I know this is a dead thread but...

[Thomas]

Can I just say that the Oliver Stone film (which I finally managed to get round to watching) was the worst film I have ever seen.I almost never stop watching a film and neither does my wife, but we gave up half way through.Why is it so hard to make a good film about Alexander?

[Jim A]

Hi Thomas, Oliver Stone has a habit of trying to defame figures of historical significance essecially if they are figures associated with the Political Incorrectness .Herbert Hoover was portrayed as a cross dresser,JFK was murdered by the CIA,Nixon was a pycho path.I beleive most of us Yanks were expecting to see a Movie with War Action scenes blood and guts associated with military conquests.Instead we got a new Polically Correct version of a modern day sensitive male with kind of a tabloid Oprah Winfreyish get in touch with your inner child theme not exactly associated with a man who idolized Achilles Killer of Men as his asncestor.( that would be very un PC) Movies are about money.Ironicly if ATG if Hollywood had focused on key battles or campaigns such as Tyre the film would have been a huge success. Oliver Stone did a great job with Wall St but ATG was not his strong point

[Efstathios]

"a man who idolized Achilles Killer of Men as his asncestor" Ehm..Achilles as well as the rest of the ancient greek warriors killed the enemies in the battlefield.The greeks and especially in Achilles time were fighting for glory.It was a different time with different ethics. And it is mistaken to say that Alexander was blood thirsty,as Fox said something like "Alexander practised in hunting lions in order to be well prepared for hunting men in the battlefield" or something like that.Well that is wrong.Alexander was not blood thirsty,as so many others were,like Genkins Khan,some Caesars e.t.c.If he was then he would have wiped out entire areas and populations like Khan did.But Alexander not only did not wipe out populations but to the cities that surrendered to him without a fight,or even after a fight,he granted almost complete freedom.He let them have their own leaders e.t.c.Of course he was the King of all,but he didnt interfere with the administration of each city,neither did he harm them. Alexander did wipe out Thebes,but even then he spared most of the population and sold them as slaves.He did the same thing we Tyre,because they resisted him hard and made macedonians angry when they presented the bodies of the dead macedonian emissaries at the walls.Then,he wiped out villages in India,but not totally,because they were resisting him. It was wrong and every writer admits that these were Alexander's not so bright moments.But apart from these moments he was not bloodthirsty.Dont mix up the fight for glory in the battlefield,and the fight for victory,with blood thirsty behaviour.

[Jim A]

Hi Efstathios , Your getting a little defensive and missing the point.First of all we know that movies are made for profit.Most people who are not ATG buffs(the public) associate Alexander with conquest via war thus portraying him as this sensitive kind a guy is the exact opposite of how he is perceived.He was certainly no Ghengis Khan ( well they were both conquerors so shared some common attributes but not as brutal) but not a modern day tree hugger. As for Thebes in Arrians account he attributes most of the Massacre to neighbooring Boetian states who had a score to settle with Thebes via the brutal rule of Thebes.Arrian states what so disturbing was people of a Kindred stock slughtering based on settling old scores. From a strategic point of view Thebes made sense. Thebes was hated by the Greeks for its past cooperation with Persia during invasions ( Greeks vowed to avenge Thebes betrayal. Thebes had supported Athenians being sold into slavery. ATG did need to use a Greek city as an example to show the consequences of rebellion and what better one to pick then Thebes where he could take advantage of Greek allies with vedetta's against the rebellios city. Arrian stated some ( Greek Allies)felt that Thebes had been justly punished yet were terrified of the same happening to them. Both of these benefited ATG immediate goals of securing rule in Greece before embarking on the Asia campaign.Use a hated enemy but to strike fear into those who might attempt to challenge your power. ATG understood the power politicals.When and when not to use force.His moves were usually well calculated. As for the movie I was hoping to see his military political genius stuff not a bunch of 21st century pychobabble on his so called inner emotions.
.

[Jim A]

Alexander was blood thirsty,as Fox said something like "Alexander practised in hunting lions in order to be well prepared for hunting men in the battlefield" or something like that. I have no problem with Fox's comment.Military special forces inorder to get trainees comfortable with killing sometimes get them to snap chicken's necks.In Macedonia killing a wild boar was done with a similar motive while to be accepted one had to kill a man in battle.

[Atanas]

Hello Thomas, and best wishes to your family.The film was a pathetic portrayal of Alexander and his Army. Also Stone's commentry on his cut dvd is just as pathetic. There he comes over as an Oliver the Lame Fox taught bad historian, especially on cultures and Macedonians and the fit in of Greeks. Where was Charonea ? That's American ignorance. He should forget about directing and do whatever for another 5 years, then start again from the basics of directing on something (not someone) else.Cheers

[marcus]

Hmm, looks as if the thread isn't dead after all! :-)I'm going to keep out of this one ...ATBMarcus

[Nicator]

Hello Thomas,
Long time no chat, but always a pleasure! I'm sorry you didn't like the film. It was awful though, really an unmitigated disaster. It might have been worth it for you to stick around long enough to watch the Battle on the River Hydaspes though, that was pretty cool. As I've stated before, the film should have been done in at least three parts, and clearly the focus should have been on his greatness, not his gayness. Oh well, what's done is done, and now we'll just have to wait another 40 years for another chance to see the film done correctly. later Nicator

[jan]

HI Thomas, Thanks, I needed that. You and Darthajax, the only two who had the guts! Like a sap, I sat through it and didn't demand my money refund. But I am convinced a great script will one day appear and will be made...in the right way. Keeping my fingers crossed...

[Paralus]

G'day Nicator.Another forty years?? Unlike Antipater, were I still to be around in forty years I'd be watching from a nursing home bed methinks.Will I remeber what it's about??Paralus

[ruthaki]

For what it's worth...sure there were omissions and a bit of wrong casting (you couldn't make a six hour movie out of the whole story) and maybe Stone chose parts of Alexander's life to focus on that weren't so important as others (you can't please everyone) but I happened to enjoy it. Saw it three times, each time looking for different aspects of it. It was a hell of a lot better that that stupid one they made with Richard Burton. Yes, I disagreed with some of it, but it wasn't so horrendous as a lot of people claim.

[kennyxx]

Ruth I saw 2 obvious historical errors in the Burton movie.1/Memnon dying at Granicus.2/Roxane been introduced to Alexander as Darius daughter. but the rest was not far out.In the burton movie the stautues looked beter than Stones funny plaster of paris efforts.And Richard burton was much more of a charismatic stronng force than Farrel. Many people argue that people wanted to see Alexander the man. I would argue the vast majority wanted to see what made Alexander Great.the Stone movies best 3 scenes are Philips Wedding night. Clietus death and Gaugamela. Hydaspes scene was utter tosh from start to finish where the hell did the forest come from. I agree with the original post the more I see this film the more stupid it looks and better Burtons effort looks.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Ruth I saw 2 obvious historical errors in the Burton movie.1/Memnon dying at Granicus.2/Roxane been introduced to Alexander as Darius daughter. but the rest was not far out.In the burton movie the stautues looked beter than Stones funny plaster of paris efforts.And Richard burton was much more of a charismatic stronng force than Farrel. Many people argue that people wanted to see Alexander the man. I would argue the vast majority wanted to see what made Alexander Great.the Stone movies best 3 scenes are Philips Wedding night. Clietus death and Gaugamela. Hydaspes scene was utter tosh from start to finish where the hell did the forest come from. I agree with the original post the more I see this film the more stupid it looks and better Burtons effort looks.Kenny

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,I said I wasn't going to rejoin this thread, but here I am. I agree with you - sure it has many faults, and there are many things about the film I'm not happy with; but I enjoyed it, I think it's rather unfairly criticised at times. I've just been watching it again (Director's Cut - *much* better than theatrical version) and I like it more ... although there are also things in it that irritate me more.On balance, though, I'd be more inclined to say that I like it than not.ATBMarcus

[nina]

HI THERE, I KNOW IT'S A DEAD THREAD BUT I ALSO JUST WATCHED OLIVER STONE'S MOVIE ABOUT ATG AND I WAS HEART BROKEN. ALEXANDER WAS SO MUCH MORE THAN A CONQUERER. HE JUST NEVER GOT AROUND TO THE ATG THAT I KNOW AND ADMIREE. HE WAS NEVER SHOWED AS A GREAT PLANNER, HOW ELSE COULD HE FEED THAT GREAT ARMY WITHOUT FOOD, WHAT ABOUT THE CITIES? THE LAST STRAW WAS WHEN ATG WAS SHOWN TO BE DIRTY AND UNSHAVED AND WE ALL KNOW HE WAS A STICKLER FOR CLEANLINESS. I STILL HAVE THE MOVIE AND JUST DON'T HAVE THE HEART TO THROW IT AWAY BUT WILL I EVER WATCH IT AGAIN??