The 'Alexander' Review

As one of the Alexander The Great experts on this forum, I'm going to live up to my bargain I pledged long ago that I would be the first to judge the Alexander movie that I believed was to be the best ancient war movie to date. It wasn't. Not even close. As a matter of fact, the dissapointment in it was as big if not bigger than the first Matrix's sequel. In terms of accuracy, it had all the real names and stuff from what really happened and the dates were correct but Oliver Stone, I believe looked to make Alexander the great more like Alexander than the image of Alexander which I thought made a much worse movie.
My biggest singular dissapointment with it was it was more of a drama than an ancient war movie. It only had two battles in it, neither of them spectacular and it left out many things I would've thought would've made much better material for the movie. God, I wish somebody would've handed me 120 million and asked me to make a movie on Alexander the Great. The directing wasn't great either. At some points, you could hardly tell what the hell was going on, and there weren't enough bird's eye views either. It was truly appaling how bad the battles were considereing this was the movie about ALEXANDER THE GREAT! Colin Farrel wasn't that great at the role at all and the diologue was really bad. Oliver Stone didn't even try to characterize the people involved which made it less watchable. I think Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie did the best jobs of making a legitimate character of their legends but Colin Farrel was pretty bad.
The second biggest dissapointment after the fact that it wasn't an ancient war action movie but a drama was half of the drama was homosexual drama, much more than anyone predicted. As I watched one part of Alexander and Hephaiston talking, nearly a third of the audience in my theater got up and left almost simultaneously. It wasn't shocking because it was the part I got up and left at when I saw it the first time. I only saw it again to give it the benefit of a doubt to see it from the beginning.

Al in all, it was a big dissapointment and I'm the first to say so like I said I was. I am almost uncomprehensively dissapointed at how bad this movie was. Oliver Stone has definately sunk to a new low. It don't compare with Scarface, I'll tell ya that. It's not even worth seeing to tell ya the truth. It's just a horrible depiction of Alexander and my dear friends, I wish that even I could've been in charge of writing this movie. Oliver Stone is now a writer whom I dislike.

I give it a 3/10. A real piece of garbage.

__________________
"You need people like me..."

i will probably see this tomorrow regardless...look even demille's the ten commandments wasn't accurate biblical history, but i loved it nevertheless and its' still a classic...so we'll see..right now i can't really judge except to say what do you expect..it's hollywood and oliver stone...

Half the drama being homosexual seems logical if Alexander was a bisexual (=half a homosexual).

I've heard that most critics in US (except Gore Vidal) have dissed this movie and many here in Sweden have done that too. But many swedish critics have also seen some good things in it. What's interesting is that what Krack seems to see as failures these critics see as the good things. The fact that Oliver Stone does not back down to the (presumable) demands from Hollywood and the mainstream audience and actually portraits Alexander as the bisexual he (presumably) was is applauded by some critics whose reviews I've read. One critic, Michael Tapper (chief editor of International Film and reviewer in Sydsvenska Dagbladet, one of the biggest swedish morning papers), also wrote about the great battle scenes, which he thought really depicted the legendary strategic warfare that would later influence Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Rommel and Patton in an excellent way.

I just think it's interesting how different people experience the same film. Obviously the american critics, with few exceptions, did not like this film at all. But the swedish critics seem to be of a different opinion. However, none of the reviews I've read has given the film more than 4/5. Overall I would say that the film has received an average or slightly below average grade from the swedish critics. They all found things in the film that was bad or even really bad and some of them completely trashed the film. But, as I said, the reason that made some people in the american audience to get up and leave together with the "crappy battle scenes" were percepted in a different way here in Sweden (judging by the reviews I've read).

I haven't seen it myself yet though, and it doesn't seem to be the paranoid symbolism-packed Pax Americana parallel I'd hoped for. But I am still anxious to see it since I still find Stone interesting being the scriptwriter/director he is (has been?).

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I never understood people leaving the theater. Seriously, you paid your 13 bucks, why the hell would you get up and leave, at least finish the damn movie. The only movie I left was Men in Black because I was 7 and was scared ****less, so my dad and me left the theater. I've hated myself for that ever since.

__________________
"All I have in this world is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for no one."

Thanks for heads up, although i will probably see it just because its a big movie and i want to see it, like others surely will. After disappointment with Troy, i wasnt expecting much.
PS, Stone didnt direct Scarface, he just wrote the script, i dont know if thats what you were referring to, him wiritng both scripts, but well, Brain De Palma directs Scarface

__________________

Upon seeing the trailer and seeing who was involved, I wanted to see this film but now that it's been so critically trashed, I'm not so sure anymore. Who else has seen it?

I've seen the movie and my opinion: it's an interesting interpretation of historical events. Not quite what I would have done, but interesting nonetheless. It is somewhat long and drawn out--it could have done a whole lot better if some of the monologues were cut short and more emphasis had been placed on the action/adventure dimension. All-in-all, it wasn't bad, but not the greatest either. I hear that Richard Burton made a movie about Alexander too. It would be interesting to compare that one with this one. About Alexander's gayness: personally, I thought it was exaggerated! Perhaps it has been downplayed by the history books and Oliver Stone felt compelled to make a major issue out of it, but who knows? It's a fact that the Greeks did tend to take male bonding pretty seriously--but is that necessarily to be equated with sodomy? Can't say for sure, as I'm no expert in the subject! Anyway, it isn't a bad movie, but it could have been a whole lot better. For example, Oliver Stone completely bypasses Alexander's conquest of Egypt and the founding of the Egyptian city of Alexandria, only having Ptolemy mention it in passing in one of his extended lectures. It would have been a whole lot more interesting to have depicted this first-hand rather than have someone allude to it. From a historical standpoint, the Egyptian city of Alexandria had the greatest library in the ancient world which was loaded with literary treasures from classical Greece and which was callously burned to the ground by Julius Caesar when he invaded Egypt. It would have been interesting to contrast Alexander's interest in spreading culture and education with Roman brutality epitomized in the burning of the library of Alexandria and the destruction (in many cases, permanent) of so many great literary classics. Oliver Stone completely omitted this in his movie, sadly.

this film wasn't all that bad, but it wasn't that good either..if they would've let anthony hopkins narrate and nothing else, the film would've been much better...the battle scenes were long, bloody and drawn out, two was too much to show...i kept getting the soldiers mixed up and at some points you couldn't keep track of what was going on...the homosexual references didn't bother me at all...colin farrell's performance as alexander was good as was anthony hopkins (ptolomy) whom i always thoroughly enjoy...other than that, the movie is a total mess...

I agree with most everything you said except it was the Turks who burned down the library. You're definitely right about him exaggerating his bi-sexual behavior. Even if he was that nuts about men, why the hell fill up half the movie with it when there are SO MANY THINGS ABOUT HIM that would be SO MUCH BETTER to fill up the movie with. It's almost as if he didn't want people to like this movie because he set himself up for it by his stupid foolish writing! Where was the Glory of Alexander? There was very little. Where was his charisma? None. Why didn't he go into more detail with Alexander's invasion of Persia? Here, let me roll up my sleeves on this and get this all out because I don't think I expressed my anger well enough in my first post like I promised.
Okay, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to first point out what Oliver did wrong moreover, what made this into such a bad movie and a lousy depiction of Alexander. Then I'm going to explain to you guys what I would've done (I 'm a writer by the way and once again, I know the history of Alexander like the back of my hand) and don't give me any of this "Oh. well that's easy to say after the movie already came out." because I assure you his movie did not effect my opinion on how it should have been made. There have been too many ancient war movies lately to believe such nonsense. Here we go...
Oliver Stone had it all. Period. His project was started before anyone elses, he had a tremendous budget, his cast was almost undeservingly great (spare Alexander and I would've cast Philip different even though Val Kilmer did a great job [or the best he could]) and he was writing it. All that was truly a sign that this was going to be the greatest ancient war movie ever. Not to mention Oliver Stone has written action movies and dramas before including Scarface which was like the Greatest movie ever. And Tony Montana had so much in commen with Alexander. It was a no-brainer before release this movie was going to be huge, a tremendous success. But Oliver Stone in mine and most other's opinion failed miserably almost as if he didn't want people to see this movie and to have Warner Bros. lose money.
First off, he started the movie at the battle of Gaugamela which for you people out there not acquainted with ancient history was probably the greatest ancient battle of all time. In size, in tactics, in the two leaders of each army, etc, etc. I could go on. Alexander was outnumbered atleast 4 to 1! This can be defeated today but not in those days. A margin like that almost means undoubtable defeat. I would have never ever ever ever ever made this the beginning of the film. The people are not yet ready for that sort of thing, nor are they properly intorduced to the characters. Also, the battle depiction wasn't that good. Ofcourse it wouldn't be if you practically open the movie with this battle. But the main problem was you could barely figure out the movement of troops and what the hell was going on. very fast cuts for an audience who just sat down like 15 minutes ago. Also, Darius III, leader of Persia, had no lines in the movie. If you know anything about the story, Darius probably had the biggest part besides Alexander's parents. He was in the movie briefly. There was a lot more to him and a lot worthy of putting into the movie. Then the movie drags on with him conquering all the capitals and all that. Then he's introduced to the culture and the people and everything else. The wrost part of this segment of the movie was WHAT THE HELL WAS WITH OLIVER MAKING ALEXANDER KISS THAT ******* DRAG QUEEN!!! That would'nt have happened because Alexander was not in my opinin truly gay. It was just his culture. He would never do something like that to someone he doesn't even know. Not to mention it made the audience cringe and made you wonder why the hell that was in there. Then it goes on with all his subordinated arguing and stuff which is all fine and good but none of the character's had a proper introduction so you never really knew who the hell they were in context and the diologue was just awful. Alexander was definitely a flat character which is rediculous. He was A GREAT CHARACTER. one of the brightest in history and Oliver made him out to this guy that thought like a kid and was all screwed up. Alexander the great wasn't. HE KNEW WHO HE WAS! HE WAS ALEXANDER THE GREAT! HE WAS NO PUSSY!
AS for the flashbacks, they were ok. I personally didn't prefer it. I think it would have been better if he started the story from scratch like normal people. It's almost as if he was researching the movie while writing the flashbacks! Just awful. And the movie stabs at Alexander's character quite a lot, thanks to Hopkin's documentary-style narration which I thought didn't work at all. I mean why narrate? Make A MOVIE FOR GOD's SAKE! Let the characters tell the story and lead you through it! And as for the Homo drama, I don't think I have to go into that. You guys know.
And The Indian Battle was terrible too. Even worse than the first in my opinion. That one was totally inaccurate. He was never shot by an arrow on his horse. They weren't even fighting a standing army. They were trying to take an Indian city and had already penetrated into the heart of India. Alexander ran into the city so fast, his army couldn't catch him. He just started killing every person he saw. Unstoppable! And then someone shot him with an arrow, destroying his believe that he was a God and in the bloodline of Zeus. Every part of the movie he did was either crap or could've been done better. No part of the movie stands out in my mind as "Couldn't have done it better myself" which happens a lot when I see movies. That would show me the writer exercised his talents.
In my own movie, I would've started it from the beginning and made it about Philip and Alexander's relations with Greece, The conquering of Persia and Alexander's greatness, always exceeding expectations. I would have made it a movie of triumphant irony. How nobody thought he could defeat the Persians but not only does he, he takes over the whole ******* world. That's what people want to see! And that's what really happened! He became the infamous admiration of the World! I would've also made his character more productively dynamic instead of emotionally dynamic. I would have made him a ruthless, intelligent visionary that sits there and's like, "I don't give a fuk! Who the fuk you think you're talking too!!! But I'd make him at the same time, have a tender side including sentimentals, his love for the Illiad...Hephaiston (ha ha) and so on. And they never showed his navy! He didn't have the best navy but they totally left out the seige of tyre which was just NUTS!!! If you guys don't know what happened at the seige of Tyre, read about it, it's just rediculous. He totally obliterated them (as he always did)! The battle scenes would have been much more detailed and militaristic and the King Darius would have been in the movie since early on. After all, coincidentally, Darius took the throne of Persia the same day Alexander was born!! How's that for an opener!?! Judge for yourself who is right.

you know what, i agree with you 100%

I loved it. I didn't have high expectations for it, but it turned out great I think and by keeping it focused on the character and showing him as flawed made me enjoy it that much more. I guess the critics and audiences wanted a heoric action movie that glamorized the man instead of showing him as weak and focusing more on his personal struggles, relationships, and such.

And of course people didn't like the fact that Stone showed him to be bisexual. I think it was a wonderful thing Stone threw in there, and whether it was historically accurate or not doesn't interest me. He showed Farrell's character as loving Leto without any kisses, sex, or odd sex scenes in it.

I don't know why the mainstream media got all worked up about showing him to be bisexual. Seems kinda odd since this is a media that embraces people's rights to live that way, and thinks shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and garbage like that is fashionable.


Whatever. If homosexuallity is shown as something that's fashionable and en vogue, if it's something political and dealing with civil rights, or if it's something completely sexual and kinky, or stereotypical... then it's OK.

Stone's film has none of that, but simply shows it as genuine love (non sexual) between two men. Gasp, God forbid they didn't lower the film to the media's expectations and view on homosexuality. But if that's all people want to see in the movie and criticize it on that issue, whatever.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

If I had been the editor i would have taken about 1 hour off and taken out the homo stuff and put in more blood and gore. peoplw would have loved me for it.

__________________
"An Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
-Ben Kingsley, GHANDI

"Snozberries taste like snozberries"

Hmm. This is one of those great times in Forum talking that I can clearly rip into someone. I'm not going to though because it's obvious there's something wrong with you here. It's either you're a homo yourself or you enjoy whatching men kiss and talk about sex with each other for a half hour. Either way there's something wrong with you. But what's even worse than that is even if hephaiston was a girl, it still would not help the movie to plug it up with dragged out sappy drama that nobody gives a damn about and isn't on record for ever happening anyway. What you don't understand my ill-educated sir is that Alexander did SOOOOOO many things in his life that would've have been a complete and total no-brainer to to put in the movie as a substitute for that you're not even aware of. Maybe you should read up on Alexander to understand what I mean. There are so many things Alexander did that is movie worthy, I'd even ask myself how I could fit ALL OF THAT into three hours. Read up on who Alexander really was before you say such a gay stupid comment like that because you musn't forget, I wrote this review so you must think I know something about Alexander the Great and probably have a good idea about what a good movie of him would be.

Too put in a nutshell, practically.

I think you've totally missed the point again. The point is it does nothing for the film made to depict Alexander because there are too many things he left out of the movie that were much more mentionable but was obsessed in making the movie to have a half hour of homo love which is too long for real love! It was a total stupid thing to exercise in writing a movie about Alexander the Great. It was a waste of time to watch because there were so many more memorable and filmable things about him that you don't even know about. I'm not gonna mention some because you don't really understand who the real person was or you'd be pissed too.

Here is a pretty comprehensive analysis of the various accounts related to the destruction of the library of Alexandria.

Apparently, there is significant evidence (such as an account by the Roman historian Plutarch) linking it with Caesar's invasion of Egypt, though it seems to constitute the minority of opinion among modern historians. The claims that the Turkish Caliph Omar was responsible for its destruction is widely regarded by historians as Medieval Christian propaganda. However, there is substantial evidence suggesting that the destruction of the library is actually attributable to a Christian mob during a period of anti-pagan hysteria during the reign of the Christian Roman Emperor Theodosius in the 4th century.

Thank you for clearing that up. As a matter of fact, while I was typing that and thinking about it, it didn't really seem likely. But I don't think Caesar would have destroyed it because All Roman emperors were envious of Alexander and regarded him as a legend. Also, Rome tried to duplicate Greece's culture as much as possible so it doesn't seem likely a Roman army destroyed it under Caesar's command. Julius was a more learned man than that.

You're right about the Indian battle being totally inaccurate, but about Alexander penetrating into the heart of India is also totally inaccurate. Actually, Alexander never even reached India--he only reached as far as modern-day Afghanistan, which is when his army mutinied and he had to turn back.

The story goes that Caesar's army set fire to some enemy ships and the fire spread to the library, burning it to the ground. However, archaeological evidence disputes that claim. The library was a very solid structure. Apparently, there was some damage to the library caused by the Roman invasion--about 40,000 scrolls lost or so. But the library as a whole survived until the 4th century, it seems.

About so-called Roman "enlightenment"--the fact is that the Romans were widely perceived as brutal and militaristic and having little sympathy for Greek or Hellenistic culture, even though much of Roman culture was derived from Greek culture. In fact, there is an account of the Roman invasion of Syracuse in which a Roman soldier slaughtered the famous Greek mathematician, physicist and astronomer Archimedes because he was in the way of the Roman army. This incident is often regarded a classic example of the antithesis between Roman brutality and Greek high-mindedness.

lol, theres nothing wrong with the fact that that alexander may have been/was bisexual and again there would have been no problem for the movie to give subtle hints to this fact, good god even if he made out with a dude before or after battle that wouldnt bother me, but the fact that this movie seemed to dwell on this fact alone without adressing more of the astounding things this person accomplished seemed like a sin
this i dont agree with, even if he or she does enjoy watching men make out that doesnt mean theres anything wrong with him/her.
ill-educated, perhaps but most certainly entitled to his/her opinion