Alexander...two thumbs sideways...
Nov 28, 2004 16:24:39 GMT -5
Post by Cranky on Nov 28, 2004 16:24:39 GMT -5
I just spend three hours watching Alexander and I want half my money back. Collin Farrel is the Patrick Traverse of actors and Angelina Jolie is much better at making some third rate campy movies then playing a diabolical and deranged woman/slash/mother in history.
Alexander is one of the greatest military leader of all time but rather then potray that, Oliver Stone wanted to show him as a tormented man who carried a great physcological weight. Alexander was shown as a man who was raised by a deranged mother and an abusive, drunkard of a father. Lengthy dialogue scenes kept pasting and patching over Alexander’s personality. Alexander was shown as a man possessed by self doubt and obsessed to conquer lands all the way to the edge of the known ancient world, but very little was developed as to why his man loved him enough to follow him to the end of the earth. What was in Alexander’s character that man that he conquered died for him? Why were his more "enlightened" man ready to die for him? Where they brought up that way? Did they become that way from battles and/or history? My guess its that it's far harder to develop a hero leader story even though Gladiator did it with ease and greatness. Close up of Jolie pouting and playing with snakes makes for easier drama and does not require the audience to think as much. Implied gay scenes makes for more controversy and potential for audience curiosity then developing and telling a true story. Did someone say soap opera?
Some of the parts of the movie that I liked was the fact that it showed battles for what they were. BRUTISH SLAUGHTERS. That was the only saving grace for me. There were many Hollywood "lies" that replaced historical facts. The last battle he is shown to be fighting the Indians and their elephants in a jungle. In fact, the real battle took place in open terrain near city walls. Stone is an a complete idiot for picking the jungle for that scene. Alexander was one of the greatest tactician in military history and he would pick the jungle to fight? He would give up his greatest tactical advantage in the Phalanx to fight "barbarians" where they had the best advantage? Stone is downright insutling to the charecter by doing that.
Oh, and before I forget, Stone chose to gloss his incompetence and tittilate the audience with an animalistic sex scene between Alexander and one of his wives. If you can't give them content, give them bad sex. Ham fisted schlock at it's finest.
In the hierarchy of great movies of the gender, Gladiator stand as a 10, Troy stand as a 5 and Alexander as a 4. I think one of the problems for someone like me is that Gladiator was not based an any historical person. The minute you take a historical event and Hollywoodize it, it invariable sucks.
A wider rant.......
The Greeks had a complex history and were at war with each other on a constant basis. They still fought each other viciously even as they were growing more aware and debating WHY they were doing that. As they became more powerful on their world stage, they were concerned that they understood what is right and wrong. One of the way to transmit social morality to all was through story telling. The story of Troy was entwined in a message.
The message goes this way....
Achilles was potrayed as the greatest warrior and hero in Greece but he was still human. As long as he behaved in a respectful manner even in battle, the Gods smiled upon him. However, after killing his mortal enemy, he dragged the body behind his chariot thus disgracing and dishonoring his enemy. That was NOT how a "civilized" Greek warrior acted. Those kind of actions were only done by the evil barbarians. The minute Achilles dragged the body, a mere arrow hit him in his heel and killed him.
In reality that would be impossible because of the heavy armour the Greeks wore, however in the story, even the greatest of all warriors could be struck down if he behaved like a barbarian. That was the moral story of Troy. What did Hollywood do? They left the ENTIRE morality of the story far behind and instead had Achilles die in the hands of a woman. A morality story became a love story.
What Alexander achieved was indeed a great feat. The movie does give it some weight but it focuses more on the mother and his relationship with her and the interrelationships with his father rather then shear will of man to do things that are almost impossible to do. There should have been much more focus on the great human struggle and the glory rather then Jolies lips...or @ss.
After seen two half@ssed Hollywood attempts to tell a Greek story, I hope they stay the hell away from the 300 Spartans and Gates of Fire. The 300 Spartans and Thermopile was THE pivotal point of Western civilization. Had the stand failed to delay the Persians and give courage and fire to the rest of the Greeks, Western Civilization might have never taken place. It was THAT important. It was also the epitome as a lesson of selfless sacrifice for cause and country. With that in mind, what will Hollywood turn it into? A comedy? A love story? An orgy? I preparing myself for the shame that Hollywood can inflict even in one of the greatest events.
Back to Alexander.....
Spend money and see it, but see it for what it is, a Hollywood campy b@stardization of one of the greatest man in history.
www.mysan.de/article19185.html
.
Alexander is one of the greatest military leader of all time but rather then potray that, Oliver Stone wanted to show him as a tormented man who carried a great physcological weight. Alexander was shown as a man who was raised by a deranged mother and an abusive, drunkard of a father. Lengthy dialogue scenes kept pasting and patching over Alexander’s personality. Alexander was shown as a man possessed by self doubt and obsessed to conquer lands all the way to the edge of the known ancient world, but very little was developed as to why his man loved him enough to follow him to the end of the earth. What was in Alexander’s character that man that he conquered died for him? Why were his more "enlightened" man ready to die for him? Where they brought up that way? Did they become that way from battles and/or history? My guess its that it's far harder to develop a hero leader story even though Gladiator did it with ease and greatness. Close up of Jolie pouting and playing with snakes makes for easier drama and does not require the audience to think as much. Implied gay scenes makes for more controversy and potential for audience curiosity then developing and telling a true story. Did someone say soap opera?
Some of the parts of the movie that I liked was the fact that it showed battles for what they were. BRUTISH SLAUGHTERS. That was the only saving grace for me. There were many Hollywood "lies" that replaced historical facts. The last battle he is shown to be fighting the Indians and their elephants in a jungle. In fact, the real battle took place in open terrain near city walls. Stone is an a complete idiot for picking the jungle for that scene. Alexander was one of the greatest tactician in military history and he would pick the jungle to fight? He would give up his greatest tactical advantage in the Phalanx to fight "barbarians" where they had the best advantage? Stone is downright insutling to the charecter by doing that.
Oh, and before I forget, Stone chose to gloss his incompetence and tittilate the audience with an animalistic sex scene between Alexander and one of his wives. If you can't give them content, give them bad sex. Ham fisted schlock at it's finest.
In the hierarchy of great movies of the gender, Gladiator stand as a 10, Troy stand as a 5 and Alexander as a 4. I think one of the problems for someone like me is that Gladiator was not based an any historical person. The minute you take a historical event and Hollywoodize it, it invariable sucks.
A wider rant.......
The Greeks had a complex history and were at war with each other on a constant basis. They still fought each other viciously even as they were growing more aware and debating WHY they were doing that. As they became more powerful on their world stage, they were concerned that they understood what is right and wrong. One of the way to transmit social morality to all was through story telling. The story of Troy was entwined in a message.
The message goes this way....
Achilles was potrayed as the greatest warrior and hero in Greece but he was still human. As long as he behaved in a respectful manner even in battle, the Gods smiled upon him. However, after killing his mortal enemy, he dragged the body behind his chariot thus disgracing and dishonoring his enemy. That was NOT how a "civilized" Greek warrior acted. Those kind of actions were only done by the evil barbarians. The minute Achilles dragged the body, a mere arrow hit him in his heel and killed him.
In reality that would be impossible because of the heavy armour the Greeks wore, however in the story, even the greatest of all warriors could be struck down if he behaved like a barbarian. That was the moral story of Troy. What did Hollywood do? They left the ENTIRE morality of the story far behind and instead had Achilles die in the hands of a woman. A morality story became a love story.
What Alexander achieved was indeed a great feat. The movie does give it some weight but it focuses more on the mother and his relationship with her and the interrelationships with his father rather then shear will of man to do things that are almost impossible to do. There should have been much more focus on the great human struggle and the glory rather then Jolies lips...or @ss.
After seen two half@ssed Hollywood attempts to tell a Greek story, I hope they stay the hell away from the 300 Spartans and Gates of Fire. The 300 Spartans and Thermopile was THE pivotal point of Western civilization. Had the stand failed to delay the Persians and give courage and fire to the rest of the Greeks, Western Civilization might have never taken place. It was THAT important. It was also the epitome as a lesson of selfless sacrifice for cause and country. With that in mind, what will Hollywood turn it into? A comedy? A love story? An orgy? I preparing myself for the shame that Hollywood can inflict even in one of the greatest events.
Back to Alexander.....
Spend money and see it, but see it for what it is, a Hollywood campy b@stardization of one of the greatest man in history.
www.mysan.de/article19185.html
.
