Less Picky and More Tolerant than Tolkien fans

[kenny]

With getting more depressed a with the positive views of the movie I am getting from you I sat back to watch Lord of the Rings and even visited some Tolkien sites.I was suprised just how critical they were towards the movies,, To me they were spoiled by Three movies over 3 hours of superb movies,,, The only critisisms I make are due to been an Alexander reader and the eye to detail with the battles.I wouldnt have thought Alexander been attacked from the rear would charge straight at Those Massive elephants as they did in the Return.Once again I congratulate and commend the attitude of all members towards this film, I dont care if it wins no a oscars as oscars dont represent real movies or popularity the movies that win them disapear into prosperity and are too borring to watch.Its been said Gaugamela is the best battle scene ever,, If its on the scale of Return of the Kings then wow.I only hope that this movie demonstarates and shows the real genius of Alexander The Great in the art of battle.In Retrurn of the King,,, Legolas cries and looks distraut when he thinks Aragon is dead,, I feel theres no sexual consortation there, Or when Sam cries when he thinks Frodo was killed by the spider.It was a demonstartion that men do love there comrades and friends as they would a spouse and to be honest when I see such trust and a bond between 2 people it brings a lump to my throat.Still those Tolkien fans were not satisfied,,, Hail Alexandrians and companions.
Kenny

[Linda]

Except it seems to be the opposite here - the Alexander fans - on this forum - like the film, or at least can enjoy it - it is the critics who hate it. Or are puzzled by it. I always wondered how a non-Tolkein fan would enjoy LOTR films - but they did. I did - and I loved also loved the book. It was well done. But this is a film about Alexander - it has nothing to do with the man himself. It seems that Stone has perhaps acheived the middle ground he wanted to regarding sexuality (those who think Alexander was straight can read that into thte film, those who don't can read otherwise), but maybe that fence sitfing has pleased no-one, and hasn't benefited the film.Linda

[jan]

No, no, I have to protest. Anyone who is a real friend of Alexander will not find Alexander in this movie. This movie is a spoof, a farce, a play in a play. It is intended as such. I don't know how Robin Lane Fox got sucked into it, but I would be ashamed to be associated with this movie if I were him. It is no credit to him at all but makes him look like a fool. I watched Gods and Generals right after seeing Alexander as I had mentioned that movie on the Oliver Stone site, so it became available to me. I am related to General Robert E. Lee, and Gods and Generals is a wonderful movie. Alexander is a deliberate insult! No kidding. It is not a tribute. But I liked parts of it. The youngsters are beautiful. The scenery is breathtakingly beautiful. But it is a deliberate effort not to portray Alexander the Magnificent, but Alexander the Incompetent. The sacrificial scene insulted me most of all. Alexander was too competent to ever be done so poorly as in that scene alone. (I worked in a meat market once and I know that even Alexander would not get blood on himself while cutting a bull.) The movie is stupid!

[luisfc1972]

this movie is not about alexander the battlefield commander. it goes too far with the whole bisexual bit. yes we know he was bi but to beat us over the head with it over and over is just a waste of screen time. some scenes could have been cut in half and the point would still be made. too much drama. no gordion knot, no egypt. only brief mentions of tyre, issus, etc. regarding the accents, did not bother me at all so i dont see why people criticize it. that being said, i still liked the movie. i loved the battle of gaugamela (the battle of stirling in braveheart was my favorite of all time until this), i can already see myself watching this battle over and over on dvd. its plain awesome to watch, very good touch with the eagle, and the drums of gaugamela WOW. everything about it was great. it sort of makes your masculine nature come out and want to jump into the screen and join the phalanx. also, there was a very human moment in the taming of bucephalus. phillip accepts the young boys bet knowing he might get killed lol. bottom line is we dont get alexander the great, we get alexander the gay, the troubled, the crier, the whiner. people who dont know much about alexander the great will not be impressed by him in this portrayal sorry to say.
in the end, this movie could have been a lot better. when i say that i mean more battles, less drama, take some of the narration out (it felt like a documentary at times)

[ruthaki]

In spite of some (obvious) pickies, I disagree that this was NOT a movie about Alexander. If you saw the Discovery Channel docu "Becoming Alexander" you'll get a new appreciation of what Colin Farrell went through to assume the role. And if you've seen any of the interviews (recently on Charlie Rose, for instance) you'll get a better appreciation of what Olive Stone was trying to achieve.
When I first saw the movie there were a few things that distracted me. But the images stayed with me for days afterwards. And the more I think about it, the more interviews and especially that Discovery docu that I've watched, the more I appreciate the movie. He achieved what he could in 3 hours. And according to Stone there's a lot that went on the cutting room floor. So maybe the Battle of Thebes was one and also the burning of Persepolis.
I'm going to see it twice more this week. (All my friends are vying for my company to see it so I am going at least 3 more times.) Perhaps I'll weary of it by then, but for now I'm finding it terrifically inspiring. I've been at my computer working away on my novel ever since.

[luisfc1972]

that is all fine and dandy ruthaki. but you have to admit stone did not deliver alexander the charimsatic leader who men would follow to india from greece. he did not deliver the alexander who was meticulous in planning battles and then out of nowhere risk all by being reckless in the face of danger and rush a point on the battle line. he did not show alexander leading an audacious charge across a river crushing a massive persian force at the battle of issus.he did not show the alexander that was wounded by every weapon available at that time. he did not show thebes, he did not show charonea. he did not show alexander tossing a spear into asia claiming it his won by the spear. he did not show him conquering the gordion knot. he did not show the greatness of this general at all.stone concentrated on his bisexuality and his "inner turmoil" rather than showing us the above. what stone portrayed is a troubled, defeated, and beaten down young man before his first battle even. stone screwed up. the good scenes in the movie cant make up for his depiction of alexander the great. vangelis the great one, couldnt carry this movie given the material. as harsh as all of this may sound, the movie was good and i liked it.ive seen it 3 times. and i will see it 3 more before it is out of theatres. i was disappointed in the movie there is no way i cant like a movie about alexander the great because i revere and admire the man too much.p.s. i thought colin farrel given the material was fantastic.

[ruthaki]

You are right, Luis, about the stuff that was left out. Probably you or I (or some of the others here) if given the opportunity to make the film, would have focused on other aspects of Alexander's life.
Stone said in the Charlie Rose interview how he chose to focus on Alexander's 'relationships' because he could not possibly cover all the battles etc and lets face it, people (who don't know Alexander) like the relationship thing. I'd love to see what was on the cutting room floor. I'll bet some of the juicey scenes were there (some of those bits we missed!) Perhaps when the CD is released they will be included?? Anyway, for those who don't know as much about Alexander as we might know, it is sure to generate a whole new interest in Our Hero. And that is a wonderful thing!

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,Of course, I haven't seen it, but what you say makes a lot of sense. Even in a three-hour movie one can't cover everything. If you want to cover all the battles then that in itself would take more than three hours ... so the film-make has to be judicious about what he includes (or doesn't).It appears to me that the problem lies more in the fact that Stone has given us 'his' Alexander ... which is at odds with everyone else's. Well, as everyone has a different idea of what Alexander was all about (heck, we can't even agree on whether he was more likely to cut through the Gordian Knot or unravel it), I'm not really surprised.I'm really looking forward to it!All the bestMarcus

[xxx]

Considering how Alexander would have felt about cheating and the subsequent prophecy regarding that, he would not have cut through the knot - but it makes for a colorful story nonetheless

[marcus]

I'm not going to get into that argument again, Tre ... at least not in this thread. :-)But at least that proves my point - that if we can't agree on something like that, there are clearly so many different interpretations of his character.All the bestMarcus

[Nax]

Hey all, its interesting how everyone who disliked the movie is accused of being "too picky", cuz everyones assuming we're either "conservative" or not history buffs, or maybe we just hated accents, or hair or whatever WRONGI've talked it over with several people & what a lot of us DONT like is that the movie as a STORY flopped- you get this whining guy flailing around with no idea what a king is supposed to be or do except for self-indulgent & whoopee the incident with Bucephalus wouldn't convince ME he was king material- scenes often dont have a point, they're just thrown in & go nowhere. & sorry I DONT think Stone paid much attention to "accuracy" (yeah, I "get" that he used historical quotes) but thats a whole other thread & Im not talking about him not having time to toss in every battle or the chronology- there's all kinds of accuracy, ya knowBagoas's dance was trashy- I don't have a problem with bisexuality, I thought the DANCE sure wasn't enough to impress anyone- hell, half the people at the PARTY weren't watchingsome of us thought the battle scenes were weak and the speeches were sloppy- so what- thats our opinion & we have a right to it like you have yours
& for the record,I agree about some of the oscar winners being bad- but in this case I agree with the critics

yeah I "get" the way the movie was filmed, "get" time limits, "get" the relationships- doesn't change that I thought the movie sucked as a believable story - Stone gave us his version of the Big A - someone here said it portrayed a weak Alexander & thats the problem- I wouldn't follow this dude anywhere- where was the fire, the inspiration, the heroic charisma??? THATS built from believability & at the end of the movie even Ptolomy says noone believed Alexander- from this movie I can see why