Alexander - Well, it's apparently a pile of shit.

[Downhome 0]

No, I haven't seen the film yet, and I doubt I'll ever be going to see it. From the moment I saw the trailer, I went ahead and made my mind up about this one. There was no way, after actually seeing parts of the film, knowing more about it, and hearing the cast, that it was going to be anything other than horrible. At first I said to myself "come now, the great Oliver Stone is the director, how bad could it actually be?, but then something dawned on me.

 

The guy hasn't directed a "great" film in over a decade.

 

So with that, yeah, I wrote Alexander off and even forgot about it's existence until this past Friday. I checked out the reviews for the first time, and not to my surprise, it has a rating of 14%/9% at RottenTomatoes. Not only that, but from the looks of the Friday box office totals, it looks like it's going to be one of the biggest bombs of the entire year.

 

1 NATIONAL TREASURE $13,160,000 / $68,526,000 total

 

2 THE INCREDIBLES $10,060,000 / $200,886,000

 

3 CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS $9,065,000 / $18,490,000

 

4 THE POLAR EXPRESS $7,730,000 / $70,065,000

 

5 THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE $7,640,000 / $49,021,000

 

6 ALEXANDER $5,690,000 / $13,840,000

 

7 BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON $2,460,000 / $28,293,000

 

8 FINDING NEVERLAND $1,790,000 / $4,854,000

 

9 RAY $1,560,000 / $62,770,000

 

10 AFTER THE SUNSET $1,240,000 / $22,522,000

 

 

For a film that brought in only around 13.8 over the first three days (that number is from BOM), that is just flat out horrible, especially considering that the total marketing/production cost of it was around 215 million.

 

I can't go into anything about the film itself though, seeing how I haven't even watched it yet. Like I said though, I more than likely wont do so now since it's three hours long, and is said to just be very very bad from top to bottom. Hell, have any of you actually seen it? If so, what did you think?

 

When was the last time we had a truly great epic film not counting the LotR trilogy? Was it Gladiator back in 2000?

 

Bah, I guess I'm just a bit pissed. When I heard that Oliver Stone was going to direct a film based on Alexander the Great, at first thought I didn't think there was a chance that it could end up being fucked, but I was wrong. When I really think about it though, I haven't even cared for too many Stone films in the first place.

 

For a second I thought it could be great, but here is what we are left with, a film that inspired such quotes as:

 

"Not just a bad movie but a bad movie of truly epic proportions."

-- Geoff Pevere, TORONTO STAR

 

"I respect Stone as a filmmaker, but this movie is punishment rather than entertainment."

-- Bill Muller, ARIZONA REPUBLIC

 

"Oliver Stone's take on the life of Alexander the Great is overblown, underdeveloped and one of the worst films of 2004."

-- James Rocchi, NETFLIX

 

"An enormous cinematic mess. Alexander is not so much mind-numbingly boring as it is intriguingly nonsensical."

-- Dustin Putman, THEMOVIEBOY.COM

 

Finally, I can't help but wonder just what this does for Colin Farrell. For someone who has yet to really make his mark in Hollywood, this could really hurt him.

 

And hey, when I finally do watch the film, whenever that might be, and I actually end up liking it, I'll admit it.

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Lil' Bitch 0]

What the hell is wrong with the movie?

[Tawren 0]

From the trailers I have seen, it looks like ANOTHER foot-soldiers-fight-to-the-death-so-it's-an-epic piece of shit. Just like Troy, King Arthur, and so forth. And fuck that shit, it's stupid.

 

And fuck Colin Farrell while we're at it. "Hollywoods Bad Boy!" Who cares? And those who do: why? I wish he and all those Entertainment Tonight folk would just die already.

 

Fuck Alexander.

[Downhome 0]

What the hell is wrong with the movie?

A post by someone at a screenwriting board I frequent:

 

The story (I use this term loosely) went all over the place. Too many plots, subplots, flashbacks, who dunnit, who thought of doing it, who didn't do it but wanted to, . . .

 

It's said to be very long, and just flat out bad filmmaking from top to bottom.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Damn red states for not wanting to see a bisexual character...

[Ravenbomb 0]

Colin Farrell needs to get better movies is all. If he did more movies like Tigerland and A Home at the End of the World then it wouldn't seem like he was such a shit actor

[Ted the Poster 0]

Isn't DiCaprio making an Alexander flick? I could've sworn I head about that somewhere. He'd make a better bisexual conqueror the Farrell.

 

Oh, and DH- your sig is great.

[Mole 0]

Well from somebody who saw it today, let me fill in some light.

 

It didn't suck.

 

It just wasn't good.

 

First off, I am not a big fan of Oliver Stone. He hasn't done anything that really impressed me (I think Scarface is overrated, but that is something different). The way he shot the film was pretty blah, the camera angles weren't all that good and at one point the film was colored red, which I really didn't like.

 

The movie itself DRAGGGGGED forever. It felt like I was taking a 3 hour class about Alexander with pictures to help me through it. I was completely lost after the first few scenes because there was SO much information to take in. I should have take notebook with me so I could pass the test following week.

 

The story itself was so-so. I'm not a big history buff, so I don't know that much about Alexander than the basics. So half of the movie I was asking my Pops, who knows a lot about history, who half of the people were or if something was true or not.

 

Then there was Colin himself. He wasn't a very believable "epic hero" like Mel Gibson was as William Wallace. I like him as an actor, but I didn't take him seriously as Alexander the Great. But what he did do, when it came to him acting some parts out, he did a good job at it. Basically, I couldn't take him seriously as a king.

 

The few things that I liked were Angelina Jolie, the fight scenes and Dawson being nude. Other than that, it was so-so.

 

Like I said, the movie didn't suck. But it wasn't good. It was an above average film, but NO WHERE near the caliber it should be.

 

B-, but that is being very generous. Since the fight scenes were good and Jolie did an awesome job, it gets the B-. Without Jolie though, it drops to a C, even a C-.

[Mole 0]

Isn't DiCaprio making an Alexander flick? I could've sworn I head about that somewhere. He'd make a better bisexual conqueror the Farrell.

 

Oh, and DH- your sig is great.

Yes, which is slated for 2006 release.

 

Baz Luhrmann is directing it, Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet.

 

And Nicole Kidman is Olympias.

 

He has been working on the film ever since Rouge was completed. I remember reading that in EW a while back.

[1234-5678 0]

Why would anyone trust him after he made that abortion of a Doors movie and the mass of lies that was "JFK"?

[Guest El Satanico]

Shit I knew it wouldn't be that good as soon as I learned Oliver Stone was directing. If this movie was anything above mediocre, I would've been shocked.

 

Oliver Stone can be a good director, but a greek epic doesn't seem like the type of movie he should be making. It would be like Martin Scorsese announcing that he's making a fantasy film, it just doesn't seem right.

 

 

I'm surprised Stone didn't touch the homosexual aspect, as he's always one for liking a good ol' contraversy.

[Red Baron 0]

Let me guess.

 

Historic movie with a "hollywood script"

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'd probably love it just for the history. What critics may call too many subplots and whatever, I call straight-up depth. I'd rather a film about one of my favorite historical figures go too long and flood my brain with information than have just the meat and potatoes but not result in me learning anything.

[Guest El Satanico]

But it's "Hollywood History"

 

I watched the special "Alexander: History vs. Hollywood" on History Channel, and it doesn't seem like they did too well. The fact that several of the actors response with "well you guys weren't around back then either, none of us know", doesn't bode well for the Historic.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The actors actually said that. Wow.

 

How do they think we could even make a film about the guy in the first place? We made it all up? IT'S CALLED WRITTEN RECORDS, PEOPLE

[ArkhamGlobe 0]

The film, for me, was an interesting experience as it's the sort of magnificent mess of a film that I haven't seen in a long while. There are marvellous set-pieces in the film, the major battle scenes and Filip's assassination scene among them, and it's there that the film really comes alive. In these scenes Stone displays an excellent visual orientation and conjures up an impressive sense of organized chaos. In the final battle scene, especially, Stone finally achieves what seems to have been the perfect tone for him in this film, that of bombastic operatic grandeur, and it, to me at least, works very well. Then of course the film falls apart again in the following scenes, but I'll get to that later on. Farrell also really comes alive in the battle scenes. There is something almost otherworldly in the way he moves and carries himself, and especially in his face and his eyes. There you see a kind of mixture between hubris, presence in the moment and the feeling of a man of destiny propelled by forces much beyond him. Also, Val Kilmer was very good in the film.

However, one major problem for me is that for all the information the film tries to cram in, at just a few minutes shy of three hours, it's much too short, making much of the film seem extremely abrieviated, as it's forced to abandon it's lines of thought constantly, which makes for a pretty frustrating experience a lot of the time. Ebert summed up this aspect of the film rather nicely (indeed, I share most of his opinions of the film, with a few exceptions). As a result, the film falls apart at rather constant intervals, but somehow manages to pull itself together briefly only to fall apart again when it's forced to abandon it to keep the running time down. I also disliked the use of a narrator, as it mostly felt rather clumsily interjected into the film. Also Stone, never one prone to understatement, probably for reasons of ambition, like Ebert stated, has a tendency towards severe overstatement much of the time, it's the operatic tone which doesn't work, possibly because the scenes aren't given enough time for the rhythms to develop and gain resonance, and the same can be said for Vangelis' score, which rather than underline the emotional currents of the scene drowns them out, but it, very much like the film, occasionally comes alive to a more sympathetic effect.

So, the film left me in a very interesting state of mind. The great stuff in the film felt really great and, in a way, very stirring. Yet these are moments pulled from a disjointed mess of a film, which reduces their impact. Yet a have certain weird fondness for the film, as it is a failure, but in a rather spectacular fashion. Good film? Perhaps not. But one of the more interesting cinematic experiences I've had this year.

 

Well, that was quite the rambling post. If anyone actually made it all the way through, I probably owe you an apology or something.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Kotz your better off watching the history aspect on tv. There's been some good specials on Alexander. They don't have spice things up like Hollywood does.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Wait, Alexander the Great was gay?

[teke184 0]

Stone's genius is severely overrated and this is coming from a person who LIKES Platoon, JFK, Salvador, Nixon, and Natural Born Killers. (I feel Wall Street is overrated, I refuse to watch Heaven And Earth, I felt The Doors was a bloated mess, and I LOATHE Born On The Fourth Of July)

 

 

1. Stone LOVES to do his "director's cut" thing, which pretty much means that he shoots hours of film and insists he use it all whether it helps his narrative or not. This has been a huge problem for him ever since he put a string of hit films together, which is why The Doors, JFK, and several other films were overlong and either lessened the impact or outright lost the point of the piece.

 

2. Stone's facination with avant-garde camera and editing techniques is distracting to the Nth degree.

 

This got particularly bad on both Natural Born Killers, referred to by the crew as "the most expensive student film of all time", and Any Given Sunday, which I refer to as "Blair Witch on a football field".

 

Any Given Sunday's camera-techniques may have been done for a reason, but that still doesn't change the fact that you have to watch it from a safe distance of three miles to avoid motion sickness.

 

3. Stone likes to do the Michael Moore "creative history" thing, which worked on JFK when he could play off of people's suspicions but not on something like Alexander, which contradicts thousands of years of historical data.

 

 

 

If Stone could be paired with an editor and a producer that could keep him sane, he could put out some good films. However, his own personal choices keep driving a once-promising career straight into the toilet.

 

 

To clarify the above-

 

It's been a long downward spiral since JFK. Natural Born Killers was panned then the subject of various lawsuits. Heaven And Earth was Stone rehashing Vietnam yet AGAIN. Nixon, while good, was a no-win subject because the anti-Nixon left was pissed that he wasn't hard enough on him and the pro-Nixon right was pissed that he was too hard on him. U-Turn was quickly forgotten, and rightfully so from what I hear. Any Given Sunday barely made a blip on the radar despite marquee names being involved.

 

Of the films mentioned, only Natural Born Killers and Any Given Sunday broke even or made money in the US. U-Turn, Nixon, and Heaven And Earth were all sizable bombs. (Nixon took in about $14 million off of a budget of $50 million. Heaven And Earth took in $6 million off of a budget of $33 million. U-Turn took in $6.5 million off of a budget of $19 million)

[moral suasion 0]

Then there was Colin himself. He wasn't a very believable "epic hero" like Mel Gibson was as William Wallace. I like him as an actor, but I didn't take him seriously as Alexander the Great. But what he did do, when it came to him acting some parts out, he did a good job at it. Basically, I couldn't take him seriously as a king.

I found it difficult to dispend my disbelief as well. That happens frequently with movies about the Ancient era of world history .

[Hank Kingsley 0]

I was only really interested in seeing it because of Val Kilmer. And the fact that it's about Alexander the Great, of course.

 

But seeing all of the negative reviews really turned me off of it. Shame, really.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Well from somebody who saw it today, let me fill in some light.

 

It didn't suck.

 

It just wasn't good.

 

First off, I am not a big fan of Oliver Stone. He hasn't done anything that really impressed me (I think Scarface is overrated, but that is something different). The way he shot the film was pretty blah, the camera angles weren't all that good and at one point the film was colored red, which I really didn't like.

 

The movie itself DRAGGGGGED forever. It felt like I was taking a 3 hour class about Alexander with pictures to help me through it. I was completely lost after the first few scenes because there was SO much information to take in. I should have take notebook with me so I could pass the test following week.

 

The story itself was so-so. I'm not a big history buff, so I don't know that much about Alexander than the basics. So half of the movie I was asking my Pops, who knows a lot about history, who half of the people were or if something was true or not.

 

Then there was Colin himself. He wasn't a very believable "epic hero" like Mel Gibson was as William Wallace. I like him as an actor, but I didn't take him seriously as Alexander the Great. But what he did do, when it came to him acting some parts out, he did a good job at it. Basically, I couldn't take him seriously as a king.

 

The few things that I liked were Angelina Jolie, the fight scenes and Dawson being nude. Other than that, it was so-so.

 

Like I said, the movie didn't suck. But it wasn't good. It was an above average film, but NO WHERE near the caliber it should be.

 

B-, but that is being very generous. Since the fight scenes were good and Jolie did an awesome job, it gets the B-. Without Jolie though, it drops to a C, even a C-.

Brian DePalma did Scarface.

[Downhome 0]

And Oliver Stone wrote the screenplay.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

So he did. I got the impression that Mole was referring to him in the directorial sense.

[Mole 0]

Yeah, I know he just wrote Scarface.

 

In a film class I took at a freshman, my Prof. said: "You know why Oliver Stone can do anything? Because he wrote Scarface."

[razazteca 0]

Wait, Alexander the Great was gay? 

The Jared Leto shit was too much and that dancing scene with the egyptian was chip-n-dale gay......... why must Alexander always have a nut in his mouth.

 

Not only that but he was an emotional wreck. The whole movie is about Alexander running away from his problems at home. So Alexander goes off to war to expand his empire to 1) become a greater king than his father 2) escape his overprotective mother 3) go off to have gay sex with slaves and school friends. Along the way Alexander has to deal with several plots of conspiracies against him by his fellow councel of advisors. Which of course drives Alexander even more mad so he decides to go invade India which was a huge mistake because he underestimated the elephants.

[Guest El Satanico]

Wait, Alexander the Great was gay?

No, he was bi. He loved women, but enjoyed sex with both women and men.

 

Back then, that sort of thing was common amoungst rich and powerful men.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Oliver Stone is a ridiculous crackpot, but it all amuses me.

[Downhome 0]

The overall look of Colin says to me "pile of crap".

 

[teke184 0]

Wait, Alexander the Great was gay? 

No, he was bi. He loved women, but enjoyed sex with both women and men.

 

Back then, that sort of thing was common amoungst rich and powerful men.

True, but that was a more common philosophy to the true Greeks rather than the Macedonians like Alexander.

 

 

Many Greek scholars were misogynists and felt that women were "beneath" men so, in turn, gay sex was a sign of how "enlightened" a man was.

 

 

(Personally, I feel they put this philosophy together to explain why Plato liked young boys.)