OK, so this is what I thought of the film
Moderator: pothos moderators
Re: OK, so this is what I thought of the film
Oh - go on - you could be Arthur Scargill/Billy Bragg (delete as appropriate)
-
ruthaki
- Strategos (general)
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada
Re: OK, so this is what I thought of the film
I liked the sacrifice scene (the bull) very much. And when the priest was looking frantically through the entrails I related to a story I'd read that wasn't there a missing organ in that sacrifice? Probably if you'd not heard the story you'd never guess it but it rang a bell with me.
I also liked the way they used the red, as if A. was looking through blood at what was around him.
I also liked the way they used the red, as if A. was looking through blood at what was around him.
-
marcus
- Somatophylax
- Posts: 4871
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
-
S
Re: OK, so this is what I thought of the film
Greetings Ariadne,I enjoyed reading your view of the movie.
I,too, was troubled by some of what I saw and found the other flaws in the movie overpowered anything good from it, for myself and for what I look for in a movie. I had hoped for better. Regards,
Sikander
I,too, was troubled by some of what I saw and found the other flaws in the movie overpowered anything good from it, for myself and for what I look for in a movie. I had hoped for better. Regards,
Sikander
-
Robert
Re: OK, so this is what I thought of the film
I have a real problem with this movie and many of your (all repliers) acceptance of this film. I assume that everyone here are historians and obviously knowledgeable about ATG. I can not understand how anybody with such knowledge can accept Oliver Stone's character assassination of one of history's greatest figures.
First, Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion was laughable at best. Sweet talking with Hephasestion as if they were lovers was Oliver Stone's revisionist account of a political agenda he is trying to advance. If I am wrong, why did he not cover Alexander's relationships with Barsine and Statira? Because that would not fit in with his thesis. Additionally, he dismisses the marriage to Roxane as a political arrangement. Granted, he did suggest love, but was presented in a way as if it was just a theory. I present the fact that Roxane was not a marriage of convience. He did not need a woman to settle his disputes. He was Alexander, and could and would have prefered to have taken care of it himself.
Second, I did not care for his blending of events into one scene. Not only was it out of order, it was poorly portrayed. The Battle of Hydaspes was another of Alexander's brilliant tactical victories. Blending it fighting the Malli did not work.
Overall, I think Collin Farrell did a great job in Oliver Stone's interpretation of Alexander, but could have been better in another's film who had a better understanding and interpretation of Alexander. Heath Ledger is another person I could see in that role. I can not see Leonardo di Caprio as Alexander, as he was scheduled to play in Martin Scorese's version.It is rumored that the screen play for that movie was even worse in the depiction of Alexander's alledged homosexuality then this film.
Alexander's history is one of the great stories in history and I am disappointed in this horrible film. I have had people come to me and ask was this or that was true based in the movie. It is unfortunate, but too many people are learning history through the movies and all I am asking for is for the portrayal of any historical figure or event be as close to accurate as possible.
First, Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion was laughable at best. Sweet talking with Hephasestion as if they were lovers was Oliver Stone's revisionist account of a political agenda he is trying to advance. If I am wrong, why did he not cover Alexander's relationships with Barsine and Statira? Because that would not fit in with his thesis. Additionally, he dismisses the marriage to Roxane as a political arrangement. Granted, he did suggest love, but was presented in a way as if it was just a theory. I present the fact that Roxane was not a marriage of convience. He did not need a woman to settle his disputes. He was Alexander, and could and would have prefered to have taken care of it himself.
Second, I did not care for his blending of events into one scene. Not only was it out of order, it was poorly portrayed. The Battle of Hydaspes was another of Alexander's brilliant tactical victories. Blending it fighting the Malli did not work.
Overall, I think Collin Farrell did a great job in Oliver Stone's interpretation of Alexander, but could have been better in another's film who had a better understanding and interpretation of Alexander. Heath Ledger is another person I could see in that role. I can not see Leonardo di Caprio as Alexander, as he was scheduled to play in Martin Scorese's version.It is rumored that the screen play for that movie was even worse in the depiction of Alexander's alledged homosexuality then this film.
Alexander's history is one of the great stories in history and I am disappointed in this horrible film. I have had people come to me and ask was this or that was true based in the movie. It is unfortunate, but too many people are learning history through the movies and all I am asking for is for the portrayal of any historical figure or event be as close to accurate as possible.
-
marcus
- Somatophylax
- Posts: 4871
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
-
Ariadne
Re: OK, so this is what I thought of the film
Hello Sikander ! In fact, I like cinema almost as I like A., and it seems to me that artistically, the movie is very bad !
Here in France I've only read negative reviews by cinema journalists (some of them very funny). Historians are a little more "kind". Historically, events, characters and details are almost all right. But the vision of A. is wrong : on seing the movie we don't understand why and how he became such a great conqueror, and why he's still so famous. Maybe I'm disapointed because I dreamt about a movie on this subject, and that's not the movie I dreamt.But on another point of vue, I thank Oliver Stone not to have realised the perfect movie, cause when an historical movie is very good (I'm just thinking about Lawrence now, but there may are some other examples), the film takes place of the history, and also of the myths around history. I don't know if you understand what I mean ?
After have seen Stone's movie, I keep my dreams like they were, mountains, rivers, battles and palaces haven't changed !I know that's a stange feeling. I know I'm to dreamy...and can only make long posts...Bye Bye ! Ariadne
Here in France I've only read negative reviews by cinema journalists (some of them very funny). Historians are a little more "kind". Historically, events, characters and details are almost all right. But the vision of A. is wrong : on seing the movie we don't understand why and how he became such a great conqueror, and why he's still so famous. Maybe I'm disapointed because I dreamt about a movie on this subject, and that's not the movie I dreamt.But on another point of vue, I thank Oliver Stone not to have realised the perfect movie, cause when an historical movie is very good (I'm just thinking about Lawrence now, but there may are some other examples), the film takes place of the history, and also of the myths around history. I don't know if you understand what I mean ?
After have seen Stone's movie, I keep my dreams like they were, mountains, rivers, battles and palaces haven't changed !I know that's a stange feeling. I know I'm to dreamy...and can only make long posts...Bye Bye ! Ariadne