Go to the alexander-the-great.co.uk homepage
alexander-the-great.co.uk
Talk about the Oliver Stone movie "Alexander"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the Movie - Post Release
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GLENDALEFALCON



Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 42
Location: Springfield, Missouri, USA

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:41 pm    Post subject: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

People in the U.S., critics I should say, have been beating this film to death
for every other reason BUT the quality of the filmmaking. These critics in
the U.S. HATE Oliver Stone and will NEVER give him a break. So the
negative reviews shouldn't surprise anybody. I've found nearly 20 positive
reviews that treated the film fairly and offered even handed critical comments
about certain choices that Stone made which may not have been the best.

Overall, the film is as good as a film attempting to tell the whole story
can be. If I was doing the Alexander the Great story, I'd break it down
into three, three-hour films. But Stone didn't have that option and since
Persia & India were thrown by the way side in the Burton film in '56, Stone
I think wanted to paint a very broad picture of the man. True, maybe
Stone cut too much from the first conquest of Persia and settling Alexandria
in Egypt, but overall he touched on just about everything he could've
given the scope of HIS vision.

Colin was wonderful...perhaps other actors could've played certain parts
of the character a bit better, but if you take the total package into account
he did a better job than any other actor under 30 could've (that the studio
would've allowed Stone to cast that is)

The sets, cinematography, film editing, costume design are all Oscar worthy
and the score by Vangelis is simply outstanding...I've had the CD on for
a whole week now!!!!

Did Stone sidestep issues I would've done had I been directing...Yes, but
given that this film was more 'Any Given Sunday' or 'The Doors' than 'JFK'
or 'Nixon' I think it came off rather well...As good as it could've been...maybe
not, but certainly the best film I've seen this year and Stone's third or
fourth best of his career!

I just hope Buzz and Leo don't go ahead with their film...please don't!!!!!

This film is going to bomb in the U.S. under $50 million it looks like, but
the international box office will be over $300 million!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
tintin



Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 24
Location: Winchester, MA, USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:19 pm    Post subject: Re: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

My wife and I went and saw the movie when it first opened up, on Nov. 24. This, of course, generated many discussions between us during the following days. She did not like it at all. She is a writer, and was pretty critical of all the shortcomings of the film. A film, like a novel, is supposed to tell a story. A good story must follow basic rules, and apparently Stones violated several of them. For me, one who has always been fascinated by Alexander (I have read four biographies, the beautiful historical novel by Mary Renault “The Nature of Alexander,” plus couple of books about his time), I was less critical, and frankly somewhat overwhelmed by the experience of seeing this piece of history come alive. So, I was not what you would call an “impartial observer.”

I went back to see it again few days later, with hopefully a more critical mind. Given the room on this forum, I can only give a very superficial critique of the film, with very few examples.

1) Historical Accuracy.
Not a bad job. In an historical film about a character as notorious and complex as Alexander, the historical facts, as they are known to experts, are certainly the most important aspect of the film. In that respect, from my (non- expert) knowledge of Alexander’s life and time, I found the film somewhat satisfactory, although there were some errors. For example, Alexander was not wounded at the battle of Hydaspes, but fighting the Mallis.

2) The Production.
- The two critical battles in Alexander's conquest, Gaugamela and Hydaspes, were excellent.
- The costumes and decors were excellent. I am told that Stone was very particular about these, and spent lots of money to insure their authenticity. For example, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, were beautifully rendered. But there were flagrant errors here and there. For example, the lighthouse in Alexandria, also one of the Seven Wonders of the World, clearly visible in the panorama of Alexandria when Ptolemy (Soter) is introducing the movie, was a flagrant anachronism. The lighthouse was conceived and initiated by Ptolemy Soter around 290 BC, but was completed after his death, during the reign of his son Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Olympias was at least 17 years old when Alexander was born, so she was at least 36 when he finally left her…she did not look one year older than when Alexander was young!? The casting of Rosario Dawson as Roxana was ridiculous. She was 16 years old when Alexander married her, not this woman with drooping tits. She was of exceptional beauty, which Dawson is not. And mostly, why cast a person with negroid features for a person from Central Asia? Finally, there was just TOO MUCH of Olympias with her dumb snakes: we did get the message in the first minute of the show.

3) The Characters.
Stone tried his best to portray Alexander, a complex individual, with mix success. Colin Farrell’s performance was relatively good, given the script he had to work with. Including certain crucial episodes in Alexander’s life would have been worth thousands of words: Alexander stopping in Troy to get Achilles’ armor, the Gordian Knot episode, and the Oracle of Siwah. Why wasn’t Sisygambis, his “second mother,” represented?

The rest of the cast did pretty well also. However, the different characters are two-dimensional, but this is a Hollywood movie after all, so you do not expect much depth. As an epic, it could have been OK, but not as an historical film, where the psychologies of the different characters are as important, if not more, as the physical facts. What drove Alexander? What was his relationship with Ephaestion?

4) The Script
The script was poorly written, full of clichés. Also, when using a narrator, the time-line, should have been straight forward, lest you confuse the listener. Why go back toward the end of the movie to Philip’s assassination?

5) The Music
Too much of it! We could have used some reprieves from this incessant noise.

These are very few remarks about the film. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you to death. Making a film about Alexander was a haunting task to start with and Oliver Stone tried and mostly failed. That’s too bad, as who will dare to tackle Alexander next? Not in my life time. In resume, “Alexander” was much better than “Troy-the-Disaster,” if that is a consolation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cindoo15



Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1282
Location: Dallas TX

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:50 pm    Post subject: Re: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

[quote="tintin"]

1) Historical Accuracy.
Not a bad job. In an historical film about a character as notorious and complex as Alexander, the historical facts, as they are known to experts, are certainly the most important aspect of the film. In that respect, from my (non- expert) knowledge of Alexander’s life and time, I found the film somewhat satisfactory, although there were some errors.

These are very few remarks about the film. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you to death.

No, you did not bore me to death; I found your remarks very interesting.

Pertaining to historical facts and experts, could you please explain to me how and where these facts were recorded over time; I have of coarse heard many stories about Alexander during my years but not until now did I begin to wonder how we know so much about this man. I am especially curious since the library in Alexandria was burned later (or so I believe - I am not a historian).

Also, could someone please recommend a book about Alexander so I can fill in some blanks. Thank you.

Finally, I had mentioned in a previous post that the Gardens of Babylon were not in the film; guess I missed that part - suppose I'll have to go see it again. It was quite a lot to take in with one viewing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ely



Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have also seen it twice and planning for a third row, This movie is fantastic, I'm amazed at all the negative reviews and critics, It saddens me how people fail to see the greatness of this movie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tintin



Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 24
Location: Winchester, MA, USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:06 am    Post subject: Re: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

The primary sources on the life of Alexander come mainly from two men who accompanied him throughout his campaign: Aristobulus and Ptolemy I. Aristobulus, the Greek architect who had traveled through Asia and Punjab with Alexander, published his Memoirs, around 294-288 b.c.a. At about the same time, Ptolemy I, one of Alexander's generals, published his Memoirs of the campaign. Since Aristobulus lived in Macedonia and Ptolemy I in Egypt, their stories developed independently.

The next most reliable source is Arrian who wrote about Alexander soon after the time of Christ. He compiled a list of books which he consulted, the names of which fill twenty closely printed pages. Arrian considered Aristobulus and Ptolemy I the most reliable of all the authors whom he studied.

Every modern writer on Alexander relies heavily to the Arrian’s Alexander Anabasis. There are several translations of Arrian’s book, the most readable being that of J.Rooke (1859)

I would recommend Alexander the Great, by Robin Lane Fox, and an historical novel by Mary Renault, The Nature of Alexander. Both are readily available in paperbacks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ely



Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey thanks for the suggestions, I just ordered "The Nature of Alexander" this afternoon, Already own "Fire From Heaven", "The Persian Boy" and "Funeral Games".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rothalion



Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 73
Location: USA, Florida

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:33 am    Post subject: History and soundtracks Reply with quote

Overall with my limited yet growing knowledge of Alex. I felt that the historical facts were not tragically altered. This is a movie and not a documentary afterall. I do not know how writers and directors make the judgement call when it comes to say fudging history or what scholars claim to be "history". This is such a huge story. Do they sort of say well...maybe thirty percent of our audience will figure out that Alex. got that nasty final arrow wound in Mallia and not at Hyspadies(sp) so lets consolidate. I was not disappointed with the movie at all and it's a shame that so many are panning it. As for the music...I have no idea what is sounds like. I do not recall ever noticing it. Lots of folks are complaining about it but for whatever reason...I just didn't notice it. Quite honestly I'm glad in a sense. There was no distraction by it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:20 am    Post subject: Re: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

tintin wrote:
My wife and I went and saw the movie when it first opened up, on Nov. 24. This, of course, generated many discussions between us during the following days. She did not like it at all. She is a writer, and was pretty critical of all the shortcomings of the film. A film, like a novel, is supposed to tell a story. A good story must follow basic rules, and apparently Stones violated several of them. For me, one who has always been fascinated by Alexander (I have read four biographies, the beautiful historical novel by Mary Renault “The Nature of Alexander,” plus couple of books about his time), I was less critical, and frankly somewhat overwhelmed by the experience of seeing this piece of history come alive. So, I was not what you would call an “impartial observer.”

I went back to see it again few days later, with hopefully a more critical mind. Given the room on this forum, I can only give a very superficial critique of the film, with very few examples.

1) Historical Accuracy.
Not a bad job. In an historical film about a character as notorious and complex as Alexander, the historical facts, as they are known to experts, are certainly the most important aspect of the film. In that respect, from my (non- expert) knowledge of Alexander’s life and time, I found the film somewhat satisfactory, although there were some errors. For example, Alexander was not wounded at the battle of Hydaspes, but fighting the Mallis.

2) The Production.
- The two critical battles in Alexander's conquest, Gaugamela and Hydaspes, were excellent.
- The costumes and decors were excellent. I am told that Stone was very particular about these, and spent lots of money to insure their authenticity. For example, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, were beautifully rendered. But there were flagrant errors here and there. For example, the lighthouse in Alexandria, also one of the Seven Wonders of the World, clearly visible in the panorama of Alexandria when Ptolemy (Soter) is introducing the movie, was a flagrant anachronism. The lighthouse was conceived and initiated by Ptolemy Soter around 290 BC, but was completed after his death, during the reign of his son Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Olympias was at least 17 years old when Alexander was born, so she was at least 36 when he finally left her…she did not look one year older than when Alexander was young!? The casting of Rosario Dawson as Roxana was ridiculous. She was 16 years old when Alexander married her, not this woman with drooping tits. She was of exceptional beauty, which Dawson is not. Shocked And mostly, why cast a person with negroid features for a person from Central Asia? Finally, there was just TOO MUCH of Olympias with her dumb snakes: we did get the message in the first minute of the show.

3) The Characters.
Stone tried his best to portray Alexander, a complex individual, with mix success. Colin Farrell’s performance was relatively good, given the script he had to work with. Including certain crucial episodes in Alexander’s life would have been worth thousands of words: Alexander stopping in Troy to get Achilles’ armor, the Gordian Knot episode, and the Oracle of Siwah. Why wasn’t Sisygambis, his “second mother,” represented?

The rest of the cast did pretty well also. However, the different characters are two-dimensional, but this is a Hollywood movie after all, so you do not expect much depth. As an epic, it could have been OK, but not as an historical film, where the psychologies of the different characters are as important, if not more, as the physical facts. What drove Alexander? What was his relationship with Ephaestion?

4) The Script
The script was poorly written, full of clichés. Also, when using a narrator, the time-line, should have been straight forward, lest you confuse the listener. Why go back toward the end of the movie to Philip’s assassination?

5) The Music
Too much of it! We could have used some reprieves from this incessant noise.

These are very few remarks about the film. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you to death. Making a film about Alexander was a haunting task to start with and Oliver Stone tried and mostly failed. That’s too bad, as who will dare to tackle Alexander next? Not in my life time. In resume, “Alexander” was much better than “Troy-the-Disaster,” if that is a consolation.

Shocked
please stick too the film,and not comment on dawson's beauty.
rosario dawson,is a 10 in my book,so i you must seen the wrong dawson,because you are on something.any man would make love to her in a hot minute.dawson has a extraordinary beauty,and from 1 to 10.9,i give her a 10.2 or 10.3.
her boobs,were not drooping,they were nice a round,and not fake.i like them big like that,and boy she has a perfect body,and nice big eyes and lips.i like women like that and other types as well.so if you did not like her playing another person of another race,i agree with you on that,but stick to that,because you can't judge her looks and believe me,the real roxanne most likely did not even come close to dawson beauty.back than a person could say anything,example if pamala sue anderson lived back than,they would say she was extraordinary,and at one time i said that too,but i have change my mind,and gave her a 9.

a 9 is very hot,but not super hot like dawson,and even robin lane and many others say dawson in real life is a expcerptional beauty,but most normal men do not need to see her in real life to say that,so i would be the judge of beauty and you just stick to to film,by the way since you did not find her to be a 10,maybe it is culture/racial ,so maybe you do not like women with big lips,or large or really large boobs,because normal men that i know would say she is a 10,except for one friend that i have,but he had a different way of rating beauty,so in the end when i explain the best way to do it he mosly agreed with me,but he at first gave her a 8,but that still very hot,but he agree with me and gave her a 10,but maybe not a 10.3,maybe 10 or 10.1 or 10.2. or maybe in the end he agree with my 10.3.

you would do her in a minute too,so stop the madness. Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cindoo15



Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1282
Location: Dallas TX

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Too funny! You asked for people to stick to the film and not rate beauty, then, you go on and on and on with beauty rating scales. I think you have it pretty bad for Dawson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cindoo15



Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1282
Location: Dallas TX

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tintin - sorry to copy your post; I tried to do the quote thingy (where the quote shows up in a box) but I guess I did it all wrong.

Thanks for all the info on Alexanders biographies. Funny, after I saw the film for a second time tonight (I enjoyed it even more - guess I'll go for thirds this weekend) I went to the bookstore and picked up the book by Robin Lane Fox - then I came home and found it was recommended. Thanks again.

Also, I'm looking for a book that would specifically cover Alexanders military strategies with great maps and such; didn't find it tonight. Any advice out there?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tintin



Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 24
Location: Winchester, MA, USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:26 pm    Post subject: Re: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

[ please stick too the film,and not comment on dawson's beauty.
rosario dawson,is a 10 in my book,so i you must seen the wrong dawson,because you are on something.any man would make love to her in a hot minute.dawson has a extraordinary beauty,and from 1 to 10.9,i give her a 10.2 or 10.3. ...
you would do her in a minute too,so stop the madness. Cool[/quote]

Thanks for your comments on Dawson. Boy, you really have the "bug"...you are in love. Very Happy Exclamation

How do you know that I “would do her in a minute too?” Maybe I am not interested in women? But, actually, I am, I’ve been whole my life, and very much so…

Seriously, I have been traveling in S.E. Asia (three times in Afghanistan) for more than thirty years, and since 1990, I have spent about ½ of my time living in Bali. Believe me, women like Dawson do not compare with many whom I see every day in my village there. You should have a look sometime, and from what I get from your post, you’ll never leave the place. Laughing

Personally, I would have seen Roxana more like some of the beauties I see in S.E.Asia, but like my Aragonese grandmother used to say (I translate), “There is a dog for every dog,” so everyone finds his/her mate, and you have found yours: Dawson. You could have done much, much worse.

PS. Don’t take the word “dog” literally, it’s just a proverb, and Dawson is no dog, far from it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tintin



Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 24
Location: Winchester, MA, USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:33 pm    Post subject: Re: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

Sorry, I screwed up, and the referenced quote did not come out correctly. The above comments refered to Lock's previous post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mOoK



Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 233
Location: Bangkok, Thailand

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i've seen it 3 times n luv it Very Happy da th time would b on this sat. Razz hehehe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:23 am    Post subject: Re: I SAW IT (TWICE), I LIKED IT! (A LOT) Reply with quote

tintin wrote:
[ please stick too the film,and not comment on dawson's beauty.
rosario dawson,is a 10 in my book,so i you must seen the wrong dawson,because you are on something.any man would make love to her in a hot minute.dawson has a extraordinary beauty,and from 1 to 10.9,i give her a 10.2 or 10.3. ...
you would do her in a minute too,so stop the madness. Cool


Thanks for your comments on Dawson. Boy, you really have the "bug"...you are in love. Very Happy Exclamation

How do you know that I “would do her in a minute too?” Maybe I am not interested in women? But, actually, I am, I’ve been whole my life, and very much so…

Seriously, I have been traveling in S.E. Asia (three times in Afghanistan) for more than thirty years, and since 1990, I have spent about ½ of my time living in Bali. Believe me, women like Dawson do not compare with many whom I see every day in my village there. You should have a look sometime, and from what I get from your post, you’ll never leave the place. Laughing

Personally, I would have seen Roxana more like some of the beauties I see in S.E.Asia, but like my Aragonese grandmother used to say (I translate), “There is a dog for every dog,” so everyone finds his/her mate, and you have found yours: Dawson. You could have done much, much worse.

PS. Don’t take the word “dog” literally, it’s just a proverb, and Dawson is no dog, far from it[/quote]

do not get me wrong,there are southeast asian women who are fine but for them to be really hot they must look close to her in features are like selena,get the point?

many of the southeast asian wome i seen look more like a 9 or 8 on average and not a 10 like dawson,but there are some that could be on her level,close to it,or a little better looking,but forth that to happen they must have to have the boobs,lips and large eyes and long legs,but dawson is a 10.let me guess you would give halle berry a 8 right,if so you would be dead wrong,i guest beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,but i deal with facts,not fiction,and we do not really know what roxy look like in real life any why.the eurocentrics said helen of troy was the most beautiful woman in the world,please,not one of those actresses in the troy movie was,and there were much better looking women in the movie and i know there were better looking chicks in the world at the time of helen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

take a look at this real hottie,she is not the only chick i would do in a min.because there are so many others,but do not deny that she is really up there.
http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!50!37!D662D7120C57/morozco/ROSARIODAWSONSHRINE

[/img]http://community-2.webtv.net/morozco/ROSARIODAWSONSHRINE/scrapbookFiles/mailedD8.jpg[img]

[/img]http://community-2.webtv.net/morozco/ROSARIODAWSONSHRINE/scrapbookFiles/importD7.jpg[img]

[/img]http://community-2.webtv.net/morozco/ROSARIODAWSONSHRINE/scrapbookFiles/mailedD1.jpg[img][/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the Movie - Post Release All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group