Philip of Macedon oughta sue...

[xxx]

I finally saw Alexander today, being unable to see it earlier due to illness. It was a pretty empty theater for its debut at the $1.50 movie theater.This is not a good movie - no ifs, ands or buts (well, Farrell's naked butt and accessory were on view along with the obligatory boob shot to get an R rating). It is not quite as bad as critics have made it out to be on the whole, but it definitely is in parts.During the first half hour I was waiting for either Barry Fitzgerald or a Leprechaun to appear because I wasn't sure if this was Alexander or The Quiet Man in chitons. The accents were way overdone. As a rule the performances were mediocre to bad except for Jolie and Paolino. The only thing worse than being an actor completely lost, is looking like an actor completely lost. I refer to Farrell. Stone's direction seems to have completely confused him, or he just didn't get the part. Some of the lines were so bad they made me wince. I know I uttered 'My God' at least once. He also overdosed the film with homoerotic overtones that would not have been so noticeable if the script had been good or the acting - both Leto and Farrell looked on the verge of laughter in most of their embracing scenes. Little did I know Hephaestion was a Rasta Hopkins was a waste - the narrative added nothing to the film. In fact it was contradictory. The camerawork was terrible - very amateurish for a film this expensive from a director who should know better. Moving the camera jerkily does not make a fight scene look better most of the timeThe eagle?s viewpoint was the most interesting part of the film. The CGI of the battlefield however, did not look particularly good. Most of the fight scenes were OK, but not outstanding. Some parts were just plain silly - just how many times did Farrell look behind him charging? Like Hanks said in the women's softball movie "There's no crying in baseball" I would have to say to both Farrell and Stone, "There's no looking back in a cavalry charge." Best scene in the film is when Farrell is skewered and Bucephalus dies.The love scene with Roxane may become legendary ? but not for good reasons. The Hephaistion death scene was equally bad. His lover is dying and all this boy wants to do is chat at the window. Leto flails around in the background like someone has him hotwired to a car battery. Then he stops moving so gee, I guess that means he?s dead, eh? That is bad filmmaking any way you slice it.

[xxx]

I won?t get into the history because this is Alexander how Stone sees him. But anyone who saw this would wonder why we?d follow Alexander into a bar let alone thousands of miles. He spent a good deal of money on props, most of the scenery was good, costuming as best as can be expected (some detail errors but I could tell you the species of snakes they used and they were wrong, but then I can be a bear about detail).As a character study it fails because we never learn anything about Alexander, or why he's great. It definitely could have done without all the later famous quotes being put in there as though they were close to contemporary. What the hell did "He was defeated only by Hepahistion's thighs" at the beginning add to the story? Bad, bad narration. I wish he?d have spent more time conceptualizing how to put it all together rather than rushing to the gate with what is ultimately a disappointing film. I know it was disappointing but you know it's bad when you wish Alexander would hurry up and die already And why was the ring he dropped on the ground back on his hand when he died? Oops...

[Halil]

:-)Halil

[ancientlibrary]

I'll second that review of your review. I didn't see
the ring again. Ouch!

[xxx]

Well as you know, mood rings are making a comeback, I just didn't expect to see it in the movie Surely you had to love the scene where Philip walks out into the theater and they show the viewpoint from behind him as he drags his crippled twisted right foot forward, then later after Alexander comes out of his tent after taking the Mallian wound to address the army, we have the same viewpoint and he too has a crippled twisted right foot. So we're supposed to see they're the same - now that's an ouch! Film was full of this kinda stuff.Regards,Tre

[Halil]

Wow, Tre! You have my admiration, and I do mean that sincerely. Ah, the brilliance of the writers (?) Philip has an injured leg and limps, so now Alexander has an injured leg and....limps! Boy, that's profound! Do you think the audience will get it? Better give the exact same shot just to make sure.:-)Halil

[birdlover]

I don't know if the crippled foot thing was intentional.Farrell really had a crippled right foot. He slipped and fell down some stairs at his hotel two days before the scene was filmed. He broke his rist and his ankle (you may have known this already). So he finished the film in a cast (including the scene where he goes up against the elephant).Now whether they re-shot Val Kilmer's scene, so he looked like Farrell is another story. But, I am not sure if these particular scenes were really all that intentional or not.But, I did get a little chuckle when I saw that they used his injuries as a war wound. I still enjoyed the film. I thought it was good. But, I see opinions in many places are very divided on this film. I knew it was going to be one where some were going to be happy with it and some were not. Thats exactly the way it panned out.Dara

[xxx]

Everyone was aware of Farrell's fall but clearly Stone meant the comparison as both scenes are shot from the same angle, below and behind. Whether or not he capitalized on Farrell's injuries and reshot Kilmer's scene wouldn't change the point that he hits people over the head with the message. But the film was so disjointed, it may have been lost in the confusion of trying to follow what was going on. Perhaps adding the cut footage would make the scene transitions smoother but editing it even shorter would not make it better, unless one wishes to endure a not-so-good film for a less amount of time. They cut some three hours off of Cleopatra for its theater run and it was a pretty bad flick, but with the cut footage added back it became better. Same of Lawrence of Arabia (which was admittedly better than either film even edited)which was also improved with the added footage that had been removed for many years.But alas, Stone is no David Lean, who painted his reels like an artist paints his canvas.Regards,Tre

[birdlover]

Okay, I got ya! Thanks for the reply.Your points are well taken. I didn't really notice the similarities in the film, but I just didn't look that far into the details to notice it. You have a good eye.I wrote about editing over on one of the other threads, so I won't reply about that.Thats it for me.Regards, Dara

[amyntoros]

Poor Oliver - there's a whole party of people who think the movie was too confused, that it didn't explain things properly and it needed to be more simple and direct. Now it's being slammed for being too obvious in certain scenes! (No offense meant, Tre - just making an observation.) Sometimes you just can't win whatever you do! :-)Best regards,Linda Ann - Who said she wasn't going to post on the movie any more, but there are seven (count them!) threads on the movie, it's three in the morning and she's had three glasses of wine and doesn't really care.

[xxx]

No amount of wine is going to make this a good movie however I won't make any apologia for Stone because he did a bad job. The script was weak, the acting not good and the scenes poorly conceived. He's not the first director to blow a big movie (Ang Lee coming off the excellent Crouch Tiger Hidden Dragon then blowing The Hulk for instance), nor will he be the last.The scary part is that Stone couldn't figure that out before he put the movie in the can. Regards,Tre

[marcus]

Hi Dara,Like Linda Ann, I wasn't going to make any more comments on the film, but having just seen it for the second time this weekend, reading your post struck a cord with me. On the first viewing I didn't really notice that Farrell had a limp when he walked out of his tent. This time I did, and I also noticed that his foot was heavily bandaged. I started off thinking "that's odd - an arrow in the lung wouldn't cause him to limp" - but now you've given me a totally plausible explanation.I doubt that the scene with Val Kilmer was re-shot - Philip *did* have a limp, and I imagine that it was there from the word "go". However, I bet Stone was rubbing his hands with glee when Farrell's drunken antics gave him to opportunity to make the parallel between him and Philip.I don't think it was too heavy-handed - I'm not stupid, and I'm not an Alexander dunce, but I didn't notice a parallel in two viewings!All the bestMarcusPS: I still think everyone's being too harsh about the accents. Had the Irish accents been badly done I would be more concerned (shades of Dick Van Dyke), but they were pretty accurate on the whole ... so why not?

[birdlover]

Hi Marcus,

I did catch Colin and his limp the first time around and knew immediately that it was because those darn stairs at his hotel just got in his way. Stone was not too pleased that this happened. But it was at the very end of the shoot so there was not much he could say. They shot around Colin for a day and he came back, cast and all and finished up his part (as you can tell, we have been discussing this film forever over at the Dreamworks forum. Maybe a bit too long).
But, I am glad I was able to help you out a bit with this one.
Best Regards,
Dara