Hi, just wanted to know what people think of the film in general.
Historical accuracy, character portrayal? Etc. etc..
Come on Hellenophiles!
Printable View
Hi, just wanted to know what people think of the film in general.
Historical accuracy, character portrayal? Etc. etc..
Come on Hellenophiles!
I thought the battle scenes were not bad, but they weren't enough (in my opinion). I'm not going to comment on the historical accuracy (I'll let someone with a greater knowledge than I do that).
But I did enjoy the scenerary such as the Hanging Gardens in the background when they reach the City of Babylon. Supposedly it flopped in the cinema due to the 'gayness' of the film, i.e. the audiences couldn't connect or be drawn to Alexander and Hephaistian? That's what I heard on tv when it came out.
About the battle scenes.... yeah, I felt that Gaugamela could have been a bit longer and the Battle of Hydaspes... just plain historically inaccurate. Fun though.
Wasn't it on a swampy flood-plain, not some random jungle?
Yeah and about the gay thing.... well, American audiences didn't really appeal to it, I think. Neither did some Greeks for that matter - some guys were actually thinking of taking legal action, lol.
I found it boring, I cheered for elephants to put an end to it.:grin2:
I need to run to class so I'll post more at the end of the day, but as a preface to what I think, in my opinion the film failed on all accounts regardless of what it attempted to do (either as an historical epic or a biopic).
I absolutely despised the movie. There are some things my friends now know they shouldn't mention around me, 300 and Alexander are two movies they have learned not to mention.
EDIT: Also, where was Seleukos?!
It think that movie wasnt great but It was an honest approach. Taking all the gay scence in the movie was brilliant. Finally somebody acknowledging the antic love for men :egypt:
Dont get me wrong I am not gay, but I think if its part of a culture like in the hellenistic world it should be shown in movies.
The movie had no scenes with 'gay' overtones - it had scenes with 'bisexual' overtones - which is not the same thing. (Although 'Bible Belt' audiences may not understand this.)
Some ancient Greeks were bisexual - none were gay. Relationships with other men were to be in addition to relationships with women - not instead of! A Greek man who did not marry and father children was a failure as a man.
What the movie should have shown, to depict this accurately, is Hephaistion's marriage, as well as Alexander's. He did get married historically, to a Persian princess, but only four months before his death.
I liked the movie.
How can you say none of the Ancient Greeks were gay? Did you live with them and know this for a fact?
Back to the movie...
I hoped so much more from this movie. Forget the inacuracys, even if you are a history buff, this movie gets so BORING. Incredible.
Oliver Stone managed to do a movie about one of the greatest generals ever, into a 3 hour wanna be drama, with only 15 minutes in total of battle footage, and those inacurate as well.
I did like the battle of Gaugamela/Issus though. It shows at least the phalanx, and how it operated. I feared that Hollywood would forget about it, and do a Charge scene like in Gladiator:laugh4:
Actually, I dissagree (somewhat). The film is supposed to be the (now lost) account of Ptolemy; Arrian notwithstanding it was irrc described by commentators as petty, Hellenocentric and inaccurate. The third cut of the film is better organised, and the battle scenes are much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
At the end of the day, it presents a human and flawed Alexander from the point of view of one of his friends looking back in his dotage. On those terms I actually think it's OK.
though it should not be used as historical reference(like most movies) the battle scenes were very puny(just limiting the sight is no excuse for beeing cheap) I found it ok. none of my favorites but ok to watch, my main problem with the movie was that Olympia was just marginally older than Alexander^^.
I think the movie simply lacks focus, in terms of who it was made for. too few battles for us and people who just like war movies, to much Hollywood for Intelectuals and too much bi for the man in the street.
Yes its supposed to be a first person narrative told by Ptolemy. The only part I truly enjoyed was the first battle scene. The pacing was terrible. The characterization was okay. The gayness might have been a little over the top(IE shoved in our faces to say 'HE WAS BISEXUAL!!!!' instead of better working it into the film naturally). Roxanna was cute ^_^.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
All in all the final cut of it was an okay film. Not great, not terrible. It was strictly average.
Dutchhoplite, I hope you are joking. For all three hours of the movie duration I hoped somebody would kill Olympias very soon. Actually I don't like Angelina Jolie in any movie, but this was worse than her standard. She was very disturbing. There are characters which are disturbing in a good way, but this is not that case. :thumbsdown:
About the movie: there is nothing I would criticize (OK, except Olympias :beam:), there are few inaccuracies (observed by my untrained eye), especially in the description of Persian army, but still is a lot better than in most Hollywood historical movies, but I didn't enjoy it. On the other hand, Kingdom of heaven which is far more historically inaccurate was one the most enjoyable historical movies I have seen.
I look forward to read abou's review.
To me every way of disturbing is a new kind of adventure!I always found Olympias an interesting historical character.
IMHO, the film was probably decently done, but not great. Long, very long, and still not being able to cover most of the events. Maybe to much focus on the drama instead of the war.
Kingdom of heaven was a better movie yes. More coherent. A shame Orlando Bloom cant act.
Well I think there have been far worse "historical" movies than that. May I remind you of the first Beowulf with Dolph Lundgren, if I remember well. And that's why I guess we (as: "we history-nerds") shouldn't be to demanding about "historical" movies. I think for someone with no Idea at all, its quite educating.
Although I don't despise A.J. that much and I think she's pretty, I found her very misplaced as Alex mom. Was she like 5yrs old or what? And this stupid "epeirote" accent. It reminds me of the annoying Women-scenes in 300. Although I understand that otherwise this movie had been a 90 min MANOWAR video... just my opinion man.
I personally didn't like the film very much although I quess it must have been because it was a typical hollywood film even not so inaccurate as they used to be... I wasn't fond of the "Bi sexual claimes" because I thouth it concentratet more on that then the real achievament of Alxender (im my humble opinion) and took away a lot of time which could have been used better. I liked the battle scenes although they weren't quite as accurate is I had hoped...
(Also I have been hoping (and still do) that if another film is made about the history of Alexander then it should be done like the french (?) did a few years agove with "Napoleon" - a four part (very long) movie showing Napoleon life from his childhood al the way to his death on St. Helena with every of his battles and important events he witnessed took part in.)
I found the odd accents too distracting.
Farrell either can't or won't do accents- so suddenly every Macedonian has an Irish accent. OK. I can see the logic there- make them fit in with Alexander. Except Ptolemy. Hopkins does do accents, but maybe his Irish one is bad. So one Macedonian general sounds Welsh.
Then Olympias gets given a cod-Transylvanian accent- perhaps Jolie looked it up on the map and that's the closest she could do.
Really distracting from the actual plot. Which didn't cover anything very well from a historical viewpoint. It came close to doing well as a story of Alexander's personality and how it changed. But for that you need to include his time in Egypt, I think, which didn't happen.
What are we left with from the general slating it's being given? The pikes looked good at Gaugamela, and Babylon was spectacular.
_____________
You can explain the absence of Seluekos quite easily. It's Ptolemy doing the narrating.
I think that it's obvious that the movie has many flaws- for me one of the worst was the dodgy accents. I understand the theory- to snobby Athenians, the Macedonians had comically rustic speech, like a Yorkshireman to a Londoner or a Kerryman to a Dubliner- but Oliver Stone et al totally failed to carry it off. In the mouths of Val Kilmer and Jared Leto, the accents were just farce, and even Colin Farrell sounded like an American trying to impersonate a Brit. Granted, his native accent is North Dublin scumbag (like me!), but he should have been able to do better. And Angelina's wierd Egyptian/Russian/whatever was just bizzare. It made it impossible to take the dialogue seriously.
The hair, also, was bad. It was a mistake to try and make Colin Farrell a blond- he looked like someone gone to a fancy-dress party in a Hutch wig - and Val looked like someones piss-drunk Uncle at a Christmas do who put a shag rug on his head. The music sucked it as well.
Having said that, there is a good movie in there somewhere. The Ptolemy/Anthony Hopkins flashback as framing device is o.k., and aside from the accents many of the performances were good. If the film was totally redubbed, re-edited, and had a new soundtrack, it could be very good. But there is a lot of Alexander's life missing: early Illyrian campaigns, exile, the Battle of Chaeronea (we could've had the Sacred Band!), the Gordian Knot, the trip to the Oasis of Siwa (how could that be left out?), the brutal Siege of Tyre, the whole problem of adopting Persian dress and proskynesis- and the increasing number of executions and plots. I realize that there were time constraints involved, but still, different choices as to what to include could have been made.
One more nit to pick: the Battle of Hydaspes was totally botched- everything about it is wrong. I especially didn't like the whole slow-motion/trippy colours thing, but the whole fighting-in-a-jungle-just-like-in-Vietnam-oh-how-clever was just crap. A huge missed opportunity.
There is also very little focus on other Macedonians, making the whole mutiny inexplicable. Alexander's policy of rewarding defeated enemies like Porus really alienated his Generals and soldiers, and there is almost nothing of that in the film.
SO, for me, more negative than positive. Could've and should've been great. Ollie really missed the mark on that one- but on the other hand, I'm glad that Ridley Scott didn't have a go at it. I'm so tired of his bombast. Maybe Peter Jackson?
EDIT: Jinx! Maeran posted while I was writing.
Welcome, Doctor Ptolemy...to Macedonia. Buahahahahahaha!Quote:
Then Olympias gets given a cod-Transylvanian accent- perhaps Jolie looked it up on the map and that's the closest she could do.
I had the feeling that the, as stated before, the pace of the movie was weird. It just didn't really aim for anything. I think that the decadent feeling of the later time of the conquest of Alexander wasn't executed (that well).
There are a number of reasons why I think Alexander fails - and on multiple levels. I don't want to get into this with the attitude of, "Well, where do I begin?" since it's been too long since I've seen the movie; I would need to see it again and then take notes so I could go into such an extensive review (similar to Red Letter Media and his 70 minute The Phantom Menace review). I'll just hit on some main points to clarify.
From the perspective of simply a good movie:
Stone's Alexander fails on this in a number of ways. In fact, he seems to have suddenly decided to follow the George Lucas school of movie making. Leaving aside the terrible acting, one of the things he does is bring up a topic and either never touches on it again or runs in the complete opposite direction of it (Example: Alexander's Oedipal complex... which came out of freaking nowhere).
Stone also seems to have a hard time with hitting major "beats" successfully. He creates opportunities for himself, but veers widely from the mark. Even ignoring how confusing and poorly laid out the battle sequences are - nonsensical even* - he completely butchered the pre-battle speech at Gaugamela. Rather than focusing on every word Alexander says in order to hype the audience and pull them into the movie, he has the camera chasing this eagle around in the sky. You don't really bother following what Alexander is saying. It's pointless to even have it in the film then if you don't focus on it.
Another major problem is the lack of tension at points throughout the movie. If he was going to completely pull the battle scene at the Hydaspes out of his ass, he could at least make it seem as though Alexander was in major trouble. It felt a lot like Indiana Jones 4 where, regardless of the events, you just don't care what happens. Hell, even in the weakest of the original Indiana Jones trilogy Temple of Doom, even after having seen it multiple times, there are still plenty of moments where you're at the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens. There was, however, one good moment filled with plenty of tension and a rare moment of good acting - the scene where Alexander kills Cleitus... and that was it.
From a historical perspective:
Any historical film is going to take liberties. It's true. To do such a film such as Alexander that is going to follow the life of an individual for over three decades means you're going to need to drastically compress it or exclude things. That being said, there are good ways to do this and bad ways. Moving Alexander's injury from a siege in India to the Battle of the Hydaspes: not great, but acceptable. Moving Cleitus' saving of Alexander from Granicus to Gaugamela: smart. Completely ignoring Chaeronea, the Balkans campaigns, the Siege of Tyre, and offhandedly remarking the visit to the Oracle of Zeus-Ammon: BAD.
Choices like these mar the movie. Furthermore, you don't really get much perspective on what happens and where. An example would be the assassination of Parmenio. Yeah, it's in Media.
From the biopic perspective:
This is perhaps the entry that could easily be the longest. Any biopic should not only focus on the events that the protagonist experiences in his life, but also his character. Think about it: you want to watch a movie on T. E. Lawrence and his exploits, but instead you get a movie featuring a dude with a cockney drawl who sits in a cave all day.
Alexander's character was one that must have been incredibly charismatic; maybe even intoxicating to be around since he was able to convince so many to follow him for so long without rest. What about those moments which defined or irrevocably altered his character? What about that time he was told he was the son of a god by an authority on the matter? How it changed him for the worst?
Exactly.
That isn't even mentioning many important events (see above). Instead, Stone focuses very much on moments of homoeroticsm. That wouldn't have been a big deal except that that isn't what defined Alexander. The Greek/Macedonian world had homosexuals in it - of course they did - but Alexander also took several wives without concern. The main point of this is that Alexander enjoyed sex (and really, who doesn't?). Big deal. Either do something of consequence with Alexander and Hephaestion or make room for more important things - such as Alexander conquering the world and descent into alcoholism, paranoia, and generally being a complete dick to his friends.
Anyway, I hope you guys see where I'm going with this. I'm getting close to 900 words so at this point I'm going to stop. Maybe some day I'll rewatch the movie (or one of the dozen extended editions) and do a more thorough write-up. There were a lot of points brought up in the thread so I'll try to address a few of them quickly.
The movie was supposed to be from the view of Ptolemy: From what I remember, there was one scene where Ptolemy actually had spoken lines within the narrative itself.
What about Seleucus: Seleucus didn't really do much until we start getting to India. Even then, his main function during Alexander's life was in the royal guard and role as military police chief. There are the propaganda stories of the bull and the diadem, but unless you want to make a sequel, putting them in there only detracts from the main story.
*"Back and to the left! Back and to the left!" - Seriously? You have absolutely no freaking clue what is going on in your own damn movie and the best you can do is enter a reference to the movie you made on the JFK assassination? Also, the music sucked.
EDIT: According to the_persian_cataphract, the representation of the Persian army is also quite bad. Search the forum for an extensive analysis on this.
I didn't like the movie, and for historical accuracy it got some things wrong, but that isn't what was wrong with it.
Does Alexander ever give a reason for wanting to destroy the Persian Empire or is that major part of the plot rest 100% with the viewer?
Not only do they have Irish accents, but they have Cork accents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeran
Heresy of heresies!
Some people around here joke that "Alexander" is actually about the People's Republic of Cork conquering Persia.
wut? I'm not Irish, so pardon my ignorance, but is there something I missed about Cork here? and, come to think of it, why is Cork called Cork? wierd name when you think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishHitman
anyways;
well, I'm not really here to add original opinion, but I do want to comment additionally to abou:Quote:
Originally Posted by Abou
well, to quote spoony: "HMMMM that's good Macguffin". sarcasm aside, I find Oliver stone's use of the Macguffin (yes, that's what its called), especially that annoying eagle, the creepy Snake scene, and the cave, to be very confused. And its kinda unecessary. I feel that Stone could have cut them up, and replace them with more fighting. I know that the 1956 version was WAY better, even if its not as accurate aethetically* (when compared to research as of 2004). it had 3 or 4 battles, and a siege or two. compare that to 2 fighting scenes in Alexander (2004). granted, there's excessive exposition in both movies, but the latter movie is WAY to exposition-ridden.**
Another really annoying problem with the movie was the way it kept jumping chronology. One moment Alexander is in Babylon, the next, the dip---- cuts to the point where Philip gets bumped off, or some similar scene from the period before Alexander's Kingship, which as mentioned above is unncessary exposition. it even affects the battles, where, as abou complained, keeps jumping from one flank to another. once or twice might be okay, but half-dozen or so? nah
but to me, the most disappointing aspect of the movie was simply the lack of campaigning history (as abou said). Its Alexander for God's sake, not some movie version of the young and the restless, which is what is frankly came accross as. I'd expect more marching, fighting, speeches, and all that other war stuff. The general audience is not interested in the full sex life of Alexander, or whether he has an Oedipus complex or not; people, when they see that promo poster/trailer, expect fighting, carnage, and gore. think on it: the promotional poster indicated little of what the movie was going to be, and was somewhat misleading. just look:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nderPoster.jpg
just Alexander (in full armor), with his parent in the background, along with large masses of soldiers. One, at most, expects something of the parents, and perhaps, Ptolemy (who is hidden in the background, in a "hidden" corner). Now you fellas realize why the movie tanked in America? in fact, the gain was minimal for such a large budget movie.
overall, Alexander suffers from many of the problems that Oliver Sone movies suffer from: too much personal exposition and out of place macguffins, that lend a feeling of crappy alternate theory movies, like those crappy Graham Hancock documentaries that say aliens built the pyramids or some similar crud...
*yeah, I know the Iranian people were innacurately depicted.
**yes, I think the 1956 Alexander was better as a movie. there is NO convincing me.
Well, Cork people consider themselves "different" to the rest of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
Hence the "People's Republic of Cork", the "Rebel County" and "The Real Capital of Ireland" being their self proclaimed nicknames...
Cork is called Cork because the English couldn't be arsed with "Corcaigh".
The guy who screwed Lord of the Rings, in just as pathetical a way as Stone screwed Alexander? Better not think about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Really good critiques here, by the way.
wow...talk about pride. so I guess this city is to Ireland what Texas is to the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishHitman
well, at least I now know what this city's actual name is.:balloon2:
OP, forget what everyone said. Just kidding. Listen, though, and listen well. Know that whether or not Alexander the film was an accurate representation of Alexander the Great is not as important as another question. That is, was Alexander right in killing so many people? Macedonians died, Persians died, and many others whose people's I very sadly do not know the names of as I haven't looked into Alex's life. Was it right? Did all those litre's of blood really need spilling? Think on it over the weekend. I know you will see it.
Peace,
Vartan
That's an interesting comparison :laugh4:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
Yes, Corcaigh means "The Land of the Hairy-backed Bog Savages". For more information on this fascinating and exotic city, go here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
It's directed by Oliver Stone, it is terrible by definition.