Is Oliver Stone's new movie Alexander worth watching? I'll most likely watch it this weekend, but I was wondering if anyone else had already seen it (and if so, if the movie is good)? -G
Without having seen the movie, I can tell you the battle scenes will be great, and gory, and long. But the movie is long. We'll also get way too much introspection, as Stone has spent 10+ years on this project. This too will be long, but then, the movie is over 3 hours. Collin Farrell can be a decent Alexander, but ultimately the movie's going to be more about Stone than anyone else. Stone's always had an axe to grind, and since I haven't seen this movie, I don't know what axe he's going to grind here, but it'll be way too over-the-top. I'm going to pass...
Yeah, it seems that some of the reviews for the film have been less than stellar. I wonder if I should go see it after all. -G
Goodsport, my good phriend I just saw Alexander yesterday. (first day) It will be pretty decent if you don't know a lot about Alexander the King. I was not very satisfied because a lot of the historical facts were distorted. But hey, its Hollywood. For me Guagamela didn't do too much. It was just a whirl of dust. I couldn't see people getting killed.Battle of Hydapses was another story, those Indian elephants were awesome. Plus Princess Roxannes' HUGE MELONS alone are good enough an excuse to watch Alexander.
I saw Alexander tonight and was disappointed. I was expecting more, but in typical Oliver Stone fashion he goes a little too far off the deep end. The cinematography was great as were the costumes, but there were scenes were it went on too long. The music seemed a bit out of place too.
Fixed your post. I'm a stickler for historical details. I'm interested in the subject matter very much, but if Mr. Stone is going to change the historical facts for the sake of the movie, then I'm not interested in seeing it. I haven't read any reviews yet, but thanks for the heads-up.
Persian academics in particular are really pissed about this movie for that very reason: http://www.iranian.com/Parsi/2004/November/Alexander/index.html
Oh God. There may be many mistakes in Alexander, but the article you got that from, Mani, is even worse. Quoting the disproved crap that is Martin Bernal's Athena is the last straw. The Greeks most certainly did NOT learn from the Egyptians; we have no evidence at all to suggest they did. In fact, the Egyptians incorporated far more Greek things than vice versa. Nor did the Greeks particularly respect Persian science and philosophy. Pray tell me, what was Persian philosophy? The Greeks regarded Persia as a rival, and as the greatest Empire of its day. But they hardly viewed it as the progenitor of their own culture - whether philosophy, science or anything else. The recent pop culture attempts to discredit Greece by ascribing some sort of odd superiority to Persians denigrates the many excellent things Persians did. However, most of the crap above is just nonsense. Oh, and reviews of Alexander have been awful, in general.
And whats up with Angelina's stupid 'greek' accent while everyone else in the ancient world is English?
lol they were interviewing this persian guy who was one of the extras and he said that only 10 of them were actually persian and they spray painted all the persians dark! when they said why are you doing this this is our color, they said no you are from a hot place so you people are dark! the rest of the so called persians in the movie are either arabs, turks, indians or south americans.. all in all Olive Stone is a moron. As for the accents, haha angelina jolie sounds like the bride of Dracula, and every time alexie talks i am waiting for him to say me sword or me shoes or where are me lucky charms. Pathetic!
Estimated grosses for Wednesday & Thursday (Box Office Mojo): 1. National Treasure $13.7 mil 2. Christmas with the Kranks $9.4 mil 3. The Incredibles $9.3 mil 4. Alexander $8.2 mil 5. The Polar Express $7.3 mil "Alexander" cost $155 million to make.
All I know is that several reviews that I have seen describe it as being loaded with unintentional humor, and the commercial that I've seen has had me breaking out in laughter twice. Not a good sign.
Indeed. Does she or does she not? Seriously though, with Oliver Stone at the helm, the movie will at least be entertaining. I'm expecting crazy compositions, angles, editing, and trippy visual set-pieces. Or not...
Grosses for Wednesday to Friday: 1. National Treasure $26.87 mil 2. The Incredibles $19.4 mil 3. Christmas with the Kranks $18.49 mil 4. The Polar Express $15.06 mil 5. Alexander $13.84 mil 6. The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie $13.76 mil "Alexander" keeps tanking.
Not to hijack the thread, but then, Alexander is not worthy of it's own thread, but I saw National Treasure and kind of enjoyed it. Of course, it too is Hollywood, but it's kind of fun to see history geeks being the heroes. Of course, I don't look anything like Nick Cage and my wife doesn't look anything like the babe, but still fun to see.
Eva Mendes >> Rosario Dawson Based on my brother's review, and that of this thread, I think I'll go watch Stuck on You again instead of catching Alexander.
Alexander SUCKED! What the hell does alexander have to do with Zoroastrinism by the way? Confused the hell outta me!
Well they don't really talk about Zoroastrianism in the film, but Alexander had the priests and killed and ordered the holy book of Zoroastrianism, the Avesta, to be destroyed.
I saw it and it was bad. I've heard awful, terrible, sucked, etc., but as I'm not going to be driven by hyperbole--I'll leave it at bad, although substantially bad. The first hour drags on forever. I found it watchable though after the first battle scene. That first battle, Gaugemela, was disappointing however. Much of the movie, I found to be campy--and I know that wasn't the intention. I'm not a fan of Oliver Stone, but I was wishing this movie would be more like some of his others. Angelina Jolie does not get naked, although she is seen in a sheer red top near the end of the movie. Rosario Dawson does, however, and my God she is well-endowed. All in all, the film's depiction of Alexander's life is brushed with broad strokes: Here's when he tamed a wild horse, here's where he fought this battle, here's a scene to indicate he was bisexual, here's one to show his father was a drunk, here's another showing his mom to be a harpie, etc. There's an attempt to show the CHARACTER of Alexander, but NEVER does the audience get a clue how in the hell the depicted Alexander managed to rule the known world by the age of 25. We're to assume he completley lucked into it.
Idiotic producers in Hollywood keep throwing money at Oliver Stone, but perhaps the box office failure of this movie will finally convince them that he is a terrible, talentless, hectoring director who has never made a single good movie. Maybe they'll think to themselves, "You know what? 'Platoon' really wasn't that great. And neither was that piece of shit in Central America with James Woods . . . And what was up with 'JFK'?" God, I hope this kills his career dead.
A friend of mine works for Sony music and he had some good stories about VanGellis (sp?) and Oliver Stone battles over the soundtrack.