OK, so this is what I thought of the film

[marcus]

Well, I thought it was excellent - not perfect, but much, much better than I was led to believe. Perhaps, if I hadn't heard any adverse comments, I would have liked it less, but was so pleasantly surprised that I'm too generous? Anyway, here are some specific comments:Set design, costume design etc. extremely good. Accuracy of depictions of Babylon and Alexandria especially. My only real complaints were: the Sumerian artefact in OlympiasGÇÖ room in Pella, and the standard of the artwork, expecially in PtolemyGÇÖs palace in Alexandria. When one considers the realism and naturalism of real Hellenistic art, itGÇÖs a shame they reduced the quality.I felt Stone did an excellent job of fusing episodes together GÇô such as the Hyphasis and Opis mutinies, and the battle of the Hydaspes with the siege of the Mallian town. I still found it a bit difficult to stop myself from snorting every time he did so, but he did it very well. I have more of a problem with understanding *why* he fused the Dimnus and PagesGÇÖ conspiracies GÇô without the character of Callisthenes to get rid of there really was no need to do so, so I wonder why he bothered.I didnGÇÖt have any problems with the accents, although I do fail to understand why he had Angelina Jolie adopt the accent she did. As for the Irish accents of the Macedonians GǪ well, why not? After all, originally Alexander spoke Greek/Macedonian, not English GÇô is it purely the unwritten rule that says that actors in Hollywood epics must sound like Charlton Heston or Lawrence Olivier (or James Mason, if theyGÇÖre villains)?Val Kilmer was excellent, as was the boy who played the young Alexander. I thought Farrell was fine for the most part, although I didnGÇÖt agree with some of the characterisation myself GÇô to be honest I felt he was a bit whingy GǪ but thatGÇÖs StoneGÇÖs prerogative. The only two times where I thought Alexander really was weak was in the arguments with Attalus and Clitus GÇô there wasnGÇÖt enough anger from any of the characters in these scenes (in the wedding scene Alexander seemed more incredulous that Attalus would insult him). The way Stone dealt with the mutiny at the Hyphasis was so well done, it was a shame he didnGÇÖt get the same in these other scenes.Apart from that, the long looks of the Macedonians as they became more disillusioned was well played. Again, one complaint GÇô on HephaestionGÇÖs deathbed Alexander says that Heph is the only one whoGÇÖs ever told him the truth GǪ and yet never, during the long years

[marcus]

Continued ../Apart from that, the long looks of the Macedonians as they became more disillusioned was well played. Again, one complaint GÇô on HephaestionGÇÖs deathbed Alexander says that Heph is the only one whoGÇÖs ever told him the truth GǪ and yet never, during the long years of campaigning, did we ever see Hephaestion do so GÇô he just looked glum along with the rest of them. Was that just an editing blunder?It wasnGÇÖt too long a film per se (after all, the three LoTR films were each just as long, as was Braveheart), but the way Stone handled it he could have cut it by 20 minutes. I would have liked to have seen more of the first three years of conquest GÇô the weight of the film seemed odd; and I would have liked to have seen more of the Bactrian campaign GÇô all we got was a long shot of one burning town, with no sense of the harshness of the campaign (which he did well for India). The film seemed oddly weighted, as a result.The placing of PhilipGÇÖs death was a mistake. I understand that originally Stone intended there to be more flashbacks, but as this was the only one, it seemed odd. It would have been better GǪ and probably have worked just as well, had it been put in its proper place chronologically. AlexanderGÇÖs visions of Philip in the Clitus scene and at the Hyphasis would have worked just as well GÇô our memories arenGÇÖt *that* short.And the GÇÿloveGÇÖ scene with Roxane, well, I just didnGÇÖt get it. If weGÇÖd seen Al confronting Olympias *before* it, it might have made more sense. Placed where it was, we didnGÇÖt understand his attitude towards Olympias enough.As for the Hephaestion relationship GÇô if the Americans really got so worked up about that, then shame on them. If anything Stone made it *too* ambiguous GÇô to be honest, I didnGÇÖt think there was much point in having Bagoas in the film GÇô the relationship wasnGÇÖt explored enough for the GÇÿinfamousGÇÖ kiss to mean anything; the relationship with Hephaestion could so easily have been no more than platonic. I didnGÇÖt really see why Roxane got so worked up about it, either. And absolutely the best bit of the film? GÇô the look on OlympiasGÇÖ face when she sees that Philip is dead, and her sideways look at Attalus and Eurydike as she realises her opportunity to get rid of them. That was real class, and hats off to Angelina Jolie GÇô the sexiest mum in the world! IGÇÖm not surprised if Alexander *did* have an Oedipus complex with her as his mum!

[Jooles]

Marcus
I also expected the worst after all the criticism in the media.
The accents or the blond hair didn't bother me at all (my only little gripe is the hair was too long and dishevelled which I think would be unrealistic given the fastidousness of A in matters of cleanliness, apart from when campaigning).I fail to see who could object or take offense at the way the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion has been portrayed.
The only think I found wanting was that, if I knew nothing about the person, I would fail to see how 35,000 soldiers many of whom were veterans of Philip, were eager to follow him from day one on such an enterprise. The charisma of his early years (Issus)was not portrayed at all and we were left only with his the "negative" side of his personality, notwithstanding his courage and military genius. I thoroughly enjoyed both battles although it appeared that A turned back from India because of his wound and it was not shown as a clear victory. If I didn't know anything about what really happened, I would see the battle against Porus as a bit of a blunder. Still, I shall be going again with some friends who know nothing about A and I shall see what their comments will be.
Regards.

[iskander_32]

Marcus HailI feel justified with my enthisiasm with the film you generally second just about everything I said.
To be honest I will never understand the minds of so called film critics I fopr one cant get the basic idea what these clowns are bloody talking about.The hair the accents it was all straight talk,, Lord of the Rings had many dialects no one cared its fitting,,, These idiots must demant Greek talking Ancients or Charlton Heston but thats so called snobbery very akin to Aristotle ands his buddies.As you say we can all pick little niggles but I agree the history was nearly on the nail,, The love scene was a waste of time wich could have been spent on something better,,, You were correct in the view Bactria was panoramic I gues the shot of people falling from walls in the distant seige was the Sogdian Rock ,, But Marcus dont you agree Stone nor anyone else could cover it all.What he did with whjat he had in my opin ion was excelent.I still do believe the speaches and oration would have been better done by Richard Burtons,, He had the stage presence and charisma also the mesmerising voice to carry it off,, Althought the Burton movie was hailed as crap I do feel the Burtons Alexander was more forceful and commanded more respect.Hail MarcusRegardsKenny

[marcus]

You're right, Jooles, about the fact that we don't really understand why his soldiers were so devoted to him. There was one comment from Philip just before he was killed, and the adulation of the troops when Hephaestion proclaimed him king ... but that was all.Actually, I think it was a very bad idea to have Hephaestion proclaim him. Without Alexander of Lyncestis, I feel it ought to have been Parmenion - as it was, it looked as if Parmenion and many of the others were 'forced' to accept him, which diluted their later disillusionment.Still, as Kenny rightly says, these were Stone's choices, so we have to live with them.All the bestMarcus

[susan]

I thought that it could have been more inspirational - I know that's not what Oliver Stone does, but it an element that was somehow missing.Susan

[amyntoros]

I thought the statue of Philip was far worse than the statues at Alexandria, even though Philip and the gods were painted and those at Alexandria were not - apparently no one realized that bronze statues were painted as well as marble ones. The amount of clothing on the figures caught my attention the most. At first I thought it was because the set designer didn't want to show nudity, but the stolen statues in Babylon were realistically naked. Still, after reading all the outrageous and condemnatory reviews and no matter how much I tried to keep an open mind, I was half expecting the most terrible movie in history when I entered the theatre. Finding fault with a few statues is small by comparison. I agree with you in that I might not have liked the movie so much had I not been anticipating the worst. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

I suppose that, to some extent, I was bound to find more to criticise in little details - if all the set design had been terrible, I wouldn't have cared to notice any correctness in details. One thing I thought was very cleverly done, whether intentionally or not. The first time we saw Philip, we had already been told he only had one eye, and yet the age of Alexander indicated that the scene took place before he actually lost his eye. However, the scene was filmed in such a way that we never actually saw the scarred eye socket, so the pedants among us couldn't complain that it was wrong ... but others couldn't complain that, contrary to what Ptolemy said, he was in possession of a full pair.That was very clever, I thought. I also noticed that Philip didn't always have his limp, as it only appeared in the chronologically later scenes - what a beautiful piece of detail! :-)All the bestMarcus

[iskander_32]

Narcus HailThe movie was crambed full of little sayings stories ans accounts,, Did you notice the scene where Hepheastion made reference to Alexanders tilted head a gesture mimicked by Jim Morrison from the doors,,, My information was that he was always like that due to taking a hit on the neck.Also the scene Clietus accused Alexander thinking himself a god,, Then Alexander replied why not also the reference to thae way people honoured Alexander he made it clear to Clietus that he didnt expect it and that it was there ritual to do such thing.It was very clear the gigotry and the resentment from the Macedonians to those that were beaten,, Has there ever been a conquerer throughout history that ever treated the vanquished in such a magnaminous way,, There is nop doubt inb my mind Alexander was a Tyrant nor a despot but feel the Grreks would have prefered if he was to the Asians.The more we talk about this fil we will see all the good things,,, Dyed hair and accents made no difference at all,, I think the accents more realistic than maybe a silly American twang.RegardsKenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,Yes, I quite liked the little reference to the way Alexander held his head. Another thing has just occurred to me, which I really liked - in the opening credits, where all the titles were presented in Greek, hieroglyphics, cuneiform (I assume Old Persian, but maybe Babylonian), and I think Aramaic, too. That was sheer class!All the bestMarcus

[ruthaki]

Yes, Marcus. I totally agree with your commentary on the film. And yes, the credits at the beginning were fabulous! I found each time I've seen it the images resonant and I am lost in that world for a day or so afterwards. That, to me, is 'inspiring'.

[Ariadne]

Hello ! I live in France, have studied ancient Greece an have a passion for A. since my ...13th or 14th year, dont' remember.This is what I think of the film.I saw it 2 times : one in french translation, another in english, cause dialogues are awfull in french, and I hoped they would sound better in english. I must say I've been disapointed. Except in some sentences my bad knowledge of this language doesn't allow me to understand completely, dialogues are as pretentious and ridiculous in english than in french !Secondly scenario is bad : why not talking about the first part of the conqueast, which have some of the most scenes for a film :Troy,Issos, Tyre, Alexandria, Siwah, and many others... To show them all were impossible, but some of them should have appeared on such a film !
Why the narration by Ptolemy does have such an importance ? Anthony Hopkings says the same things again and again. Without those scenes, Stone would have had the time to show Issos an Siwah! Maybe he didn't have enough money... When he's crying on the battle field, it would have been so better without Ptolemy saying something like "Here, he has won the battle, but there are a lot of dead people, so because he's very sensitive, he's crying." But cause we're to stupid to understand, one commentary is needed about almost every scene ! The same with Roxane, her anger, her face, her snake bracelet : everybody understands she seems like Olympias! But not, A. must tell us she's like his mother ! And such a stupid psychology ! I know the importance of Oedipus' complex in his life, but to reduce all his destiny to this matter ! And Olympias still in anger, Philip still drinking !
I know the importance of his love for Hephaestion, but why these teenage TV movie dialogues ! Maybe I'm a cruel critic because my favorite film is ... Lawrence of Arabia.Oliver Stone seems to be very passionated about the subject, and he and his staff have studied many books (even Ptolemy's mistress name Thais is right). But in fact, I would have forgived him not to know enterely Plutarch or Arrian. I don't forgive him to have made a bad movie with such a passoinating (and finally hollywoodian) subject !Just my opinion.

[jan]

O.K. Marcus, the difference between the eagles and the scorpions is now made clear. I am still flying with the eagles, and have read all your critiques about the movie. Maybe Stone will want you in his next movie, supposedly, I hear, about Margaret Thatcher. I am not a sycophant to Oliver Stone, but at least now I have a general idea of what his movie type is. You didn't make any comments about his using red so profoundly in the last battle, as he likes to play around and it showed in that one. That made a lot of comment as to his so called "artistic" style. Few liked it. I rather liked that myself, as his use of blue and red made me think of the Jason O'Brien website where those are used intermittently.I objected immediately to all the artwork in the first few scenes, drowning in Alexander's busts, portraits, etc. Narcissicism not classicism!Since this is a secular site, one would not expect much to made of the religious symbols, but to my tastes, Alexander is still the embodiment of a holy man. Too little was made of his sacrifices, and the one that was used, I thought made him appear incompetent, as I believe Alexander cared about the animals that he used for sacrifice.As all of the movie is one big hodge-podge, I do it like the attornies do in court. If it is wrong in one scene, it is wrong in all scenes, so I just throw the whole darn movie out as one of Oliver Stone's worst, and if he wants as he has said he does, he can make it over again! Hope next time round, he does it right!

[marcus]

Hi Jan,I'm not sure I understand what you meant by this bit:"Too little was made of his sacrifices, and the one that was used, I thought made him appear incompetent, as I believe Alexander cared about the animals that he used for sacrifice."All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Oh, and by the way - if Oliver Stone asked me to be in a movie about Margaret Thatcher I would have to refuse in the very strongest terms!