Oliver Stone's Alexander- America says its crap!

R

Randall P

New member
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alexander/

Jesus, never have i seen a movie get quite a battering, not only in the press, but on many message boarRAB as well (including gay community message boarRAB)!

My friend who lives in L.A went to watch this (mainly fo Colin Farrel :D ) yesterday. But she didn't even get to watch the whole movie because apparently its toooooooooooooooooo long and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay boring (she fell asleep after the first 15 minutes by the way).

It's a pitty since i was quite looking forward to watching this movie, but i'll take my frienRAB advice and wait for it to be available to rent.

But then again, what can we expect from Oliver Stone, a man who has a bigger ego then both Mr Bush and Michael Moore put together ?:rolleyes:

Well the critisem and box-office will seal this movies fate for Oscar stardom, along with Troy, which i predict will only get technical nom noRAB........Thank god!

Ah well, at least this will give Baz Luhrmann the green light to make his version of Alexander now....Watch out for an overly camp/musical Alexander in the year 2006 guys lol. Just kidding.

;)
 
Because America is such a good barometer of taste. FrienRAB anyone?


Also, how can you justify saying the film is TOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOOONG and boring if she fell asleep 15 minutes in? If you are going to make crap up, please be consistent. It makes you look smarter.
 
I guess it depenRAB on what you're looking for in a film. If you want to see lots of battles and wars and adventures, you'll be disappointed. Two big battles, I thought they were done very cleverly but not in an action/adventure film way. This is not a film about Alexander the Field General or Alexander the Conqueror and not really Alexander the Explorer either

If you go to see it for its daring depiction of Alexander as bisexual, you're going to be disappointed (I can't understand the outrage, it was VERY tame, I shouldn't have got my hopes up :rolleyes: )

If you go to see it for the "truth" about Alexander, you're going to be disappointed. You get glimpses and what comes across as Ptolemy's interpretation; Alexander the Dreamer, which, to be honest, felt unconvincing, anachronistic and just stupid really.

However, I'm not sure what I really thought of it. Think I need another go... which I wouldn't even contemplate if it was really bad - that's said, some bits were dire :(

Didn't think it was a minute too long though, I've sat through two-hour films that have felt much longer. But all this is just what I thought...
 
and what does america know about good films, was it not america who slagged of pulp fuction and reservoir dogs???

and they said hellboy was great. yeah right
 
I've seen rather positive reviews and very negative ones - I really think it comes down to people (both viewers and reviewers) expecting this huge action-packed adventure which it really isn't. But if you're expecting something else and/or try to take it as it comes, it can be rather good. As I said above, I really don't know what I think of it yet - liked some bits, didn't like others, thought certain bits were dire and other rather clever - not sure what it amounts to when you try to piece it all together.

I have never understood this obsession about American box office - who cares what film makes most money on its first week (unless you make money as a result?) - in nine cases out of ten the fact that a film has topped the American box office is signals to me that it's not something I'd want to see when it comes to the theatres round here. Doesn't mean I only go and see European films, art house stuff or anything - just don't really like action, American comedy, romantic comedy etc etc....

But that's just me
 
How can you say the m/m was very tame when Alex and Heph are clearly shown to be the love of each others lives? Who cares about voyeuristic smut when you have that?

If the relationship had been just about sex it would have been all 'whatever', the fact that it was deep soul-consuming LOVE is in many ways more shocking.

America doesn't do well with films that are even slightly off the mainstream, Alexander will do much better here in Europe.
 
Well unfortunately no-one *can* read Ptolemy, even if they wanted to (and us Alexander buRAB would dearly love to). His memoirs were all lost.

What we do have however are guys from about the 1st century AD who wrote their own memoirs basing them on the writings of guys who actually knew Alexander (Ptolemy, Aristobolous et al). It's all we've got to go on and from what I hear Stone sticks pretty well to the known facts.

I think he knew America wouldn't like his vision of 'Alexander' but went ahead and did it anyway, because he loves him and wanted to do him justice. I admire the mans balls for that, if nothing else.
 
The thing is though that I couldn't make out how they wanted to portray Alexander and Hephaistion - first of all, if they really wanted to show H as the most important person in A's life, they would have needed to show more of him, especially in their youth. And preferably as not just someone who sits in the corner in the meetings, quiet, and looks like he's been crying all the time.

I wasn't sure if they wanted to suggest it was a sexual relationship or not and I don't really care if they chose to think it wasn't as long as they'd actually known what they were trying to show in the film, lovers in the physical sense, lovers in non-sexual sense or just a pair of blokey mates.

And I guess it would have been easier to see the "love" if it had been a real prensece, not just a few glances here and there and a selection of the most wooden, cheesy and clicheic lines.

"Tame" above was a poor choice of worRAB from me - the huge fuss they've made about it seems to suggest there's something groundbreaking and controversial about Stone's depiction of Alexander which I really think there was even a whiff of. But the fuss did give me the mistaken idea there was actually something... well, daring, were it love or something else. On second thoughts, maybe it is a groundbreaking and controversial of Alexander for the Mr and Ms Average American viewer but it certainly wasn't that for me. Can't "unread" everything I had read before seeing the film which undoubtedly influenced the way I saw it.

Have to pay more attention next time :rolleyes:
 
Well, as Jenna said, it's impossible but I did wonder to what an extent whatever we got in the film was influenced by using Ptolemy writing his memoirs as the framing device - "no, we can't show more of Hephaistion 'cos Ptolemy wouldn't know what he was thinking?"
 
Well honestly speaking, everyone I've asked about the portrayal of Hephaistion as Alexander's main lover said this was the *one* aspect of the film they had no complaints with.

I've done extensive reading on their scenes together and the total love they have for each other (sexual and otherwise) is left in no doubt whatsoever.
 
Very wise decision, Motthus. More should be like you.

And to all the "America has no taste" folks out there - if this was true, ThunderbirRAB, The Stepford Wives, Johnny English and Catwoman would have been huge in the States instead of rightly bombing. They've got plenty of tasteless people there, true, but so do we...
 
Well, it could be just me and probably is. :rolleyes:

I think I've seen Colin Farrell quoted on that they discussed it and decided to do it in a certain way (can't remember what it was exactly but think it was deep affection/love/absolute trust, not sexual). Then I see the film and one scene in it almost suggests sexual jealousy on Hephaistion's part). No wonder I'm confused - as I said earlier, I don't really care how they do it, as long they don't gloss over Hephaistion as the most important person in Alexander's life and as long they do it consistently. And as far as I'm concerned, I felt they failed slightly on the first count and more significantly on the second. Of course I'm pleased that they actually tried to do the first properly, after the ridiculous business with Patroclus as Achilles's "younger cousin" in Troy.

Just my view of course. I wouldn't be quite this disappointed if I hadn't been looking forward to the film so much
 
I've seen it now, through the wonderful fact that my mate is a toerag, and it isn't good. All the story is there (hence the length), but the content isn't. Saying 'it's too long' is a valid statement after seeing it, as it has many pointless drawn out sections. The editor should be shot, or at least maimed.

Wooden and boring, and this is from someone who can't stand 'Blockbuster' movies with action and explosions, but does need to be kept interested and entertained.

And even if you believe the American public have no taste, they have some very good film writer/reviewers, and as usual, Rottentomatoes.com, has pretty much hit the spot. Please don't quote reviews from mags such as Empire for goRAB sake. You might aswell listen to one of the bloody Ross brothers.

Watch After the Sunset and this, back to back, and I assure you, you'll be begging for a copy of The Wicker Man, or *insert good film here* after.
 
I usually find Empire spot on with the majority of their reviews apart from a few exceptions. Paul Ross I tend to find would not know a good film if it hit him in the face as you tend to find his name on quotes on the posters of really bad films!
 
You're spot on with Ross, he's a media whore. Just wants to be liked. I still find Empire to generous towarRAB most Hollywood films, whatever their quality, but I guess i'm a bit harsh there.

Hotdog and TotalFilm used to be good, but i've been put off by recent (last year or two) issues. Now, even though it can be a poncey bastard at times, Sight and Sound is a quality mag. None of this star/out of ten/five system, just a well written, mostly honest review.
 
Back
Top