw it, appreciated Angelina snd Sir Anthony, but the rest is little more than typical Stone meanderings.

PatH

 

[Lynda-Marie]

Has anyone heard of the group of Greek lawyers that are threatening a lawsuit against Oliver Stone and others involved in the production of this movie because they are portraying Alexander as gay or bisexual?

When are activists going to learn that protesting like this just gives [usually] undeserving movies a huge boost in publicity, makes people want to see them, and gives said movies a huge boost at the box office, which just encourages filmmakers and studios to keep churning out crap? I remember the protests against Basic Instinct, which [I felt] got box office it did not deserve, and the Last Temptation of Christ [which I still have not seen] also got a boost at the box office.

What's also interesting is that it is GREEKS who are complaining about the portrayal of Alexander, not Macedonians.

Patrick, the reason Angelina Jolie may be attempting to use a Slavic accent is because the Macedonians are Slavs. A friend of mine is married to a Macedonian lady, and her accent is distinctly Slavic.

 

[RobertR]

According to James B, Stone's Alexander is "weak, indecisive, plagued by self-doubt, and obsessed", and a "sniveling whiner". Is that what you learned about him?

 

[Julian Lalor]

That's because Alexander is not ethnically Macedonian (as we know them today). He was Greek. There is a reason Macedonia is officially called the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and not just Macedonia.

Also, the portrayel of Alexander as bi-sexual is historically accurate. Many ancient Greek men regularly engaged in sexual activity with other males (it was almost universally practised in Sparta), but did not consider themsevles homosexual. Sexuality was far more fluid in ancient Greece (and Rome) than today. We're just too uptight for our own good.

 

[richardWI]

Whatever boost it got wasn't very impressive. The budget was about 7 mill, and the take was 8 mill, not exactly a Mel Gibson sized take when calculating controversy = big profits.

As far as controversy and Alexander is concerned, it can be seen two ways:

One: Stone and the studio, when greenlighting the project, were completely oblivious to the notion that man on man love scenes involving a historical figure might create some form of controversy. They went ahead with their movie and were shocked.. shocked when groups ran to the media to protest the movie. Stone is dismayed to see endless news reports about his forthcoming movie.

Two: Stone and the investors were fully aware their 165 million dollar epic would push certain hot button issues and cause controversy and publicity, perhaps using The Passion as a business model, and decided to bait certain groups into creating a controversy for them.

Of course I'm just being cynical.

And just by staggering concidence, next summer Ridley Scott is coming out with a multi-million dollar epic based on... The Crucades! I'm sure his backers are hoping it doesn't generate any controversy or negative publicity.

 

[David Fisher]

Actually, I suspect Stone and his backers wanted to make an epic film based on the historical accounts of Alexander. I doubt that the Passion had anything to do with it, especially since the involved parties have been vocal about making this film since the release of Ridley Scott's Gladiator.


I saw this film, and have mixed feelings myself. (It's not that bad, especially compared to Troy.)

At the end of the day, this is just another Oliver Stone film. His movies are not exactly based on a cogent narrative, and it is a mistake to criticize this movie for not providing one. After viewing it, the viewer should reflect on human relationships, the spread of empire, and the effects that strong individuals have on history and society. The viewer isn't here for a history lesson, and Stone isn't going to waste his time giving one.

 

[RobertR]

As with JFK, that makes me wonder why Stone even bothers to make movies based on real historical figures. He should stick with fiction to make his points.

 

[ChrisOlson]

[flame suit on] I loved this movie.

After reading the bashing reviews..I have officially removed rottentomatoes and other such sites from my favorites list. After all...a review is nothing more than an opinion. And, IMHO, I feel it's too bad that all the online negativity towards a movie may prevent others from forming their own(opinion).

-Signing off-

 

[Chris]

Chris-

And I think you're entitled to that opinion. There are lots of movies I have personally loved that other people hated, and some films I hated that people loved. It kind of goes that way. But I wouldn't view Rotten Tomatoes, etc. as being part of any sort of "anti-film" conspiracy; reviewers are expected to be honest with their audience about what they think about a film.

 

[Scott Burke]

My step-mom, father, fiance, and me went to see this on Thanksgiving. We all did not enjoy this movie. Actually people left the theater and one guy fell asleep. It was very ambitious and it had opportunity to be great, but it was not.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

I liked the movie, but I thought some of the creative decisions were poorly thought out.

For instance: is there a reason we don't get to see any actual sword play? I understand war is chaotic, but Braveheart drew you into the battles while still having a sense of scale and confusion.

Also, the scenes with Hephaustus (sp) Jared Leto's character were redundant and poorly acted by Leto. Do we *need* to have it told to us over and over that Alexander was probably bisexual or gay? We get it.

Did we *need* to see so many random close-ups of no-name characters, once again, attempting to "hint" to us that Alexander was bixesual?

Did we *need* so many inconsistent accents?

Didd we *need* to be told Alexander's grand vision so many times?

And why wasn't the irony of his dream discussed more, that he was killing ppl in order to free him?

What we *needed* was better fleshed out supporting characters rather than the random heretical generals and inconsequential concubines that we got.

Finally, this had the potential to be a Citizen Kane, with multiple levels of analysis, but ulimately, they chose to focus on the emotional, sycophantic, Freudian elements of the Alexander personality, rather than his context in history. Not to mention the horrible trailers ("alexander be reasonable!" over and over in hokey European accent).

 

[Tony_Ramos]

I'm intrigued by your theory. Perhaps this explains why Alexander's sexuality was so over-emphasized. If you ask me, it's irrelevant to his place in history: lots of Greeks were bisexual, but only one almost conquered the known world.

 

[Chad Ferguson]

First off I wonder what reviews would be like if Oliver's name was not part of it? NExt up, I think the acting was top notch. Kilmer was amazing as his father but I have yet to hear his name. The war scenes are not pretty, totally gory and total confusion. Probably something like a real war would be. The score I found was total hit or miss, but I've never been really huge on Vangelis.
Everyone seems to be upset with the way the "bi-sexual content" of this film. Such a big deal over nothing. Get over it. Everything I've read just has qualities of homophobia, really.
In the end, I totally believe this film will age greatly with time. Also curious to know if this was the directors cut or not.
Sorry if this review sounds negative against some of you, but that's just my opinion and views. I think one of the best reviews out there is the Aint iT cool News one, he really makes a a couple of keys points.
Thanks

 

[RobertR]

If your point is that the negative reviews come from a desire to "get" Stone, you'd have to cite good evidence for it. Roger Ebert gave it a negative review for example, and no one can accuse him of having an anti-Stone agenda.

 

[Chris]

I think people are using the "people don't go because the gay content" as a scapegoat to hide a bad film. This has nothing to do with people not accepting gay characters - for pete sake, movies like "My Best Friends Wedding" "Angels In America" "Home at the End of the World" were all good films that were gay-friendly ( http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...&pagenumber=25). The difference is, they were actually good (for the most part)

No, this has very little to do with the fact a characters sexuality was discussed. I know this was not implied here, but I have read elsewhere that this movie is failing because "bigots" refuse to go see a gay character.

Hogwash. There are tens of millions of Americans who didn't see the film because it sucks, not for any other reason. I say this because I dread the assertion that it is some sort of moral duty for gay americans to go see the film - I know those who run the gay film thread in these forums would probably shudder at that idea.

Some films just are what they are. Alexander's sexuality didn't bother me a bit that it came up. What bothered me a lot was that the plot was jumbled around and (gasp) had large historical flaws with it. As a biopic film, Alexander was so distant that his speeches of platitudes fell flat and seemed awkward. Characters floated around without any intent. Dialogue was stilted to begin with, and then delivered with accents that weren't congruous with either the time period or the film.. they conflicted each other. The middle was so boring it should put people to sleep.. and the fact that they do the reveal of Alexander's reasoning then, more then halfway through the film instead of at the beginning jumbles the storyline and adds more confusion then it does solutions.

I've read several articles today saying that the film did poorly because of the gay content. I think that if that did any impact to the film, it did a lot less then the fact the film is terrible.

As I said, I have no problem with the fact that there are those who will love it, any more then I go ballistic on those who tell me they love "Postcards from the Edge" which I've always thought of as one of the worst films I've ever seen.. we all have our own tastes. But I do dislike the trend in articles today seemingly making out those who don't like the film to have an anti-Stone agenda or to be homophobic.

To be honest, if they would have turned this into a gay porn, it would have at least been more interesting then it was.. except for the fact Jared Leto was constantly doped up on Valium.. he was as wooden as a board, and even in XXX films, you have to have some emotion.. (then again, he could watch the HBO series now airing about "behind the scenes" for motivation)

People who make that debate, that the gay issue drove people away forget how many big successful "R" movies there have been... there is an audience out there.. if the movie is good.. for almost anything.

$20M isn't a disaster, though it's not very good. I think the film will trend downward, because so far, I haven't spoken to a single friend of mine who saw the film who has given it raves. But I'm sure I'll find at least one, eventually, who will

 

[JonZ]

I feel bad for Stone,whos one of my favorite directors.

This was a labor of love for him. In a recent interview with Val Kilmer, he said Stone had to talked to him way back when they were filming The Doors about Kilmer playing Alexander, so its something hes wanted to do for a long tme.

 

[Joe Hsu]

I saw a sneak preview for the movie last Tuesday...and I think I liked the movie for the most part, but the decision is so close. Having seen some TV specials on the movie and having read some blurbs on it, I understand that the movie isn't nearly what Stone intended it to be...but the same goes for most movies I guess.

I agree with others in that my main complaint is the lack of depth for most of the characters. Despite being a rather lengthy movie (although I suppose not for Stone-time), it didn't really get into the details of anybody...the movie tried pushing itself out in so many directions that it thinned itself out. You'd think that being titled Alexander you would come to understand him more...but I felt like the lack of concentration on his intellect really cut him down as a leader a few notches. The one scene where he's writing on scrolls and reading through them, you see it flash "tax system"...that's the side of Alexander I really wanted to see. No man can conquer so much of the world purely based on physical ability and luck.

anyway, I'm sure most of my sentiments have been echoed many a time, so it's off to homework for me, lol.

 

[JonZ]

Finally got to see this.

Mixed feelings really. Some of it was amazing, other parts went nowhere and brought the film to a screeching halt.However I was never bored or anything liek that. The film always kept my attention. I do tend to like slower moving films so that may be why I dont have that complaint. A few people did walk out though.

The visuals were breathtaking,but the score was again a mixed bag.Perfect in a few instances, out of place in others.

Im not sure I understand the complaints about Farrell. Maybe its a Lopez type backlash becuase lately hes everywhere.This was a big film and he had to carry it. Val was great - I love him in parts like this.Rosario looked gorgeous.

BTW,I thought the battle scenes were stellar. (I dont even think they were really that gory, not worse than Braveheart)My G/F closer her yes a few times though.

"As far as controversy and Alexander is concerned, it can be seen two ways"

I dont think he cares. He said hes only making a few more films and wanted to do ones he wouldnt have to expain himself or apologize for. He hates the system and wanted to make films he truly felt inspired by.WB denies gay scenes being the cause for the films delay.

I also got the feeling that even though it was 3 hours, there was more missing.Since we've gotten a few Dir Cut of Stones films on DVD, Im hoping alexander will be one as well.