pothos.org

As thime draws Closer for the movie,, I expect the special effects ans battle scenes to be great.In Lord of The Rings,, Gladiator,Troy and others the battle scenes looked great.But I still marvel at the battle Scenes in the early movies: Waterloo,Zulu,El Cid, Fall of the Roman empire to name but a few I still prefer those as in the modern ones The cracks are sometimes obvious.The Richard Burton movie even had reasonable scenes,, The movie has been panned but to be honest it was made in the 60s and to be honest a good point of reference to begin on Alexander.Was there ever a better cavalry charge in the movies than the Greys charging against Napoleon in Waterloo,,, Or Yule Bryners Taras Bulba Collecting his horse warriors shouting,,, I could be wrong with the spelling,,, Zabarushdi.
RegardsKenny

I remember the anticipation I had looking forward to that Richard Burton version of Alexander movie. I'd been reading, studying and writing about Alexander since I was a Grade 12 student (nearly failed my year because I was so invovled with him and his history - on my own, not at school). Anyway, when the movie came out I was horridly disappointed. Not only at the casting but at the stupid sets which look even stupider when you see them now. Thank god for the new technology. I can just imagine the spectacular scenes we're going to be treated to. I have to say though, that although I can 'see' Colin being a more appropriate Alexander, there's something about his voice each time i've glimpsed a trailer that puts me off. Like he's been at the bar the night before and has ruined his vocal chords. Anyone else notice that? Of course, I suppose even Alexander would get a bit hoarse yelling above the din of battle! ruthaki

Yes - Alexander's voice was supposed to be light, getting harsh when he was drunk. But I do think the battle scenes look great in the new film. If they are simulated well (like Helm's Deep in Lord of the Rings) , then they will be amazing. The rest of the film I expect will not be the story most of us will recognise, but it might be a good couple of hours. If it doesn't pander to modern sensibilities. Like Gladiator - I enjoyed it in the cinema, but afterwards I have never wanted to watch it again. somehow it was hollow in the core. I loved El Cid, and Spartacus - they didn't pull their punches. Linda

And Alexander *did* his share of yelling and drinking darling ruthaki. (hoarse,hoarse,hoarse)

His voice is described historically only as harsh/low, i.e. the Diadochi tried to emulate his voice and fast walk. There is of course the famous bit about him singing when Philip's takes him to task, but of course a high singing voice was preferred in those times, so one should be a bit suspect as to the reason Philip called him down, but again that's room for pure speculation.

I thought it was just me noticing the shrieky voice and little warbling "gloorrryyy" His voice sucks

I did think I had read somewhere that his voice was pleasant - but maybe that was his manner of speaking, and he descended to guard-room language when in his cups. I may have taken pleasant to mean light. Or it may have been the translation, as when looking for the quote online I saw the Perseus version of Plutarch's Alexander in whcih it describes Alexander's reaction to the Persian women (traditionally reported as they made his eyes ache with their beauty) as "eyesores".

You're probably remembering the references to his being the most charming prince of his age, then it says something about that changing when he drank. I don't have my references here.Regarding Gladiator, have you seen the DVD with the added footage? It is a good enough movie I have watched it a few times (although hardly historical).I hesitate to get on Farrell right now for the very reason that people felt much the same way about Crowe before Gladiator-many critically praised performances but no one thought he could be a leading man. Although Stone did call him down for not doing a good job acting several times during the film, or so he said.