Oliver Stone's Alexander

[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.

[IrishHitman]

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.

Not only do they have Irish accents, but they have Cork accents.
Heresy of heresies!

Some people around here joke that "Alexander" is actually about the People's Republic of Cork conquering Persia.

[Ibrahim]

Not only do they have Irish accents, but they have Cork accents.
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.


anyways;

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.

well, I'm not really here to add original opinion, but I do want to comment additionally to 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:




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.

[IrishHitman]

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.

Well, Cork people consider themselves "different" to the rest of the country.
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".

[Ibrahim]

Well, Cork people consider themselves "different" to the rest of the country.
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".

wow...talk about pride. so I guess this city is to Ireland what Texas is to the US?

well, at least I now know what this city's actual name is.

[vartan]

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

[oudysseos]

wow...talk about pride. so I guess this city is to Ireland what Texas is to the US?

That's an interesting comparison .

well, at least I now know what this city's actual name is.

Yes, Corcaigh means "The Land of the Hairy-backed Bog Savages". For more information on this fascinating and exotic city, go here.

[-42-]

It's directed by Oliver Stone, it is terrible by definition.