Alexander (spoilers)

[vegeta rocker]

I know its been awhile since Alexander was released but i figured that would just give more people time to see the movie. I myself DETESTED the movie and was curous if anyone hated it as well. This thread is nearly all spoiler so just another warning for you. I'm not using tags since that would mean nearly the whole post anyway. If you haven't seen it just don't read or get involved.

Here are some of the things i hated about the movie; there are more but I will bring up more depending on the response rate of this thread.

1. The Opening CG
Color schemes are used for a reason; they usually are a pallette of colors intended for a certain response or purpose. Example being Troy (also a horrid movie, but thats a whole other thread and time ^-^) the movie takes place in the desert right?
So the titles and Promos are all brown, gold, some green.....get the picture?
Alexanders was electric blue; which i didn't understand at all. It seemed totally out of place and it was also very ugly.

2.The Pacing
This movie was so slow at times i was trying to hang myself by my coke straw. The pacing was just horrible, the intro speech by Anthony Hopkins did not need to be that long. It was just horribly extended to stretch the movie to 3 hrs. Thats what a lot of this film does...stretch to make the 3 hr slot.

When they FINALLY get the first battle started they line up and you expect something great. I mean this is Alexander for Christ's sake! No, Oliver Stone has other plans. Instead, Alexander lines up his men and puts on a ridiculous hat. He looks like a damn chicken. I just started cracking up and nearly died on popcorn.
He goes to every other man and starts this whole memory lane crap. Remember when you blah, blah, blah. One or two guys would have been fine but he used way to many. We get the point.

3. The Accents
Angelina Jolie and the others, when they could keep their accents, sounded really cliche. Jolie herself sounds like Aaliyah's rendition of Akasha.

4. The Cinematography
Easily one of the parts i hated the most; the weird ideas that Oliver Stone must have. Stone has done some grand movies in his time; with fine composition and cinematography.

I understand people running around and their slipping out of focus here and there. Hey, if the man wants to screw around with depth-of-field a but and be experimental be my guest. But what was going on here was calibrating the camera. I really expected to here action every now and then.

Oliver Stone: Lets just zoom in a whole bunch and focus our camera a bit...what! We're rolling! Oh Man....well we could still use it

I hated trying to focus on that crap.

There were some really weird shots too, like the Medium Close Up of the Persian Emperor. I don't want to stare into his creepy eyes when all he does in turn around and back.

5. Compositing and Effects
The battle in the jungle when they fight the men on elephants. Because i really want to see a horse versus an elephant. I wonder who will come out on top. The horse didn't even look like the same one he had earlier. But he was calling it the same name.

When he gets injured the jungle around him gets all red tinted. For anybody who loved this effect here is how they did it.
Go in Adobe After Effects and drop a red layer on top of a video layer. Click hard mix and there. Alexander Effect. Horrible looking.

I didn't need that poorly composited hawk flying around either. They didn't pace it's appearances enough for it to become an actual constant.

6. Story
I don't really care about the homosexuality, to me it was done poorly. I know he was either bi or gay, depending on who you talk to. But i really didn't need to see a shadow of colins family jewels, i really didn't.

When they finally get home, he only has like 4 wives. I'm pretty sure he had more than that.


Well, post away and either agree or disagree.

[Juu]

[size=1]Ohhhhh nonono. You couldn't pay me to go out and see this movie. Basically you've covered all of the reasons I don't want to see this. Every time the trailer pops up on TV, Angelina Jolie's 'zeh vorld iz vyourz!1' sends this terrible chill up my spine. >>;;; Colin Ferrel doesn't look quite... right with the blonde hair, either. It just doesn't work. I really dislike the casting, and it just seems like they pulled in 'hot' actors of the moment and tossed them into this film. And judging by the trailers, there's a heap of other epics I could see that are much better than this. aksjdlka just... I'll pass. Especially if it means paying $9.50 for a ticket, heh.

I was looking forward to [b]Baz Luhrman[/b]'s version of Alexander, but it seems to have been scrapped. He's my favourite director of the moment, and his style's simply amazing (Moulin Rouge, Romeo + Juliet, Strictly Ballroom...). Anyway, in his version, it was supposedly going to consist of Nicole Kidman as the mother and Leonardo DiCaprio as Alexander. Hmm.[/size]

[natetron46]

I agree with that casting. There are some movies that have a whole bunch of stas that come out good. Sometimes just because of the talent of those actors. This is not one! They just rolled stars together for name recognicion. Stupid strategy. Failed with flying colors.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Ah yes, the nail in the coffin of Oliver Stone's credibility. I guess he is so busy looking for some sort of provocative or politically motivated theme that he manages to disregard any sort of historical evidence... period. I mean, I'm sure a 2300 year old Macedonian general is a regular Martin Luther King for gay rights; but if Mr. Stone bothered reading any Herodotus he might have known that the evidence that Alexander was gay is about as solid as our count of the "wise" men in the nativity story... what was that number? Oh yes, we haven't a clue. All we know is that he [i]was[/i] Macedonian, raised practically Athenian, and had quite a taste for the liquid courage. Oh yeah, he married several women and had several historically noted mistresses. Wanna hear where people get the idea that Alexander was gay?

Alexander grew up on Homer and idolized Achilles like a Corinthian schoolgirl. He even stepped foot on modern-day Turkey first [i]just[/i] like Achilles. So if Achilles and his best-bud Patroclus had the horizontal tango, i guess one could assume that Alex got it on with his little buddy: Hephastion. Also, Greeks didn't really observe sex the same way westernized nations do.

Besides that, I hear the movie was horrible. Glad I didn't see it.

[Dagger]

I don't have the energy to go back and refresh my memory on this topic or do any kind of meaningful research, but I'm pretty sure there are other reasons that people believe Alexander was bisexual.

Anyway... from what I recall (and you sort of hinted at this too, but I'm not sure what you were driving at by mentioning it), the culture in which he lived didn't really ascribe to rigid concepts of "straight" vs. "gay," at least not like we do today. The fact that he took wives, had affairs and spread his seed like any other respectable conqueror is hardly proof that he didn't have relationships with men, heh.

This isn't something I want to debate, and I haven't actually seen the movie (although I've read up on it a bit). I have no desire to watch it either, heh--it sounds atrocious. Without having watched it, all I can say is that I was under the impression that Alexander's sexual orientation was addressed in the film, but never became its focus. In one article, the reporter described how the suits involved with the film felt a lot of trepidation regarding the homoerotic content and repeatedly asked the director to tone it down.

I just think it's slightly unfair to say Oliver Stone was hankering to work the controversy angle when he was sort of damned no matter what he did. Including a lot of stuff about bi/homosexuality would have turned a lot of potential viewers off, as the higher-ups evidently feared; if he totally glossed over it, people would have called him out on that.

On a side note, Herodotus has his merits, but he's not necessarily the most reliable source. :p

~Dagger~

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]I don't have the energy to go back and refresh my memory on this topic or do any kind of meaningful research, but I'm pretty sure there are other reasons that people believe Alexander was bisexual.

Anyway... from what I recall (and you sort of hinted at this too, but I'm not sure what you were driving at by mentioning it), the culture in which he lived didn't really ascribe to rigid concepts of "straight" vs. "gay," at least not like we do today. The fact that he took wives, had affairs and spread his seed like any other respectable conqueror is hardly proof that he didn't have relationships with men, heh.[/QUOTE]

As per your following request, I'm not debating this as putting a finish to the whole discussion on "Was Alexander Gay" topic. Here's the big answer: Whatever floats your boat. Yes, sex wasn't really as restricted in greek culture, heck spartans and "sacred band" commonly used sex to strengthen their ranks. Then, while homosexual lovers have been described for many famous greeks, Alexander was simply never associated with one. Draw your own conclusions... I suppose.

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]
This isn't something I want to debate, and I haven't actually seen the movie (although I've read up on it a bit). I have no desire to watch it either, heh--it sounds atrocious. Without having watched it, all I can say is that I was under the impression that Alexander's sexual orientation was addressed in the film, but never became its focus. In one article, the reporter described how the suits involved with the film felt a lot of trepidation regarding the homoerotic content and repeatedly asked the director to tone it down.

I just think it's slightly unfair to say Oliver Stone was hankering to work the controversy angle when he was sort of damned no matter what he did. Including a lot of stuff about bi/homosexuality would have turned a lot of potential viewers off, as the higher-ups evidently feared; if he totally glossed over it, people would have called him out on that.[/QUOTE]

Oliver Stone is a director that looks for the most dramatc selling points. No, not of the origional story, but how it could be received today. I mean, look at "JFK", for God sakes. The reason no one insinuated Alexander was gay in the first place is because no one gave a rat's *** back in 300 b.c. People today do, and that's a selling point. I wanted to see Issus, I wanted to see the seige of Tyr, I would have loved to see Granicus. I mean, did he even visit the oracle at the temple? From what I've asked my friends; the few battles they show are Gaugamela and his little skirmishes in India and some transylvannian snake charmer pretending to be Olympias. *sighs*

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]
On a side note, Herodotus has his merits, but he's not necessarily the most reliable source. :p
~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

I thought you were being sarcastic when I read this, that you were mistaken. Then I read my origional post. I [i]did[/i] write Herodotus... whoops. I actually meant Arrian, and to a lesser extent, Eurimenes. That would mean you bought my first post... which would mean that all the "meaningful research" you "would have" done wouldn't have gotten you a foot in the door. So, what were you saying about Herodotus?

[Dagger]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth][b]The reason no one insinuated Alexander was gay in the first place is because no one gave a rat's *** back in 300 b.c.[/b'] People today do, and that's a selling point. I wanted to see Issus, I wanted to see the seige of Tyr, I would have loved to see Granicus. I mean, did he even visit the oracle at the temple? From what I've asked my friends; the few battles they show are Gaugamela and his little skirmishes in India and some transylvannian snake charmer pretending to be Olympias. *sighs*[/quote]

Okay, now I understand what you were saying before. In that sense, I definitely agree. Well, maybe the other Alexander movie (isn't there another one coming out/in production or something? I don't really keep track of movies too much) will show more of what you wanted to see. Although a two to three hour movie on this topic is always going to have to pick and choose. :/

[quote]I thought you were being sarcastic when I read this, that you were mistaken. Then I read my origional post. I [i]did[/i] write Herodotus... whoops. I actually meant Arrian, and to a lesser extent, Eurimenes. That would mean you bought my first post... which would mean that all the "meaningful research" you "would have" done wouldn't have gotten you a foot in the door. So, what were you saying about Herodotus?[/QUOTE]

I think it's only fair to assume that someone is saying what he meant to say. Obviously one of the reasons I didn't want to debate about this is that my knowledge of the time period is pretty sketchy. But, thanks for replying and providing that clarification. I missed your point in your original post, but it makes sense to me now. ^_^

~Dagger~