- Joined
- Oct 3, 2001
- Posts
- 3,583
Uhg...I just got back from this 3 hour film, and I'm sitting here really trying to think of things that are redeemable within it.
I've always liked Oliver Stone's movies for the most part, and really, he has a great track record to go on: Wall Street, Platoon, Natural Born Killers, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, The Doors. So, needless to say, I was rather optimistic about what I thought was going to be a decent biopic about King Alexander of Macedonia. Boy, was I ever let down
The movie got a bunch of pre-release hype about it's potrayal of ancient Greek gayness, particularly Alexander's. I didn't really care about it, as long as it wasn't going to be overdone and ridiculous. What you get is just that, ridiculous and overdone. But, that's not even really the biggest reason to why this movie is a disaster. Please, don't let the subplot of homosexuality distract you from noticing the rest of the ways in which this movie underperforms.
First, I'll admit that the great life of Alexander can not possibly be dealt with in a mere 3 hour movie. However, this film doesn't really ever have any focus. Stone has placed scenes that while important in the story, have not much context leaving me without any stake in it. What I mean is, take the big set-piece battle scene at Gargamella. It happens very early on in the film, with Stone just skipping over years and years of important battles that took place previous to Gargamella, by having Anthony Hopkins(Ptolemy, psuedo narrator) just kind point out with a few short sentences what Alexander did before. It's ridiculous!
Sure you can't film every battle Alexander ever fought, but you also don't just jump right to the BIG one, which of course is the first time in the movie where we see Dorius III. Stone doesn't take ANY TIME WHATSOEVER to explore what drove Alexander to conquer Dorius! He's just there all of a sudden, the King of the Persians, there he is, the bad guy Alexander must defeat. We don't know why, we don't know the circumstances that brought Alexander this far east up to that point. The audience has no stake in whats happening, its just an obligatory battle scene! Really, I make it sound ridiculous, but this is exactly what it's like!
Yes, yes, the gayness is way over the top. I might as well talk about it, and this in and of itself is where Stone wastes so much time, that if he would have used this space to do more backstory on Alexander's personality and ambition, what drove him, more on his relationship with his father etc...he could have saved the movie...I'm not joking.
There are so many unnecessary conversations between Alexander and Hephestian to drive the point home about them 'loving' eachother. I mean really, you just want to get up and leave. It's not because it's disgusting, because the movie never shows any Gay sex or anything, mostly just innuendo left for the viewer to make up his own mind. But, it's just not needed! There's too many glaring looks between Alexander/Hephestian, and Alexander/Bagoas...so many that you wonder when the gay sex is going to begin! No, really it's horrible. Stone has Alexander, upon reaching Babylon (which is the best part of the movie) and entering a harem full of absolutely gorgeous Persian women, but has Alexander instantly fixate on Bagoas, this pretty looking servant guy, and exchange sexy stares. OK I GET IT, enough already. More backstory please!
I don't like the way Stone screws with the timeline either. I mean this movie is all over the place. It starts with Alexanders death, jumps back to his young childhood, flashes forward to his adolescence, and jumps to his adulthood all too quickly. Aristotle has what amounts to a bit part in the movie, with a total time on screen of about 3 minutes, I shit you not! The man who probably had the most effect on Alexanders personality and thought process gets 3 minutes! This is what I'm talking about, Stone spends the better part of 1 1/2 hours making sure you know for a fact that Alexander was at best Bi-Sexual, yet Aristotle gets 3 minutes to teach him about whatever.
Back to the timeline, Stone goes BACK 8 years near the end of the movie to revisit King Phillips assassination. It was done well enough, but here there's no real reason to jump all around like that. Why go back? This movie would just have been alot better had it been a linear work, so that you get a feel for the way Alexander's life was shaped.
Alot of people complain about Stone portraying Alexander with Blonde hair. I don't even care about all that, and you know what, by itself I think its OK to give someone that is historically special or 'GREAT' a trait that makes them stand out above everyone else. This actually does help the idea that perhaps He was the son of Zeus. No biggie, this is one thing where its ok, it's a movie, but Farrel does have a particularly bad dye job, bad roots and all. He looks too much like some southern Cali surfer dude.
I'm pretty let down about this movie, its not what I wanted or expected at all. It's a disaster for Stone and box office is showing just that.
I've always liked Oliver Stone's movies for the most part, and really, he has a great track record to go on: Wall Street, Platoon, Natural Born Killers, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, The Doors. So, needless to say, I was rather optimistic about what I thought was going to be a decent biopic about King Alexander of Macedonia. Boy, was I ever let down
The movie got a bunch of pre-release hype about it's potrayal of ancient Greek gayness, particularly Alexander's. I didn't really care about it, as long as it wasn't going to be overdone and ridiculous. What you get is just that, ridiculous and overdone. But, that's not even really the biggest reason to why this movie is a disaster. Please, don't let the subplot of homosexuality distract you from noticing the rest of the ways in which this movie underperforms.
First, I'll admit that the great life of Alexander can not possibly be dealt with in a mere 3 hour movie. However, this film doesn't really ever have any focus. Stone has placed scenes that while important in the story, have not much context leaving me without any stake in it. What I mean is, take the big set-piece battle scene at Gargamella. It happens very early on in the film, with Stone just skipping over years and years of important battles that took place previous to Gargamella, by having Anthony Hopkins(Ptolemy, psuedo narrator) just kind point out with a few short sentences what Alexander did before. It's ridiculous!
Sure you can't film every battle Alexander ever fought, but you also don't just jump right to the BIG one, which of course is the first time in the movie where we see Dorius III. Stone doesn't take ANY TIME WHATSOEVER to explore what drove Alexander to conquer Dorius! He's just there all of a sudden, the King of the Persians, there he is, the bad guy Alexander must defeat. We don't know why, we don't know the circumstances that brought Alexander this far east up to that point. The audience has no stake in whats happening, its just an obligatory battle scene! Really, I make it sound ridiculous, but this is exactly what it's like!
Yes, yes, the gayness is way over the top. I might as well talk about it, and this in and of itself is where Stone wastes so much time, that if he would have used this space to do more backstory on Alexander's personality and ambition, what drove him, more on his relationship with his father etc...he could have saved the movie...I'm not joking.
There are so many unnecessary conversations between Alexander and Hephestian to drive the point home about them 'loving' eachother. I mean really, you just want to get up and leave. It's not because it's disgusting, because the movie never shows any Gay sex or anything, mostly just innuendo left for the viewer to make up his own mind. But, it's just not needed! There's too many glaring looks between Alexander/Hephestian, and Alexander/Bagoas...so many that you wonder when the gay sex is going to begin! No, really it's horrible. Stone has Alexander, upon reaching Babylon (which is the best part of the movie) and entering a harem full of absolutely gorgeous Persian women, but has Alexander instantly fixate on Bagoas, this pretty looking servant guy, and exchange sexy stares. OK I GET IT, enough already. More backstory please!
I don't like the way Stone screws with the timeline either. I mean this movie is all over the place. It starts with Alexanders death, jumps back to his young childhood, flashes forward to his adolescence, and jumps to his adulthood all too quickly. Aristotle has what amounts to a bit part in the movie, with a total time on screen of about 3 minutes, I shit you not! The man who probably had the most effect on Alexanders personality and thought process gets 3 minutes! This is what I'm talking about, Stone spends the better part of 1 1/2 hours making sure you know for a fact that Alexander was at best Bi-Sexual, yet Aristotle gets 3 minutes to teach him about whatever.
Back to the timeline, Stone goes BACK 8 years near the end of the movie to revisit King Phillips assassination. It was done well enough, but here there's no real reason to jump all around like that. Why go back? This movie would just have been alot better had it been a linear work, so that you get a feel for the way Alexander's life was shaped.
Alot of people complain about Stone portraying Alexander with Blonde hair. I don't even care about all that, and you know what, by itself I think its OK to give someone that is historically special or 'GREAT' a trait that makes them stand out above everyone else. This actually does help the idea that perhaps He was the son of Zeus. No biggie, this is one thing where its ok, it's a movie, but Farrel does have a particularly bad dye job, bad roots and all. He looks too much like some southern Cali surfer dude.
I'm pretty let down about this movie, its not what I wanted or expected at all. It's a disaster for Stone and box office is showing just that.
