A Misunderstood "Alexander"

[William Munny]

Few times, if any, has a movie moved me as much as "Alexander" did, and few times, if any, have I been so taken aback by the country's negative reaction to a film.

I want to defend "Alexander" but I'm lacking the words right now. Maybe this article will spark something.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0106Stone-ON.html

[Ted Pikul]

Alexander is flawed. It's too long in general & the Anthony Hopkins Ptolemy scenes in particular are redundant in the extreme.

It's still an intelligent ambitious epic of a kind Hollywood isn't noted for.

Stone didn't manage to separate Alexander the man from Alexander the myth but he deserves praise for trying.

PS.

The battle scenes though few piss all over anything in Braveheart or Gladiator.

[James Logan]

I liked ALEXANDER. It's definitely a flawed movie, but I think that, as is said in the movie about some failures, its flaws are greater than some people's achievements.

The Ptolemy scenes were definitely redundant, badly written, unnecessary and boring. Yes, a VO did help, but it could've been done in better ways. And yes, some sequences could've used being shaved a few minutes.

But it was still an original, intelligent epic, according to me, in which Stone, if he didn't tell a linear story à la GLADIATOR, did tell the story of a man and what he did or was trying to do. And I enjoyed it very much.

[miguel_montes]

My third favorite movie of 2004. That pretty much sums it up.

[William Munny]

Glad to hear that some people like it. I've been really turned off by the hatred this movie has brought out in critics, particularly those assholes who voted at the Razzies. This film is being called the next "Waterworld" when it's anything but. (And "Waterworld was a damn good film, too).

[King of Depew]

Well what, in particular, did you love so much about it? I think it's Oliver Stone's first truly BAD film. Its unfocused, over dramatized, poorly written, unneccessarily long and self indulgent.

The only thing going for it is the acting, I think Colin did the best he could and Val Kilmer was great. I guess give him points for an, I don't know, "epic vision." But then again John Travolta had an epic vision, it turned out to be "Battlefield Earth".

Ollie's been cracking up in his old age, I think he's back on coke. First that ridiculous "expose" on Castro, now this fuckin movie.

[Backstabba]

I loved alexander. I thought it was one of the most beautifuly directed and shot movies I have ever seen, with 30 minutes of action, but it was IMPRESSIVE action, and though anthony hopkins was alittle boring in his scenes, I thought this was one of the best movies of the year. ( Tied for 5th on top 10), I think all of the bad buzz ( Razzies) is only because it bombed. God I hate people.

[King of Depew]

Really? What was so I M P R E S S I V E about the battle scenes? It was nothing really that hasn't been done all the way since Bravehart came out. I guess when they fought the Indians on the Elephants it was at least something new, but too bad he put it about 2 hours into the film.

I don't see what the big deal is about this, seriously. What made this film stand out so much? And not only that, if your'e going to deal with Alexander being a homo, at least go all the way and have balls and show the guys making out instead of "kind hugging". What the hell was that? Not that I want to see that anyway, but at LEAST go all the way if you want to have integrity for the character.

[Ted Pikul]

I'd say even acknowledging Alexander's homosexuality was fairly brave given the current political climate in the US.

Look at Troy which totally skated over the sexuality of Achilles as it would have made Brad Pitt look less heroic.

[King of Depew]

Fuck "fairly brave", this is OLIVER STONE we're talking about. The guy has balls as big as church bells, fairly brave doesn't cut it.

I love arguing about movies.

[KyleG]

I think it would have did better if they just focused some more on different parts of his life. I was really interested to see how he learned to be such a master tactician and warrior, but the movie skips straight from him becoming the king to his first battle

[James Logan]

Originally posted by KyleG
I think it would have did better if they just focused some more on different parts of his life. I was really interested to see how he learned to be such a master tactician and warrior, but the movie skips straight from him becoming the king to his first battle

Yeah, that's the one important thing I thought the movie missed, and Stone being such an Alexander afficionado, I'm surprised he didn't include them.

I love the stories about Alexander listening and learning as he grew up, striving to be the best, and then impressing all generals and diplomats as early as age 12. And I feel those stories, if included into the plotline, could've helped even more to understand Alexander's vision and great achievements.

But that set aside, I loved the movie. Perhaps I got it because I somewhat know all those stories from reading them as a kid, but I repeat that I think Stone did a great job.

[X-Nightcrawler]

This movie's every frame were terrible. Even expecting NOTHING I was bored to hell and left the theater ranting.

2/10. (I must admit that the battle scene was pretty cool).

[William Munny]

Originally posted by KyleG
I was really interested to see how he learned to be such a master tactician and warrior, but the movie skips straight from him becoming the king to his first battle

*SPOILER WARNING*

The film does explain that, although it is done out of sequence. Later in the film, the flashback to King Philip's death is shown as the event that sets Alexander off and gives him the "warrior mentality".

I think people were expecting some sort of cheesy training montage in "Alexander", but Stone was wise enough to leave that out.

[Ted Pikul]

Or maybe not.

As explained in Team America "You need a montage ... Even Rocky had a montage". ;)

[KyleG]

Originally posted by William Munny
*SPOILER WARNING*

The film does explain that, although it is done out of sequence. Later in the film, the flashback to King Philip's death is shown as the event that sets Alexander off and gives him the "warrior mentality".

I think people were expecting some sort of cheesy training montage in "Alexander", but Stone was wise enough to leave that out.

yes, but that doesn't explain how he becomes such a master tactician

[Moviefan1234]

Alexander wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't a good movie either. The battles scenes were impressive, and I felt the acting was strong with the exception of Angelina Jolie. However, there were some things that really bothered me about it. I wanted to see how Alexander became such a brilliant general and strategist. Oliver Stone needed to better explain why he was adored by his men so much, he needed to show more friendship and loyalty bewteen them. And he also shouldn't have wussed out with the love story between Alexander and Hephaistion, show their love for one another. Maybe I set my expectations too high on this, I don't know. Earlier in the year I really dug Troy, and I thought this was going to be just as good if not better but it wasn't even close.

[William Munny]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
Earlier in the year I really dug Troy, and I thought this was going to be just as good if not better but it wasn't even close.

I liked both, personally.

Troy was a Hollywood action epic that focused on external events and digital armies.

The more internal "Alexander", on the other hand, (while having it's share of great battle sequences) is filled with symbolism, iconography, and serious themes of destiny. It tackles the subject whole-heartedly and doesn't skip out on the details, which is why I think it was hard for a lot of commercial audiences to digest.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Oliver Stone did a wonderful job directing ALEXANDER (6/10), and Colin Farrell was a good actor in it, but the problems lie in the script. So much is left out in such a long movie.