Oliver Stone's Alexander

[abou]

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).

[Hax]

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?!

[seienchin]

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
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.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

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.

[anubis88]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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).

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.

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.

[Ca Putt]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

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.

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 ^_^.

All in all the final cut of it was an okay film. Not great, not terrible. It was strictly average.

[Dutchhoplite]

[Andronikos]

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.

About the movie: there is nothing I would criticize (OK, except Olympias ), 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.

[alexanderthegreater]

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.

[ziegenpeter]

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.

[HunGeneral]

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.)

[Maeran]

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.

[oudysseos]

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.

[Hetairos Alexandrou]

Back to topic?

The third cut of the film is better organised, and the battle scenes are much better.

Agreed. I've got Alexander Revisited, which is not only longer, but goes around Alexander's relationships a bit more and has bloodier battle scenes - seeing a hypaspist's head getting smushed to jelly by Elephantes Indikoi is niiiiice!

And on a side note, however bad people think the film was, I think we can all agree on the score - LEGENDARY. Very atmospheric. I'm currently using it as background music to my Makedonian campaign.

[satalexton]

I still stand by the battle scenes, especially the phalangitai. Seeing them joyfully slaughter their foes makes me scream "ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!" everytime.

[Hax]

I still stand by the battle scenes, especially the phalangitai. Seeing them joyfully slaughter their foes makes me scream "ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!" everytime.

We have medicine for this, you know that?

[mountaingoat]

We have medicine for this, you know that?

gladius?

[satalexton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_qVDvSnVU

ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!!

[HunGeneral]

We have medicine for this, you know that?

Arrow between the eyes?

Althoug who needs medicine for that?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA

[Rahwana]

We need to get those Makedophile Romaioktonoi out.