The Movie Alexander

I just watched this film by Oliver Stone simply named Alexander. There is nothing simple about this movie. Before seeing the film I was heavily inclined not to watch it by a plethera of critics on bothe sides of the pond. I took the chance though and it paid off in spades. I was amazed by how good this movie(not only compared to what critics stated). The sheer depth of the relationships went beyond what I expected. I have very high standards mind you.

Does anyone else have favorable or unfavorable view of this movie and if so why. Granted you have seen the movie that is. If you haven't and you post here then you have to beware of my fury. I beleave some of you have had that experience.

I'll take a 50% risk of feeling your fury BP.~:) I've not seen the movie yet but I did get the soundtrack by Vangelis and it is quite good. I was a Vangelis fan up until about the mid-80's and haven't liked much of what he's done since (non-movie related), but the Alexander soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to. It sounds like it would fit the atmosphere of the movie despite some synthesizers. It has enticed me to at least want to see the movie despite the negative reviews, though I doubt I'll get out see it before it comes on DVD. This is unfortunate in that it seems like Alexander is one of those movies that benefits from being seen on a big screen.


(Waits to see if having the soundtrack is good enough for BP :hide: )

I finally got around to see the movie last Friday. After all the negative critics I thought I might skip it, although I was looking forward to it for quite some time.

Turned out it was a good decision to see it after all. Overall I really enjoyed the movie for the following reasons:
- Historical accuracy

- A very impressive battle of Gaugamela

- It refreshingly differed from the typical Hollywood fast-food in having a lot of edges that were not smoothed.

- It inspired me to find out more about the historical events (and that's what a historical movie really should do). After the movie I realized that my knowledge of Alexander the great was mostly based on what I learned in school and what I read on this board - so when coming home at night I was digging up some old books to get some additional knowledge (and to get an idea of the "accuracy" of the movie).
The next day I ordered some additional reading material ~D

Some negatives remain, though:

- There is a vast discrepancy between the Alexander described by the narrator and the Alexander the audience actually sees on screen. The picture the narrator paints is that of a truly grat man - what we see on screen is an Alexander torn apart by his feelings towards mother, father and lover and who permanently has difficulties convincing his companions of his plans and permanently faces treason.

- The relationship between Alexander and his mother and between Alexander and Hephaistion was overdone. It's good to see these relationships in the movie (something Troy was lacking) but they became the main focus of the movie and the main historical events almost degenerated into decoration compared to these relationships.

- Oliver Stone did not succeed in actually building a connection between the audience and the main protagonists of the movie, and some scenes seemed rather long-winded. This worked fine for me but large parts of the audience were thoroghly bored (this was the first time that I saw people being so bored that they left during the movie).
Ok - one might ask, why should I care about people who don't appreciate a good movie. The point this is why the movie failed at the box office and that this failure might lead to difficulties of future historical accurate movies getting the necessary budgets - which would be quite a pity, especially as I believe that the movie could have been made a bit more "appealing to the masses" without sacrificing the positive aspects.

Bottom line:
I enjoyed it, I will enjoy reading more about Alexander and his time, and I will buy the DVD ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Does anyone else have favorable or unfavorable view of this movie and if so why.

---

I haven't, but I have read the same reviews as you and they put me off. Now you and Ser Clegane have just convinced me that I should go and watch it after all.
Thanks m8's :bow:

Well made scene after well made scene, but it fails as a movie, no cohesion.

I had heard nothing but the negative about the movie. Many of the reviews came from folks on this website and not just from the Americans here. But I'll have to see it now. The wife bought me Troy the other day. I have more entertainment trimming my nostril hair.

She also bought me the Village, I loved it.

Dave, there was a thread on this in the Monastery forum where some Org members - e.g. Kraxi, IIRC - said it was pretty good from the point of view of those interested in the military history of the period.

Most positive thing: Gaugamela was probably the best ancient battle scene ever depicted in a movie.

Stone really tried to make a good historical movie not just some action fast food despite some historical inaccuracies. But I think the film suffers from a major problem: Alexander´s life was practically a constant war and you can´t show an entire war in a movie. There are so many narratives in it that you have the impression someone tells you the movie instead of really watching it.

I have to disagree with some of you. I think the only shortcoming this movie had was that it was too short(along with alexander's hair, but I don't really mind). Alexander's life deserves a 4 or 5 hour movie. I know most ADD americans(and some europeans) will hate that but then again who asked those kinds of people to watch. This movie isn't Troy. It's not made in hollywood. For those that don't know this movie was financed by German and french banks including some british people. Sure there is only two battles but what do you expect, these are battles!!! They are long, you can't show every battle(there was like 50 of them). You'de go insane.

Quote:

---

- There is a vast discrepancy between the Alexander described by the narrator and the Alexander the audience actually sees on screen. The picture the narrator paints is that of a truly grat man - what we see on screen is an Alexander torn apart by his feelings towards mother, father and lover and who permanently has difficulties convincing his companions of his plans and permanently faces treason.

---

Yes the narrator seens kin of full of it because of his enormous admiration for what alxander stood for, not how his feelings were. Overall I don't find this such a big problem.

Quote:

---

- The relationship between Alexander and his mother and between Alexander and Hephaistion was overdone. It's good to see these relationships in the movie (something Troy was lacking) but they became the main focus of the movie and the main historical events almost degenerated into decoration compared to these relationships.

---

Overdone? Well they made the movie more enjoyble to me. It gave the characters a lot of depth as you said Troy was lacking completely. IT's a movie though, of course the relationships between people will be the main focus. This isn't the History chanell. The movie is more historically accurate then the history chanel's Alexander IMO(except for the hair of course). :furious3:

IT's not a perfect movie, but It's probably the best historical movie I have ever seen. Spartacus coming close second.

I give is 9/10.

I can sum up Oliver Stone's "Alexander" in one word...

GARBAGE

And furthermore, I'd like to add the following...

DO NOT PAY FULL PRICE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!

See a matinee showing, get a discount, rent it or wait for it to come out on cable! Heed my words because you have been warned!

My opinion of Alexander dropped even more (if that's possible!) when I caught Lawrence of Arabia on cable a week or so after seeing it.

I want my $10 and those three hours of my life back! :furious3:

so Spino,

i don't understand, did you like the movie or not? your post seemed kinda unclear. ~;)

Lol Nokhor, I guess Spino is a homophobe. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

My opinion of Alexander dropped even more (if that's possible!) when I caught Lawrence of Arabia on cable a week or so after seeing it.

---

Funny that you mention "Lawrence of Arabia" in this context, Spino.

When my wife and I discussed the "Alexander" movie and its shortcomings (the ones I mentioned in my previous post) after we had seen it on Friday, "Lawrence of Arabia" was exactly the movie of which we thought that it would be a good "peer" that succeeded in areas where "Alexander" failed - combining the greatness and the torn character of the main protagonist in a believable way and allowing the audience to actually "connect" with the main characters, even if these characters were not the most likeable ones.

It's hard to describe what really made the difference, but we had the feeling that a combination of the historical accuracy of the Alexander movie and the ability to actually tell a story that can be seen in Lawrence would have made a truly great movie of the (IMO) already good and interesting Alexander movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Funny that you mention "Lawrence of Arabia" in this context, Spino.

When my wife and I discussed the "Alexander" movie and its shortcomings (the ones I mentioned in my previous post) after we had seen it on Friday, "Lawrence of Arabia" was exactly the movie of which we thought that it would be a good "peer" that succeeded in areas where "Alexander" failed - combining the greatness and the torn character of the main protagonist in a believable way and allowing the audience to actually "connect" with the main characters, even if these characters were not the most likeable ones.

It's hard to describe what really made the difference, but we had the feeling that a combination of the historical accuracy of the Alexander movie and the ability to actually tell a story that can be seen in Lawrence would have made a truly great movie of the (IMO) already good and interesting Alexander movie.

---

That's exactly why I mentioned it. Movies like Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago & Bridge over the River Kwai (David Lean is THE epic filmmaker of all time) are perfect examples of how to make an epic. Lean mastered the art of telling a grand sweeping story without losing focus on the individuals. Furthermore all of Lean's movies were laden with top notch actors, especially Alex Guinness who got a major part in virtually all of his films. On the other hand Stones' last several films are clearly are lacking in the talent department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Most positive thing: Gaugamela was probably the best ancient battle scene ever depicted in a movie.

Stone really tried to make a good historical movie not just some action fast food despite some historical inaccuracies. But I think the film suffers from a major problem: Alexander´s life was practically a constant war and you can´t show an entire war in a movie. There are so many narratives in it that you have the impression someone tells you the movie instead of really watching it.

---

I think I would go along with this. Although I thought from the overhead views it was not clear enough how completely outnumbered they were at Gaugamela.
Too much of Alexander's skill as a commander was overshadowed by the constant homosexual overtones. Yes, he may well have been fond of the boys but I honestly do not think more than a few minutes elapsed without a meaningful look, hug etc. My family were like " OK we get the picture " more or less all the way through the film.
If Stone had put half as much effort into showing the military genious of Alexander as he did his sexual tendencies, it would have been a truly great movie

.....Orda

You should assume that every look they give is out of sexual needs. Back then it was very common for men to love each other even there wasn't any sex involved. The sex was hugely secondary(if there was any). Even today if you go to those areas of Europe(Greece, Albania, Italy) fathers kiss their sons(and vice versa), men who are close friends kiss eachother and confes love for eachother. It's not like in America where fathers avoid hugging even!!!

So my point is don't assume every hug is sex. That's not fair. Those two(Alexander and Hephaestion) loved eachother at the deepest way, the sex is almost not even worth mentioning. They still both needed to be maried(many times in that). "And we're both gonna be married and our children will together like we used to" - Alexander.

Well? No one else has opinion on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Well? No one else has opinion on this?

---

Sorry, I was too busy getting my Dad's tongue out of my mouth to answer!!! He loves me!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Sorry, I was too busy getting my Dad's tongue out of my mouth to answer!!! He loves me!!!

---

Having some good old-fashioned fun there Dave?

Gah ... Dave, dave, dave ... that was truly DISGUSTING! Dad's tongue ... OH GAH'D!! GAG MEEEEEEEE! [hurls]

Thought that cause a collective gag reflex!!! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Having some good old-fashioned fun there Dave?

---

Nah, just some good old fashion "in the hills of Georgia" fun. You can almost hear a banjo in the distance....

~;)

Sorry, I'll pull the thread back into topic, I don't want to get completely banned since I can't even view the backroom, is Alexander on video yet? I really want to buy it. But I do think it is a shame that they have to keep dropping the homosexual hints. Who cares if the guy was into butt buggery, I'd rather they focuse on his military acchievements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I don't want to get completely banned since I can't even view the backroom

---

It happens to the best ~;) Ah well I deserved it.

UTTER RUBBISH

If theres anyone with high standards of films, its me. I believe very few films nowadays pass as being "good".

Alexander is one of those typical empty and fruitless concoctions of stupidity and money grabbing bull dung.

This film has nothing to offer, except maybe to historians who have a particular liking to the story of Alexander, but they will also be dissappointed.

Its a mess. Battles are uncooridinated and inconcieveable. There are 10 hours of story and dialogue fitted into something like 3. Colin Farell doesnt pull off the part, he just gives the impression of being an idiot fool who does whatever his mother tells him.

And dont get me started on the homo scenes!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It happens to the best ~;) Ah well I deserved it.

---

Have you also been banned from the Backroom? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Have you also been banned from the Backroom? ~:confused:

---

Ya, but I did deserved it. I was pissed and pissed of, bad combo with serious issues. I'll leave it to the gesta- I mean moderators, maybe they will let me in again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ya, but I did deserved it. I was pissed and pissed of, bad combo with serious issues. I'll leave it to the gesta- I mean moderators, maybe they will let me in again.

---

I must have slept when that happened - Sorry to hear that... hope you'll make it back soon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Sorry, I'll pull the thread back into topic, I don't want to get completely banned since I can't even view the backroom, is Alexander on video yet? I really want to buy it. But I do think it is a shame that they have to keep dropping the homosexual hints. Who cares if the guy was into butt buggery, I'd rather they focuse on his military acchievements.

---

Thanks for coming back on topic. You're the only one. Yes it's coming out on video/DVD soon and i can't wait either. It's gonna be a good addition to my growing DVD collection.

This movie is pretty historically accurate actually(except for the hair :embarassed: ) I'm glad they didn't completely avcid any hints of sexuality. I really hate it when people have to label what he was with words that are not applicable to the time. You can't say he was gay!!!. If you do then you don't know crap about ancient greece. Or any other place in the ancient world for that matter, for man on man sex was practiced everywhere. But in Greece it ment much more as Aristotle says in the movie: "When two men lie together in lust they surrender to their passions and does nothing for the excellence in us, but when men lie together and knowledge and virtue are passed between them, that is pure and excellent". I rest my case with the whole sex thing.

BP, for both yours and hellenes sake, i pray you guys never get into a discussion here about homosexuality in ancient greece. that would be like a matter/anti-matter explosion.

The discussion is over. I think i made my point and if you didn't catch then it's your fault. If you're not pursuaded by logic then i don't what will ever change your mind.

Again you can't use words like homosexual or gay about ancient greece. It doesn't work. Those terms were designed to describe todays intersexual relations not the ancient world's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

The discussion is over. I think i made my point and if you didn't catch then it's your fault. If you're not pursuaded by logic then i don't what will ever change your mind.

Again you can't use words like homosexual or gay about ancient greece. It doesn't work. Those terms were designed to describe todays intersexual relations not the ancient world's.

---

But it is still the same thing, it is the perception that is different not the actual act. Sleeping with your clone isn't maturbation.

But the act is highly secondary the love itself. A value that today is almost forgotten. One night stand much?

The love itself is completely separate from the sex btw. The love was purely platonic and only brotherly. The sex was a whole other story. Taht is the diference. Sory if I didn't make it clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

The love itself is completely separate from the sex btw. The love was purely platonic and only brotherly. The sex was a whole other story. Taht is the diference. Sory if I didn't make it clear.

---

Well it 'hinted' at something more, but as you said it was pretty normal back then. I agree we have to judge it within the timeframe of the movie, but because it is percieved differently does not matter, it is the same phenomenon we call homosexuality. Maybe a fun one, could a platonic relationship between two modern men still be called homosexual?

Quote:

---

could a platonic relationship between two modern men still be called homosexual?

---

It's an interesting question. Again this goes back to the ancient greece. In Sparta for example men weren't allowed to get married till they were 30 years old. That's a long ass time. I would be "homosexual" too if I had to wait that long. If I do have the option of women though does that mean I can't love anouther man who is a really close friend. Of course not. So you see they are separate in that way.

I'm not sure what causes homosexuality today but Im pretty suspiscious its some kind of chemical imballance in the brain.

About the battles, can you make out any strategy in the battles or do they just go for the gore and action factor. I'd love to see the pikemen doing the oblique march. My TI had us do obliques when we marched and it was very difficult with holding just an M-16, I couldn't imagine it with a 20 foot pike!!!

Yes you can see the oblique formation when you look from really high in the sky. Also the cavalry tactics and everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

About the battles, can you make out any strategy in the battles or do they just go for the gore and action factor. I'd love to see the pikemen doing the oblique march. My TI had us do obliques when we marched and it was very difficult with holding just an M-16, I couldn't imagine it with a 20 foot pike!!!

---

Dave it looks like you got some posting ablities for the Tavern back. Is Saturnus going to allow you into the backroom ever again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Dave it looks like you got some posting ablities for the Tavern back. Is Saturnus going to allow you into the backroom ever again?

---

I doubt it, I think it was Tito that nailed me this last time, you know I can never stay out of trouble!!! Red, back in your army days, did your DI (TI to us Air Force folks) teach you the oblique? Have you seen the movie yet.

Waiting for the movie to come out on DVD now - missed it because of the ratings - could not take the youngester to the movie with me.

And yes I like the oblique drill - and its a hard one to do.

Personally I thought the film was pants, definately wont be buying the DVD. I wasn't even that impressed by the battle scenes, though the elephants were quite impressive.

I think that the homosexual aspect was overplayed, I'm glad that it wasn't ignored as in Troy, but if Alexander spent that much time thinking about other men he would never have conquered anything. As for being historically accurate, it wasn't too bad I suppose but some of his greatest achievements were glossed over, the many battles he won, the truly epic scale of the journey.

Quote:

---

Byzantine_Prince The discussion is over. I think i made my point and if you didn't catch then it's your fault. If you're not pursuaded by logic then i don't what will ever change your mind.

Again you can't use words like homosexual or gay about ancient greece. It doesn't work. Those terms were designed to describe todays intersexual relations not the ancient world's.

---

Just because you made your point doesn't mean the discussion is over. And you can use the word homosexual in relation to that time period, just because it was widely accepted and practised doesn't detract from the fact that they were homo's

Quote:

---

Just because you made your point doesn't mean the discussion is over. And you can use the word homosexual in relation to that time period, just because it was widely accepted and practised doesn't detract from the fact that they were homo's

---

That's the freaken point. They weren't homosexual. Alexander married 3 times. The only guys he f'ed for sure is Bagoas and he was a eunich.

If they were all homos no greeks would be alive today.

Quote:

---

I think that the homosexual aspect was overplayed, I'm glad that it wasn't ignored as in Troy, but if Alexander spent that much time thinking about other men he would never have conquered anything.

---

Overplayed!?!? What?!?!? There like one kiss and somerefences to them liking boys. So what? That's not gay. That just mean they like to swing that way sometimes. I see nothing wrong with that. Why should people supress themselves because of stupid society.

Quote:

---

As for being historically accurate, it wasn't too bad I suppose but some of his greatest achievements were glossed over, the many battles he won, the truly epic scale of the journey.

---

If they showed every battle then the movie would become 300 hours long considering there was something like 50 battles. Some of them quite impressive but still too expensive to re-enact.