Vaguely interesting article on the film

[marcus]

I certainly don't dispute any of that - to be honest, I rarely notice these subtle allegories in films anyway. Perhaps it's the sort of viewer I am, but unless I'd read that article I would never even have considered that it might have any allegorical content!I have to say one thing in defence of at least some of the historical accuracy issues, as raised by Green. First, who says that Stone *should* have included the Gordian Knot? The way it came across in the Green review seemed to make its omission a large 'problem' as far as accuracy was concerned ... but so much else was (had to be) left out. Also, Robin Lane Fox explained very early on why some of the inaccuracies, such as Cassander's involvement in the expedition, were included for the sake of the story. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with the policy, but I'd far rather have an *intentional* inaccuracy, which was explained at an early stage, than an unintentional inaccuracy as a result of sloppy research.Anyway, that's neither here nor there - I still won't get to see it for 3 weeks...As for "Time Bandits" - absolutely! The stuff with Agamemnon was superb. The only 'problem' was the fact that Mycenae was situated in the middle of a desert ... but it still looked fantastic!All the bestMarcus

[jan]

The most interesting article was listed below that said that Oliver Stone seems to defend his movie by saying that it isn't appreciated by conventional minds. You might know that he would pass the buck by blaming his failure on the audience.He is simply a poor screenwriter and director, and it shows bigtime! I am suspicious that he deliberately sabotaged Alexander!

[marcus]

Hi Jan,I don't agree that he's a poor screenwriter and a poor director, although it is possible that he screwed up with this film. But I do think that to suggest he deliberately 'sabotaged' Alexander is ridiculous - sorry.However, this isn't an Oliver Stone forum, so I'll not go on ... :-)All the bestMarcus

[me]

Re Time Bandits - Sean Connery was perfect - the fight with the minotaur was brilliant. What a bloke - now you could see his people following him to war...
I think it great that Sean could play two characters - one heroic (as in Time Bandits) and the other heriocally deluded, as in The Man who would be King, so well. Linda

[jay]

I may be in the minority here, but I enjoyed the movie. I tried to go into the theatre with an open mind, and I'll admit that I really wasn't looking forward to seeing it because of all the negative reviews, but I wanted to see it on the big screen, and found myself pleasantly surprised.Yes, the accents bothered me. Philip had an American accent, yet Alexander had an Irish one; what was Stone thinking?! That was one of the few things that pulled me out of the movie. Everything I have to say about Alexander's mother's goofy accent has already been said, so I won't bother going there.I didn't notice its three hour length, and wasn't left squirming and anxious for the exit. The soundtrack was very fitting and lush; I would have enjoyed the movie for the costumes, the sets, and the atmosphere alone. And though Colin Farrell would not have been my choice for the role, I thought he stepped up to the challenge and generally pulled it off. Some of the dialogue dragged on too long and should have been left on the cutting room floor, particularly a few scenes between Alexander and Heph. As I sat there watching, I realized that this was very much an insider's movie, and I don't think Stone intended it that way. For anyone familiar with Alexander's career, things made sense, and I was able to fill in the gaps in my mind. But anyone who didn't really know who Alexander was would have been left in the dust, and this was where Stone failed big time. He should have taken a page from Peter Jackson's book (Lord of the Rings) and made this one movie into at least two, filming them both at the same time but releasing one this year, and one the next, providing the 'uninitiated' with enough understanding into Alexander's mind and his world.As much as I enjoyed the movie, I'm dismayed that it may have damaged Alexander's reputation in history (with all the 'Alexander the Mediocre' and 'Alexander the Not-So-Great' taglines I've seen). Too many critics hated this movie, and that has done such a great disservice a great man. Alexander deserved better than this treatment.I hope that others who had planned on an Alexander project aren't scared off by this movie's reception. I hope Buz Luhrmann does go ahead with his movie (without DiCaprio, oh please, *without* DiCaprio!! He's such a frickin' lightweight!!), and that Martin Scorsese eventually goes ahead with the project he had planned. I think there is room out there for more than one interpreta

[jay]

Got cut off!I think there is room out there for more than one interpretation of Alexander's life. In fact, the more the better!So I say to those who have yet to see the movie: don't let anyone's opinion sway you or discourage you from seeing it. It's better than many have said it is. I'm certainly glad I went to see it.Jay

[Miss]

Hi JayI will go to see it, with an open mind. Your comments about it being an insider's film are interesting I think. It seems, from the reviews, that Stone tried to deal with lots and lots of aspects of Alexander's life, and "tick all the boxes", as a biographer might ie f the biographer doesn't subscribe to a point of view, he/she usually acknowldges it and deals with it. In fact, that is why biographies/critical works sometimes feel removed from Alexander, as they spend so much time dealing with other biographers' theories....not just in this topic, but others as well. Not necessarily a criticism, just a comment. Anyway, the film I am sure will resonate with those familiar with the story, and as this is me, I have good hopes of enjoying it. Linda

[Halil]

I agree with what you say on Green and the Gordian Knot. The way he was quoted made it sound like the Gordian Knot was a major omission because it was such a big incident in Alexander's life. I've never considered the Gordian Knot was anything more to Alexander than a tourist diversion, something like visiting the world's largest ball of string. I'm sure someone will jump me for this one (laughing), but, after all, Alexander and his companions were all highly educated, intelligent men. I can picture the scene, they're all standing round looking at it and someone says, "What would happen if you just pulled the pin out?" Alexander does just that and the thing unravels by itself. Lots of red-faced priests, no more tourist attraction, Alexander and friends exit quietly.But that aside, there were lots of incidents that Stone put in that I would have left out. And much that he left out that I would have put in. Can't remember where I read it but someone said that he had shown his audience what they should have been told, and told his audience what they should have been shown. I think that about sums it up. I'm not saying much more until everyone has had a chance to see it. I'm going to be really interested to hear what you make of it, Marcus. With your wicked sense of fun, if there aren't some scenes that have you rolling in the aisles, I will be greatly surprised.Cheers, Halil

[Halil]

Total agreement on Sean Connery. What a pity someone didn't cast him as Achilles (when he was younger, of course).And, Marcus, what about Sean Connery as Krateros? ;-)Halil

[amyntoros]

Well, Linda, whatever the mostly American reviewers thought of the film, it doesn't seem to have affected the international market. This following website is a report of international box office receipts to date.http://www.internationalmedia.de/index. ... id=248It's comforting for me to find there are other people who've seen the film outside of the US and obviously enjoyed it! Now I just have to wait and see what the Brits here think of it. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann