Nicator ?

[kenny]

I read your revised opinions about the movie and that you had a better understanding with the film.I have problems maybe you could answer. Oliver admited Cassander was not even on the campaign so therefore in your opinion give the guy such prominent presence.Also the Hepheastion getting a smack from Clietus what was that all about?Finally the battle of Hadaspese looked very desperate for Alexander in the movie. As we know as soon as Alexander was across the river in force it was game set and match Porus was then trapped between 2 forces. It made Alexander loomvery desperate and in some instances rather erratic. I feel erratic our guy wasnt.Regards.Kenny

[Nicator]

Kenny,
"I have problems maybe you could answer. Oliver admited Cassander was not even on the campaign so therefore in your opinion give the guy such prominent presence."
To make the script work, Stone decided to put Cassander in from the beginning and leave him in there throughout so as not to confuse audiences by having him suddenly appear at the end of the film. It's understandable from a director's point of view. My original thinking, that he should have planned on making 3-three hour epics to do a proper job of the genre still holds though...this was a drastic mistake that no amount of explaining can adequately surmount.
"Also the Hepheastion getting a smack from Clietus what was that all about?"
I guess you're talking about the banquet scene where Alexander has it out with Philip (and Pausanias gets raped in the background), it was just sort of a big party where everyone was being homosexual...whatever.
"Finally the battle of Hadaspese looked very desperate for Alexander in the movie. As we know as soon as Alexander was across the river in force it was game set and match Porus was then trapped between 2 forces. It made Alexander loomvery desperate and in some instances rather erratic. I feel erratic our guy wasnt."
The only thing that saved this for me was that Stone admitted that the battle scene was far too complex to put to film and he explained a little about the actual battle, so he knew what actually happened (though I doubt he fully understood the complexities involved). He combined Hydaspes and Multan (which he called the battle of Multan, when it was really a siege, the battle was against the Mallians). At Multan, Alexander was forced to use heroic measures to spur his troops into action, and nearly died from the arrow shot. We see this mixed into Hydaspes. At the actual battle, we don't hear much about Alexander after his cavalry feint. One last thing I'll add, Stone has underestimated the moviegoing audience. He repeatedly harps on audiences not being able to sit through movies longer than 3 hours. This has some ring of truth to it, but audiences have come to expect a long haul and willingly go in anyway. I think this may have been the case when swords & sandals went out of fashion in their hayday of the early sixties, but it's a different world. I think he probably knows this, and simply doesn't want to be doing Alexander movies for the next 7-10 years...hard to blame him for that.
later

[kenny]

Nicator hailCompliments for your reply and of course I understand your rhetoric.Alterior to you I was more positive to the film when I firsty saw it. I guess I had waited years for this movie and appreciated what I got.But the more I see it the more it aint to my taste even though its not as bad as the critics said.I guess its the puritan comming out of me and the more critical towards little bits. I guess I could pick out lots of faults.The main critisism I have as a whole is that the character of Alexander was not as sure of himself as I am sure we know he was. Henpecked by his mother.etc.There was no real air of authority and supreme confidence comming from this guy. Maybe Colin aint got the presence to be such a titan. Burton showed much more command and authority.I guess Ill ask the Porthonians would this Alexander encourage anyone here to cross mountains countries and continents. For me its a no.RegardsKenny

[Nicator]

Hi Kenny,I didn't get that he was henpecked by Olympias, but more that she was messing with his head. No doubt the essence of this relationship is accurate to a large degree. Though without the hollywood drama. The part of the film I liked the most was Philip's death scene which I believe was followed directly by Hydaspes and then Olympias brilliant scene with Alexander where she tells him "Your soul belongs to me...Alexander". This was high tension between mother and son in the wake of Philip's death. The tension is peaked by the interlacing of scenes where Alexander has just led his troops by heroic action into the thick of battle and Bucephalus takes a knee, covered with arrows and spear jabbed by Porus, while Alexander lies dieing on his back. Powerful stuff. I can't fault the acting in this film. Colin went through emotional high's and low's that inspired. Angelina was excellent as well. So was Val. I was a little dissapointed with Anthony Hopkins performance (more than a bit uninspired). Christopher Plummer as Aristotle, a masterpiece of scene and character acting if ever there was one. The problem was lack of adequate character develpment...and that's directly related to the script. If we could have seen what Alexander went through behind the scenes to make his battles work and had a better understanding of how much he suffered to accomplish what he accomplished, then his greatness could have come through. Without that, you have nothing but the emotional troubled boy that died too young...nobody gets it. later Nicator

[kenny]

Nic HailIll go withhalf what you say and the turn around with your opinion is pretty amaizing. I guess I went the other way. I can agree the Clietus death scene.Philips wedding night. Farrel nailed very well but the guys presence was not enough for the speaches and the warrior leader. as was Orlando in the Ridley Scott movie.I liked Bucephalus trying his best to protect his friend and been killed a nice touch. My wife cant watch the scene. As you quite accuratyely said the character development was missing that made it puzzling. Stone threw all the sayings and quotes in there rather a fuzzy thing to do.Kenny

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[kenny]

Andrew HailI kinda knew the horse didnt die at the battle. Infact I think by that stage its said Alexander didnt use Bucephalus. His oldmate was getting on and Im sure Alexander let the horse take it easy.I watched Hidalgo again, and I dont particullay like the Idea that the movies end was wrong. I recall you told me the horse got left in Arabia. Maybe wrong but that stinks.My wife hates all cruelty and death to animals. She wont even stomp a spider even though shes scared stiff of them.RegardsKenny

[Nicator]

I'm pretty sure Bucephalas didn't go down that way as well, but it still choked me up a bit to watch him fall anyway. I'm still amazed at the detail Stone added to every scene. There was a shot where you see an arrow zip by at great speed (I didn't catch it until about the 12th watching). He actually has the sound effect of the arrow wizzing by timed perfectly. The elephants were covered with arrows as they backed off. I'd swear the guy read my battle scene because they are so similar, except for the setting. He almost overpowers his film with allusions though. This is, artistically, sort of amateurish, and it's something that Stone has always struggled with. A good artist knows when enough is enough, and he may have gone a bit overboard with the mythological imagry (still, that's not the problem with the film, it's just a distraction). I found it interesting that he had Ptolemy refer to some story of Heracles was fact, and some other thing, regarding Alexander I think, as fiction.

[beausefaless]

Deleted