Oliver Stone's Alexander

[Rhah]

Why is it meant to be crap?
i havent seen it, but i'm tempted to pick up a copy. Stone is a great director, and i'm interested in the subject matter (and its got Angelina Jolie in it, which is always a bonus)
But i haven't heard anything good about this film. I'd imagine that quite a few people here would have seen it, so could anyone let me know what is actually so bad about it.
cheers

[Harlanite]

No really, it is totally and utterly crap, I fell asleep half way through it. Find something that's actually supposed to be entertaining. If you want education go watch a documentary or read a book on the subject.

[Rhah]

Im not looking for just entertainment, im looking for a film with some basis in history, good acting and script and decent battles.
sounds like i might be looking in the wrong place though......

but what exactly makes it so crap? is it the directing, or did he take too many liberties with history? or is the acting really bad?

did anyone actually like the film at all?!

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

I love the movie.
Downloaded every new version of it and then bought it on DVD.
I thought the acting was ok, Val Kilmer was great as Philip and Colin Farrell was good too and Anthony Hopkins was good as the Narrator and Old Ptolemy.
Jolie's accent was a bit weird at the start but you get use to it and it serves a purpose too.
Picking Rosario Dawson to play Roxane was a bad choice but you see her naked so that's good.
The battles were superb even tho there are only 2 battles in the film.
And the movie was good on historical level even tho there some places where they took a few liberties.

The reason why it seems to be hated among most people is because the movie actually dares to bring up the homosexuality issue unlike certain movies for example "Troy".
You will see these people blowing this up to epic proportions and use words like gay porn.
Of course they seem to have missed that the only sex scene is the movie is between Alexander and Roxane and no male to male sex is ever seen.
Other then that it is hugs and a 2-3 kisses and it doesn't take up alot of the time either.

[Billy Lee Black]

Hello,

Well, I don't think it was that bad. The movie may have seemed kind of corny or dwelled too much into Alexander's supposed homosexuality. Colin does spend alot of time being romantic not just about love, but the world as he sees it. I feel that the last half of the movie is worth watching, as you see Alexander get older and bolder, but his men more tired and lysentious. The movie isn't a total waste, just could have been far better, because it wasn't just some person in history they were making a movie of. So many people put Alexander high on a pedestal, so they want a movie that reflects that. You should at least rent it imho, then if you like it buy the special addition dvd. I just hope Vin Diesel does Hannibal more justice.

[Rosacrux redux]

corny indeed. the film lacks soul and makes a huge case out of Alex's alleged homosexuality... and the worst, Stone (and Farel) fail completely to even remotely show how and why an averageish Greek small-time king became the greatest conqueror of all times (before Chinghiz fanboys jump on me: along with Chinghiz Khan ). Hell, Farel's Alex doesn't behave, look, talk or act like a conqueror, more like a smooth-talking sensualist with a taste for pretty boys

[Anonymous Researcher]

It has bad choice of actors, many historical inaccuracys, terrible sets, many omit of important events such as destruction of Persepolis or the words from oracles of Siwa and most importantly Alexander is only shown as a idiotic megalomania who wages war to escape from his mother.
It is impossible to see any of the genius and charisma of the man who conquered most of the known world.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with it, it is just a bad movie.
This movie felt like cutting all 3 lord of the rings film into 3 hours and making a single movie.
It both felt very short and very long.
It was too short to show the life of Alexander and it was too long because it felt so boring.

[Darth Wong]

The battles were superb even tho there are only 2 battles in the film.

I loved the Battle of Gaugamela, although it left me wanting more (but as they say, that's what a movie is supposed to do). However, the rest of the movie was uneven, to say the least.

There was no real sense of pacing, they took events and put them hugely out of chronological order for no good reason (most notably by not showing Philip's assassination until a flashback scene after Alexander had conquered the known world and returned from India), and the story focused on Alexander's troubled, drunken later life rather than his rise to power.

The film literally skipped instantly from Alexander being exiled by his father Philip all the way to the night before the Battle of Gaugamela!!!! That is simply unacceptable: not a single scene depicting the Greek uprising, not a single scene depicting his entry into Persia or any of the previous battles, nothing. Not even a damned montage; just a few seconds of narrative voiceover to take us from point A to point B.

The reason why it seems to be hated among most people is because the movie actually dares to bring up the homosexuality issue unlike certain movies for example "Troy".

I have no problem with homosexuals, but it was simply out of place here. Alexander the Great was a legendary figure in history because of his conquests, not his bisexuality. To focus on it is to demonstrate a puerile interest in something that was not relevant to what Alexander represented in history.

That's not to say it should have been censored, but it didn't need to be such a big part of the film. By the end of it I was glad to see Hephaistion die because I was so sick of hearing the two of them sweet-talking each other. I agree with Roger Ebert; if Stone wanted to show that Alexander was bisexual, he should have just shown them in bed together, gotten it over with, and then gotten on with the substance of the story, instead of dancing around it all throughout the whole film by having them say sweet nothings to each other interminably.

[the Black Prince]

i absolutely hate how everytime this gfilm is mentioned, we get people going on about how it was homosexual...

i'm a homosexual, i've watched plenty of gay films (i recommend the british Beuatiful Thing and the french Presque Rien) and this is most definately not one of them. any homosexuality in alexander is sooo pereipheral in this film you barely notice it, there is no gay sex scene (as reported by american film critics) and the ONLY overtly gay act is a gay kiss between Alexander and Bagoas.

this film would have done a hell of a lot better in america had film ciritcs not erronerously and stupidly said it was full of gayness. not surprisingly it did much better in europe where people don't give a damn about such things.

moving on, the film had a slow pace, its not your epic film in the style of Troy or Gladiator, with some epic era of history played out around a central hero, this is very much a historical biopic about Alexander himself. the lack of features that make an epic such as fight scenes and battles no doubt harmed this film, especially when its put into comparrison with Gladiator, which it should NOT be compared to.

acting... there is in fact some very good acting in this film, of especial note being the young lad who plays the teenage alexander, and the only actor you can really fault is colin farrel (can he really not put on some other accent? irish alexander? ye gods..) Jolie is... interesting, and Kilmer and Leto both good.

fight wise, i really hated the portrayal of both battle scenes, and whilst its easy to see why the director went the way he did, its a poor poor selling point.

because of the lack of action, the films length makes it drag a bit too
music wise, the film has an amaxing Vangelis soundtrack (how very appropriate) full of his usual bombasity and souring themes

overall, an average film, not amazing, not overly memorable, but by no means a bad buy either. its most definately not as bad as most people make it out to be, and i'm of the opinion a lot of people are prejudiced against this film before seeing it, and therefore come away seeing only its bad points

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

many omit of important events such as destruction of Persepolis or the words from oracles of Siwa

The destruction of Persepolis is in. Ptolemy mentions it.
And Oliver did actually shoot the Siwa scene however decided to cut it out since it made him look like a god and he didn't wanna create that image of Alexander.

and most importantly Alexander is only shown as a idiotic megalomania who wages war to escape from his mother.

That is one of many ideas in the movie on why he did what he did. So you make your own interpretation on the reason.

It is impossible to see any of the genius and charisma of the man who conquered most of the known world.

You can clearly see the military genius that was Alexander in the movie.
And during the wedding scene you can see the charisma and in India(even tho he screws it up at the end but he was very close to rally a very tired beaten up army).
But at the battle that followed you see how he makes the army stop routing and make them fight again.

most notably by not showing Philip's assassination until a flashback scene after Alexander had conquered the known world and returned from India

Actually he was still in India when he had that flashback. :wink:

Alexander being exiled by his father Philip all the way to the night before the Battle of Gaugamela

Well in a way yes in a way.
It was a bit of a leap even tho Ptolemy tells what happens before Gaugamela but he still left out how Alexander returned from exile and you have to wait until the flashback of Philip's death before getting somewhat of an answer.
And also you don't jump to the night before either, you jump to Alexander watching Darius army and then the battleplan.

but it didn't need to be such a big part of the film.

It had like what 30 minutes total out of a 3 hour long movie, it isn't that big of a part.
Also seeing Alexander and Hephaistion have sex would have been a bad move by Stone.
Their love wasn't suppose to be about lust like Aristotle told them when they were young. It was about bringing out the best from each other and it did so Stone was wise in not showing any sex between them.

[Rhah]

thanks for the information all.
I was tempted to go and buy the film, but after reading your comments, i'll rent it instead, because it definitly sounds like its worth watching. I also didnt know Vangelis did the soundtrack, and thats a definite plus point, and i'm not bothered about the gay stuff, but i hope it doesnt get in the way of the larger picture as much as Darth wong stated.
I've got a lot of faith in Stone as a director though, guess the best thing to do is take the risk and part with the rental fee.

(thanks for saving me about £15 by the way)

[the Black Prince]

the stuff between Alexander and Hephaistion can only be taken as gay is you want it to be

love between two men doesn't have to be gay. you love your brothers and your father don't you? Alexander grew up with Hephaistion, and this is clearly shown in the film, they've been together their whole lives, i'd be very much surprised if there wasn't a strong emotional bind between them. but that doesn't make them gay lovers.

i havn't bought the film myself, because its not one i'd want to watch over and over, but i'd definately recommend watching it

[Rhah]

Fair point, that was a bit of a generalised comment. But to be fair, in the (admittidly) limited amount i've read about Alexander, him and Hephaistion were lovers, as well as companions. (Although i think there are quite a few opposing views on this, if i remember correctly)
anyway, at the end of the day, it doesnt matter either way really!
thanks for the recommendation, i'll be scheduling in 3 hours to watch it over the weekend

[LordSaradain]

The worst part about the film is that it basically skips alexanders entire military career and includes alot of uniteresting and boring scenes. Its mostly that they go to this place, talk some, then go to a new place and talk some more, theres no 'red thread'. The battle scenes are kinda cool, but they definetly dont do Alexander, one of the absolutly greatest conquerors through history, justice. Its basically a thee hour long torment, slow and dull. If you want to skip all the wars and battles which took up such a great time of Alexanders live, you could at least have made the movie short...

[Rhah]

Battle scenes are good to watch, but as the BBC/HBO series Rome proved (at least to me) they arent neccessary to keep the story going. Ok, true Rome would have benefited from a good battle (Alesia or something) but it was still a damn good series.
Then again, doing a movie on Alexander without battles is like doing a move on JFK without the assassination.
but at least there are some battles, so its not all bad

[Farnan]

I watched the movie, and I hated it. It seems to show Alexander the Whiner, instead of Alexander the Great. I know the whole deal about showing Alexander the person, but you don't watch a movie about that. When you watch a movie about Alexander you want to watch it about Alexander the warrior, the general, the master of war, the conqueror, the relatively magnamous victor, and Oliver Stone's Alexander did not deliver that.

[Skyhigh]

the movies biggest deficiency is in its complete failure to even MENTION, much less show even in a montage, the battles of the granicus, issus, tyre, ANYTHING with him in egypt- thats like 10+ years of Alexander's life that they left out of a movie called, guess what, ALEXANDER
i was dissappointed with the movie- it was too long, was really boring, rosario dawson is ugly, and the movie was really gay- i dont go the theater to see jared leto and colin farrel admire each other's eyes and cry on each other and practically make out (all of which happened in the movie)- yes this is historical but the main focus of a bio-pic of Alexander the Great should be warfare, seeing as it was the focal point of his entire life. i thought the battle of the hydaspes was excellent but gaugamela was edited in a confusing sequence- for me, it was frustrating b/c i knew things should have been happening one way or at least being shown one way but they werent- it had promise but was confusing

also the scene when he fell ill and died was shamefully abrupt and random, but was appropriate in the interests of the duration of the film

my rating:

[Spiff]

Gaugamela was very well done though, as was the Indian battle and the music was good too.

Not a bad film in my opinion, havent seen the directors cut though

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

the movies biggest deficiency is in its complete failure to even MENTION, much less show even in a montage, the battles of the granicus, issus, tyre, ANYTHING with him in egypt-

I don't know which version you have watched and I have only seen the theatrical version and they mention Tyre and Egypt in that one.
Maybe Stone cut that out in the DC(Another reason for me not to bother with that version).

[Hellenic Hoplite]

The reasons why I liked this film:

Hm... I'll think about it a bit more and perhaps I will find some.

I got it! Val Kilmer acted great!

The reasons why I didn't like this film:

I, like all who have read Alexander's Ascent (Arrian's), was greatly disappointed by this film. There is no single mention of Alexander being homosexual, while there are several mentions of his delight over women. The only thing that could be taken as such would be the story of Vagoas, although that could be just a case of appreciation of the boy and nothing more. However, the worst thing of the movie is that it presented Alexander as a weak cur, more fleeing from his mother than advancing, more trying to look mean to disguise his weakness than being strong and brave. A person with the traits of the movie would be good for having his behinds rammed by other men while wearing dresses, but not for conquering what he conquered. Alexander is always mentioned as a man of duty and responsibility, as a stable person whose only faults of this character were his early fight with his father when he was young anyway, and the drunken murder of Kleitos, which Alexander deeply regretted, as is shown in his reaction. A history reader sees what Alexander was like through little things that he did, a brave warrior and a bold man. However, most today are lazy enough to read history, and prefer the relaxed and short information that a movie 'about' something gives them.

Also the battles were completely mixed up, with plenty fantasy elements in them. Almost no historical background was given, important details like the gordian knot and the sending of the 300 armours to the temple of Athena is missing, the direction is horrible (especially the point where Darius makes the signal for attack and the camera is in front and distorts his face like looking through a magnifying glass made me laugh).