board77

It finally opened here last week, and I went to see it.

Having read the reviews (15% rotten on rottentomatoes.com, uh-oh) I realize I'm VERY much in the smallest of all possible minorities, but I absolutely and completely loved it. Few films lately have stunned me speechless; Alexander has.

Alexander is so much better than Troy. Well, that's not that hard, but still. It's a daring movie, featuring some yummy artsiness, a great score, and some of the most beautiful camera work I've seen for a long time. I'd have a hard time deciding which is better, the Ride of the Rohirrim or the Guagamela battle scenes. I was a tad worried about Angelina Jolie as Olympias, but, well, wow.

Sure, it's not perfect. But never did those imperfections take me out of the movie.

Oh, and also? Pretteh horsie!!1

Bit early for April Fool's there, Farawen? Ehehehe? *nervous laugh*




*disclaimer* I meant to reply with just that one line but then I decided not to be a spammer and...my most profound apologies to Farawen and anyone else who loved Alexander. *


*SPOILERS AND A RANT*











There were three times more people in the audience of the theatre than it can hold when Alexander started. The only reason that number stuck out til the end was that Oliver Stone himself was at the screening, and we'd just applauded his receiving an award for the sum of his work. I think I won't be wrong in saying half the balcony fled.

We're all still talking about it at the school. "How" is the question "How can you put together such a great cast, such a great director, such a great crew, such a great composer, such a huge budget, 11 years of script-writing (so they say) and end up with such an abominable load ot elephant poop.

Okay, I admit- I loved the start of the first battle, when we're suddenly whisked away from Alexander giving his commands (useless info for most laymen like me) and his voice dies out , and we arrive in front of the enemy...but I can't be sure whether that was Stone's one stroke of genius or whether, being in a quite a bit of physical pain at that moment, I was drifting off. Once that moment passed, I didn't know who the hell was fighting who, even though it should be obvious, considering the different dress-code of both armies.

I'm sure I heard an echo to my whimper when I saw the greek font Al's mother wrote him in. And I think it would have been easier to just print a flashing disclaimer into the copy, saying "Remember, everyone, Alexander is actually bisexual." Because we are reminded of this revelation every few minutes. And yet, so in love, Al concentrates on a Vangelis-accompanied hero-speech while his lover writhes, out of focus, in the background, and dies.

Arrrgh....

This was a terrible movie. No wonder Oliver Stone held a press conference BEFORE the screening.

Poor man.

And no that wasn't by far a complete analysis of Alexander but I'm not a m00b.

We have M00bies?

Where?




(It's not yet out here)

Ah, no worries, Rodia. I'm not easily offended. I'm a thick-skinned m00b. :mrgreen:

Which probably means that I should, in complete M00b Style, now tell you that you are totally and horribly wrong while I am so very much right, and then close by advising you to abandon your foolish ways and stop disagreeing with me and everything.

But let's not do that.

Oliver Stone's Alexander is not a Hollywood film. It is no popcorn flick. It is not the Hero Kicks Butt film audiences (may) expect. It is not linearly told, and thus has an unusual, unaccustomed air to it. It features a long psychedelic sequence. It is full of Greek mythology and metaphors. It is character-driven, yet its characters are all flawed, tragic, messed up by their feelings, ambitions, longings. Its dialogues are more those of an ancient Greek drama than a 2004 film. It is unconventional, ambitious, experimental, daring, and yet utterly real. It doesn't offer easy answers, it doesn't accept easy solutions. Stone doesn't show us the mythical Alexander, the god-like conqueror that Plutarch, Callisthenes, Ptolemaios have invoked in their writings, the shining leader of an army that defeated every other army of the known world. He shows us the man, and it is no pure coincidence that his film is called "Alexander", not "Alexander the Great".

By leaving out everything that happened after Philip's assassination and before the Battle of Gaugamela, Stone doesn't show us much of what exactly made Alexander "great" - we don't see the destruction of Thebes, the banning of Charidemos from Athens, how the typically Macedonian (and literally invincible) configuration of Alexander's army came about; we only get to watch him in two of his countless battles; we see him at the height of his success at Gaugamela, and then we witness his decline as his fellow Macedonians grow more and more discontent over his decisions. This is a gutsy decision on Stone's part, and what it does is allow him to deeply explore Alexander's psyche in the following; he doesn't dwell on Alexander's rise to greatness, instead he focuses on how his ambition clashes with reality, his shortcomings, and his lifelong search that was as much a search as an attempt to escape. In a strange way Alexander was a haunted man; as king of the Macedonians he was expected to go farther, defeat more enemies, and conquer more land than his forefathers did. He did so willingly and most successfully, and yet... Stone's Alexander wasn't great because he won all those battles and conquered 90% of the world; he was great in spite of this. But it has taken its toll. And that's what Stone's film is about.

Speaking of Gaugamela - that must be the most accurate (and real to the point that it became unsettling) battle sequence ever seen on screen. And after a second viewing I have made up my mind, I like it better than the Ride of the Rohirrim.

Ro wrote:

I didn't know who the hell was fighting who, even though it should be obvious, considering the different dress-code of both armies.

You didn't know who the hell was fighting who because 2,300 years ago, most of the people on that battlefield didn't know either. That's how battles went 2,300 years ago, and in most aspects they haven't changed much over 2,300 years. For a clear Good Guy vs. Bad Guy scene, I recommend some Bruckheimer.

Oliver Stone's style of moviemaking is not "this happened, and then this happened, and later this happened". It tends to get slightly chaotic at times, and he sometimes can't suppress his love of messing with people's heads, but he always has a point. The older he gets the more stream-of-consciousness-y his films become (not exactly on plot level as rather on a metaphysical level of meaning and depth) and I CANNOT WAIT to see the films he will make in ten, fifteen years' time. So no, his Alexander is not a typical hero flick of "he did this, and then he did this, and then he was liek awesum liek, whoa". It is as much a biopic as a psychodrama by a highly experimental director, it doesn't care about and thus defies conventions, and that's what makes it a difficult and polarizing film. I guess you either love it or hate it.

Some examples:

The dialogue.
The ancient Greeks loved themselves some drama. They invented tragedy, dramatic theater, the technique of dramatic monologues. The film's dialogue is reminiscent of Greek tragedies; it is often melodramatic, verbose, always forthright. Like the dialogue in Greek plays. The speeches are long, sweeping, and theatrical. Like the speeches in Greek plays. The film doesn't feature "modern" dialogue, and this was done for a reason, and all those in the audience giggling over Alexander's words to Roxane about how a man searches all over the world and finally finds love (while getting out his treasured copy of the Iliad), for example, didn't get it.

The hero.
Alexander is an uncomfortable hero. He has issues with his parents, seems psychotic, cries, gets drunk, shows delusions of grandeur, screams in frustration, and kills a man in rage. While some of his traits were expanded and artistically interpreted by the script writers, the basics are real. He used to regularly drink himself into unconsciousness, he killed Kleitos in anger and spent three days in bed after that, he was suicidal at times, thought himself a god. And Alexander the Crying Hero is another nod to ancient myths, much like the dialogue: Odysseus spends a large part of the Odyssey crying over his fate, the great Achilles cries on several occasions in the Iliad and is inconsolable after Patroclos' death; Herakles spent a lot of his time weeping, etc. Stone's Alexander is no modern hero.

The homosexuality.
Holy crap, has this raised some furious debate. I must admit I don't get why. Alexander loved men AND women, period. It's a fact. In his day and age, all men did. His lifelong "affair" with Hephaistion made him an unconventionally boring specimen of Macedonian manhood, if anything, because he didn't have several male lovers over the course of his life (as the rest of men in Greece and Greek influenced countries did) but only one for as long as he lived.

Quote:

And I think it would have been easier to just print a flashing disclaimer into the copy, saying "Remember, everyone, Alexander is actually bisexual." Because we are reminded of this revelation every few minutes. And yet, so in love, Al concentrates on a Vangelis-accompanied hero-speech while his lover writhes, out of focus, in the background, and dies.

Hm. There are three or four scenes in a three-hour movie that hint at his love for Hephaistion. Not exactly what I'd call "every few minutes".

And lastly, Hephaistion's death scene: The real Alexander wasn't in the room when Hephaistion died. He had had him put in his own room so he could be close to him, but left briefly as the doctors told him that Hephaistion wasn't dying. When the message reached him that he was, in fact, dying, Alexander couldn't make it back to the room in time.

By having stand Alexander at the window looking out with Hephaistion dying in the background, Stone seems to incorporate this fact. Yet in this scene he also portrays Alexander as someone who has lost touch with reality; Alexander's speech and the juxtaposition of Hephaistion's death in the background is an artistic device. Alexander speaks of the future, their sons playing together like they themselves did when they were young, the both of them conquering Arabia in the following spring, etc., while Hephaistion dies, unnoticed by Alexander. By that time his dreams and his vision are already entirely incompatible with reality. He has lost it. Literally. After coming all this way from Pella to Babylon, in his final days his grasp on reality doesn't even suffice to have him realize that his friend and lover is dying while he is daydreaming. In the end, Alexander was defeated by the myths he was trying to build around himself.

Okay, I'll stop here because uh, long.

I'll be watching the film in about two hours. That first post there encouraged me and I shall read the spoilers later on and may be able to add some rant or praise of my own then.

I have the Alexander film special Anke illustrated but have to admit I haven't really had a look inside yet. So it will all be quite a surprise - I mean, as far as surprises go with the whole story. I still do remember some of my history classes.

What did you reckon then Canamarth?

I'm almost tempted now, reading Farawen's review, to get hold of this when it arrives on DVD - I wouldn't spend £20 going to the cinema! That's a step further than I was prepared to go after flicking through a 'making of' guide in Forbidden Planet prior to the Christmas holidays. The images were rather stomach curdlingly awful I thought - Colin Farrell in a blonde wig especially. However, maybe I shoudn't go casting stones without actually being properly appraised of the content.. hmm...

Farawen wrote:

By leaving out everything that happened after Philip's assassination and before the Battle of Gaugamela, Stone doesn't show us much of what exactly made Alexander "great" - we don't see the destruction of Thebes, the banning of Charidemos from Athens, how the typically Macedonian (and literally invincible) configuration of Alexander's army came about; we only get to watch him in two of his countless battles; we see him at the height of his success at Gaugamela, and then we witness his decline as his fellow Macedonians grow more and more discontent over his decisions. This is a gutsy decision on Stone's part, and what it does is allow him to deeply explore Alexander's psyche in the following; he doesn't dwell on Alexander's rise to greatness, instead he focuses on how his ambition clashes with reality, his shortcomings, and his lifelong search that was as much a search as an attempt to escape.

And this is exactly where the film fails and why Estel and I walked out after the first half. By not explaining properly how he got there, we weren't interested in the character - so as a character film, it didn't succeed.

The only brave thing I think Stone did (as opposed to a mistake) was on the bisexuality. Of course, an earlier version of the movie insisted he was completely hetero.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083922/

He said it! He said exactly what I meant only couldn't remember to mention: I didn't give a fig about Alexander himself. He was BORING!!!


Steve, that means you didn't get to see the horse vs elephant scene. We all pissed our pants at that.

(sorry farawen...)

I saw the trailer for that.

Staying longer in the cinema beyond what I did would have required a fortitude of spirit and stamina which I simply do not possess. Not at my age, anyway.

Of course, we stayed for the wedding night scene. I wouldn't say it was hot, but let's just say that Estel stayed for that scene, and I stayed up for that scene.

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

Farawen wrote:

By leaving out everything that happened after Philip's assassination and before the Battle of Gaugamela, Stone doesn't show us much of what exactly made Alexander "great" - we don't see the destruction of Thebes, the banning of Charidemos from Athens, how the typically Macedonian (and literally invincible) configuration of Alexander's army came about; we only get to watch him in two of his countless battles; we see him at the height of his success at Gaugamela, and then we witness his decline as his fellow Macedonians grow more and more discontent over his decisions. This is a gutsy decision on Stone's part, and what it does is allow him to deeply explore Alexander's psyche in the following; he doesn't dwell on Alexander's rise to greatness, instead he focuses on how his ambition clashes with reality, his shortcomings, and his lifelong search that was as much a search as an attempt to escape.

And this is exactly where the film fails and why Estel and I walked out after the first half. By not explaining properly how he got there, we weren't interested in the character - so as a character film, it didn't succeed.

Why do you expect the director to explain to you ("properly", which I take means chronologically, in detail, etc.) how he got there, pray tell? It's not a documentary. Doesn't the fact that he wins the Battle of Gaugamela by a stroke of genius (in the film), that he's torn between his father and mother (in the film), that he desires Achillean fame above all else (in the film as well) and the juxtaposition of him failing to achieve his dreams later on, his strange (to say the least) relationship with and feelings towards Roxane, and his crazed one-man-war in India (as opposed to Gaugamela), make you care about him?

Oh, wait. You didn't stay long enough to see that. Hm.

I cared about Alexander's character. And when I sit in a film audience, I'm usually not very caring (no pun intended) by default. I was one of the four or five people PJ had failed to make care about Frodo in ROTK, by the way.

Alright. I liked the film. And I won't even attempt to put it into more intellectual words because, wow, Farawen has done a good job. Her comments all make sense to me - though I wouldn't have thought of them myself.
Leoba, I saw those pictures with the wig and had my doubts. But that looks alright in the film. Or if it's still a bit strange you don't care about this detail.
I loved the costuming and props.
I hated that man who sat next to me and got into hissing fits every time Hephaistion so much as appeared on the screen. He all but puked when the two men got a little closer (there wasn't even a kiss, was there? [not counting the Indian here]). I almost slapped him across the face. How can someone be so homophobic?
What else? Oh, I watched Troy on DVD the day after (no, not comparing here) and realised how much blood spattered across the screen in Alexander. Nice touch but maybe not for the more lily-livered.
There you go. Make of it what you can. Seems I have a totally different approach to "film criticism". :mrgreen:

Glad you liked it, Can!

I am afraid to see that movie after I saw "King Arthur" and had a traumatic experience. Please confirm there are no similarities between these movies. Please, please. I would so like to see "Alexander". Just because such a lot of european tax refugee money went Oliver Stone's way that way.

I didn't see King Arthur, Mummpy. I was afraid to.

History became legend, legend became a tale, and Alexander hit the shelves at the DVD rental, and I saw it.

While appreciating an art director's and historian's dream (authenticity in props, costumes, settings, with maybe a tad too much maps on display everywhere) my butt fell off with boredom following the story of complex-pained men conquering Asia. Whoo.

There were about 20 minutes - the battle with king Poros in India - during which the film could be seen that could have been made.

One of the most boring films I have ever sat through. I didn't care about anybody or anything in it. There was a complete lack of emotional engagement.

It had a better script than 'Troy', but 'Troy' at least was moderately entertaining. 'Alexander' fell flat for me in every possible way.

And Stone's treatment of Alexander's bisexuality was not nearly brave enough. We get plenty of nude shots of Alexander's sexy wife but Stone wimps out on the depiction of the love between Alexander and Hephaiston (who barely exists as a character anyway: poor old Jared Leto, he has even less to do than Eva Green in her thankless role in 'Kingdom of Heaven') and the result is bland, bland, bland. Like the entire film.

I couldn't wait for it to be over, I'm afraid.

Alexander was terrible. The story jumped around to much gonig back and forth to different time periods in Alexander's life. The actor playing Alexander (Colin Firth?) had a bad hair dye job that looked silly throughout the whole movie. (Dark eyebrows with light hair. Did they even think about trying to make it look natural?) He practically rapes his wife... Brian Blessed only has practically a cameo. The battle scenes weren't great either. Troy did a much better job there. Heck I'd rather watch King Arthur a couple times than endure this one again.


They did the part when he won his horse well. Angela Jolie was hot. Otherwise it was a wasted effort. Such a great story ruined by poor execution, bad pacing, and sillyness. Some movies have imperfections and yet those imperfections are transended by moments of greatness. Sadly I felt this movie had none of these moments to rescue it. Negative two stars.

RELStuart wrote:

Angela Jolie was hot.

Is there a movie where she's not? Even the Tomb Raider movies and Sky Captain were made watchable by Ms Jolie.

Alatar wrote:

RELStuart wrote:

Angela Jolie was hot.

Is there a movie where she's not? Even the Tomb Raider movies and Sky Captain were made watchable by Ms Jolie.

Good point.