Alexander - Controversial But Fantastic

[tabuno]

Not everyone will appreciate Alexander due to its overt homosexual content and its violent brutality. Yet the vastness and the rich complexity of this movie will easily make this historical epic movie a classic in the years to come. Each character is not some cardboard, stick figure - the depth and inconsistency of the personality, characterization, and performance of the main roles in this movie make this easily the best historical movie of the year (2004) if not of the past several years - including the Passion of the Christ.

Alexander is both an easy and not easy movie to watch. The apparent sincerity feeling of the mythical legend brought to screen has all the Greek tragedy elements, unlike most of the bland, stereotypical American, watered-down versions of ancient heros. Oliver Stone has again brought to the screen a vast and rich landscape full of intrigue, drama, passion, betrayal, and heroism that lifts the movie and that of Alexander beyond the mere plane of human existence into a realm of intellectual thought, mental speculation, cinematic substance that any quality movie offers its audience.

Alexander is what cinema really lives for, the passion of the art of filmmaking...it is not directed towards public fame, box office receipts...this is a reckless, daring attempt at hard-edged, historical storytelling of the highest degree (for those that can stomach morally questionable behavior on the screen in today's contemporary society, for those that can witness human brutality and bewildering behavior in our heros, for those that can understand the vision and the incomprehensible insanity of the times and the apparent cultural and time period gap that is almost like seeing into a black abyss of compelling, strange, and mysterious human acts of savagery and nobility, of genious and complete foolishness, of love and passion, of hatred and devotion, of the deepest psychological as well as spiritual mythical heights of movie-making available.

This is must see movie for anyone interested in what the potential of film is revealing the human complexity and unveiling one of the major legends of historic proportions.

[cinemabon]

... and it's not even the film that Oliver Stone wanted to make, which was more political and sexual until Time-Warner threatened to close the project down unless Stone cut many of the scenes between Farrell and Leto. There was also the Greek Lawyers Association which threatened to sue the parent production company for alleging Alexander was bi-sexual. Then there was the controversy over the editing and the voice overs and all the confusion in the screenings.

Oliver Stone should have stayed home and made a different movie than the one that ended up on the screen that got away from him. Sometimes great directors get into projects that overwhelm their sense of immediacy they develop with smaller projects. Stone has made some great movies based on that immediacy, "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July" come to mind. But the size and scope was too much for Stone. The result is a mish-mash of themes and scenes that are so disjointed the movie doesn't even make any sense.

2004 will go down in movie history as the year of "Troy" and "Alexander" being attempts made at historical fiction that doomed the genre rekindled by movies like "Gladiator" and sunk by Stone's 170 million dollar flop!

[tabuno]

This movie will make money, but not a big profit, if any...great movies do not necessarily make money, especially if they deal with topics that create much discussion as it has on other sites. The delicate balance of a mega-budget historical epic to deal with this topic of bi-sexuality, a major figure such as Alexander and what finally came to the screen is in my mind a significant achievement in film. The art of film and editing, what was left even so was difficult to watch for many and could have been so deleterious as to have made this movie a flop. Yet Oliver Stone has been able to bring to the screen a movie with its sensitivity nature and strongly suggest if not exploit the actual reality of what you imply Mr. Stone wanted. Such is a classic, to be able to bring to fruition a work such as this. I believe the basic nature of the vital elements of the movie have remained intact and tastefully as much as possibly so.

I found little mish-mash, little in the way jointedness (even the flashback was excellent - back to Alexander's father's death). Yes there was enough here to make two movies...and to accomplish so much in one movie is incredible to me...the movie kept going, filling up and filling out the important storylines of Alexander where so many movies would have just cut short and leave gaping gaps. I was able to follow the flow of history, keen balance between the narration of Anthony Hopkins and the storyline itself as it unfolded. There is so much in this movie that captures the eye, the brings both the epic nature like Dr. Zhivago into the personal perspective of intimacy between individuals - a fantastic sweep of large and small in the same movie.

A movie I'm sure will outlast Troy and into prolonged discussion for years to come.

[arsaib4]

I'm not sure if it's the same lawsuit or not but Stone is still in trouble now that the film is out. Stone mentioned this during his interview on 'Charlie Rose.' This almost proves that Stone got the character of Alexander somewhat right.

The film certainly takes on more than what it can handle but it's an experience that other lesser films like 'Troy' and 'King Arthur' weren't able to provide. ALEXANDER, as tabuno mentioned, isn't the kind of film that's geared toward the opening weekend, its characters aren't easily definable nor the lines between good and evil are clearly drawn. Such brauva filmmaking is rare in American cinema nowadays but its almost expected from Stone no matter the subject.

Stone is aided by some excellent performances, especially from Val Kilmer and Jared Leto, both severely undervalued. While Farrell doesn't always embody his character properly, but when the young actor is required to go up a notch, he certainly shows why can be a slightly better, even more challenging actor than Cruise. Angeline Jolie's character deserves better lines, but she makes the most of them by going so over the top that you actually believe that Alexander's mom must've been just like her.

Credit must also go to cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto for providing an audaciously lurid look to the film, Stone regular Robert Richardson seems to be busy with Tarantino; It'll be a crime if Prieto isn't at least given an Oscar nod for his work.

The film was saved earlier on by production companies from Germany, France and the U.K. Stone himself became a French citizen recently so the film will qualify for certain subsidies. Most of the film's budget has come from outside and expect the film to do well internationally especially in Europe. Whether it's a popular success here or not ("critics" have already spoken) ALEXANDER has set the bar very high for future historical epics.

[Edit]

...some additonal thoughts (added here from the post in this (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1135) thread)

I thought it was a great cinematic moment as we got to see Alexander's "blood," not long before he passes on. We shouldn't forget that this is a film, not a documentary, although, it certainly felt like one at various points.

I also don't a problem with any of the accents, including Jolie's. Hopkins was speaking in British; Farrell when he got angry went back to his Irish; Dawson, who knows! Since, as we all know, the accents are not being copied from what these people spoke in real life, it really doesn't matter.

I do have a problem with someone like Jonathan Rhys-Meyers playing Cassander. Was it not possible for Stone to pick someone more feminine? I expected him to pull out his white sweater at any moment and start playing Cricket. I understand Hephaistion (Leto) as a soft spoken, gentle human being but surrounding Alexander with such people didn't make sense.

Another small issue with me is the flashback sequence (Philip's death) and I believe it came a bit too late in the film. It certainly had to be and it's very well shot but it could've helped us understand Alexander's psyche if it came earlier.

Again, as I've stated before, Alexander is one of the best films of the year and I believe it's the best film Stone has made since Natural Born Killers in '94.

[cinemabon]

After reading your comments I'm not sure if we went to the same film. I'm afraid I have to agree with several other critics that Jolie's performance was not just over the top, her script was more than lacking. Some of her lines were so corney they were laughable. The editing was so abrupt at times I didn't know what was going to happen next nor did I care after a while. I came close to leaving more than once. I did not see Troy but began to wonder if it also struggled between trying to be an "epic" mixed with these awful scenes that dragged on due to bad writing. Stone has made his "Heaven's Gate." Opening in sixth place after Sponge Bob on the second biggest weekend of the year (Christmas is generally the biggest) is not a good sign, gentlemen.

Over the weekend, IMDB got over 10,000 hits on "Alexander" just on Friday. There was a huge discussion about the "gay" aspect of the film, which I found rediculous. Someone even brought up that King James, of the biblical fame, was gay. Now that's something you don't hear every day. As for Stone and "Alexander" the only thing that would have saved this film was if there was a male nude scene of romping in the hay. Then it would have attracted one paying segment of the audience. Otherwise, Stone has blundered into directorial history as making the first big 'epic' failure since "Cleopatra" and "Ishtar."

[HorseradishTree]

I think that while Troy may have not been a financial failure, I think it was a much greater "epic" failure than Alexander, which I found to be excellent.

Looking past things such as bad acting by Young Alexander and the lack of gayness, I found it well structured and quite a ride.

The Battle of Gaugamela in the film took epic battle scenes to a new light; it was art, not action. Stone managed to find a way to take it and create a different style from it.

I was surprised at how Stone decided to go about this film; rather than using Alexander's military career, he focused more on the political aspects of his life and hooked me.

I think Oliver Stone, for the most part, is an acquired taste, thus making this a sweet delectable meal for me.

And for some reason, I couldn't help but stare at Jared Leto. He was really...pretty...

[arsaib4]

People like myself and Horseradish Tree will certainly remain in the minority on this one and as I said, I don't expect the film to do very well here. There's a rather large faction of critics along with filmgoers who won't like a Stone film, no matter what; most critics have even failed to mention it's technical aspects.

We like our epics to be neat & clean like a Gandhi or a Braveheart so they can be shown in auditoriums at a Junior High. History is "messy" folks and Alexander captures a certain essence of it.

Stone made a wise choice by not including any on-screen sexuality between Farrell and Leto. There's enough of this relationship shown otherwise for one to easily comprehend the nature of it.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by tabuno
This movie will make money, but not a big profit, if any...great movies do not necessarily make money, especially if they deal with topics that create much discussion as it has on other sites.


It opened at 6th and made $21.8M so far.
Is the investment US$170M?

[arsaib4]

Yes, the investment is around $150M, but as I mentioned before most of that is foriegn.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by HorseradishTree

And for some reason, I couldn't help but stare at Jared Leto. He was really...pretty...


At first glance, I nearly mistook the dancer for Jared Leto.
They are 2 different people, aren't they?

I think Jared Leto's performance was the best in the entire cast.
;)

[hengcs]

Originally posted by arsaib4
Stone made a wise choice by not including any on-screen sexuality between Farrell and Leto. There's enough of this relationship shown otherwise for one to easily comprehend the nature of it.

I do not mind Oliver omitting any on-screen depiction of s**. However, I really think the character of Hephaistion (by Leto) is "lost" substantially in the movie! Consequently, one fails to understand why the two were bonded, or what important role he played in Alexander's life.
;)

[hengcs]

Sorry for cross posting,
I did not know a thread in FAVORITE FILM has started.


What is good?
----------------
- Definitely the choreography of the opening and ending credits! It is very well choreographed, with a very nice blue hue and imagery. The English letters/characters backed by the Greek letters/characters are nice too!
- The second battle (i.e., with the elephants) and what happened to Alexander at that battle.
- The performance of Jared Leto as Hephaistion.
- One can feel a lot of effort put into the production.

What may be weak?
------------------------
- I believe Oliver Stone tries to add humanity and drama to the movie by having more dialogues and interaction (as opposed to an action flick). However, the effort does not always deliver. Somehow, one would not feel anything for most of the characters. It is sad that one would feel anything when some of the main characters died.
- Again, there is a lot of effort in the battle scenes. However, given the recent avalanche of "computer generated" epic battle scenes, there are no surprises anymore.
- Somehow, I think the character of Hephaistion is "lost" in the movie. One fails to understand why the two were bonded, or what important role he played in Alexander's life.
- I also did not like the portrayal of Alexander's wife, Roxane. It just did not come across well.

[tabuno]

What I appreciated about Alexander was the incorporation of the humanity and drama in this movie - it made it more intelligent and personal. There was a constant subtext and discomfort - like a pleasant itch that won't go away. The movie feels somewhat creepy, out of place because Oliver Stone has created a new vision, placed the audience in a foreign place with different morals and different beliefs. The audience is the foreign element left adrift to witness this epic experience from the huge battle scenes to the inner turmoil of its principle characters.

From the vast amount of controversy over the homosexuality in this movie, it is extremely difficult to separate out one's identification or repulsion of the characters not because of their own personal, unique, humanity but because of our ingrained, trained cultural bias or genetic predisposition. I watching this movie I came to feel for these characters, their conflicts just as we humans today experience the gray boundaries of our own right and wrong, our primal passions and our rational ego. This universal core of humanity was brought into clear and sharp definition in this movie that I responded to and made me feel closer to the performances of the characters in this movie.

The battle scenes are also amazing for their deliberate clumsiness - instead of the elegant, chereographed charm. The amazing huge battle was impression for its scale and massive mob aspect - it unfolded in both chaos yet sweeping majesty in its gory, savage way. In found the battle scenes in this movie differently shot than most other movies, refreshing and compelling to watch. From the Vietnam-like jungles of India to the Iraqi-like desert of Persia, the battles were fraught with a different tinge of fear, threat, forboding, and violence.

Roxanne, was a interesting character and as is true in life, happened to contrast greatly in looks and personality as with many real volatile relationships. Oliver Stone's dramatic highlight of the contrast between light and dark, between sophistication and animal passion offers the audience a continuing theme that is repeated in this movie about differences, about the attempt to blend, fuse differences into some acceptable whole - a vision that Alexander in this version fails to obtain.

[Johann]

I don't have a lot of time to post, but I agree largely with tabuno in that this film is a classic.

One word:BABYLON.

[arsaib4]

Screen International

Alexander rules with powerful international weekend

Jeremy Kay in Los Angeles 30 November 2004

Despite a disappointing US launch, Alexander performed well in a limited international run that grossed an estimated $7.4m on 848 screens in 10 territories at the weekend.

The highlight was a number one $3.7m debut on 345 screens in Russia through Paradise. The picture also opened top in Taiwan through Fox International on $1.1m on 110 screens.

Elsewhere, Alexander scored the third biggest opening of the year in Croatia on $187,915 on 10 screens through Blitz, behind The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King and The Passion Of The Christ.

Sweden opened top on $474,500 on 61 through Nordisk; Finland produced $170,288 on 35 through Nordisk; and Denmark opened on $419,602 on 48, also through Nordisk.

In Malaysia it produced $127,800 on 24 through Golden Screen, the Philippines grossed $263,000 on 41 through WPM, and Thailand launched on $475,800 on 110 through WPM.

Turkey produced $580,000 on 64 through Pinema, making it the top foreign language picture in the market there.

“These numbers are quite encouraging for the playability of Alexander in the international marketplace,” Moritz Borman, Chairman of Intermedia and Alexander producer, said in a statement.

“Even though it was the biggest R-rated Thanksgiving opening ever, we always saw Alexander as a movie with more international than US appeal. This is a very strong statement of the international moviegoers’ support for Oliver’s [Stone] film.”

[Johann]

Angelina Jolie's accent reminded me of Miss Kitka in the 1966 Batman movie. "purrrrfect"

Fantastic film indeed- what a satisfying movie to watch!
The relief I felt after just 2 minutes of opening credits that I was in safe cinematic hands. The Stone is still in full control.
Oliver's still making giant strides in his career.

Those vast, expansive terrain shots- the "bird's-eye-view" from the eagle were simply exhilerating.

Towards the end, Old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) tells us that Alexander spent his whole life in pursuit of freedom, and that he
was made free just by that virtue. The shots that show us how large his armies were and on what scale they conducted their battles is just plain awesome- it's a concern Kubrick had when planning his Napoleon movie- he would approve how Oliver did it.

Epic. Just plain epic.

[cinemabon]

Feast your eyes on this gentlemen: Alexander in search of denial.

They don't get much campier than this, unless you include Ann Baxter and Robert Taylor.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by Johann
The relief I felt after just 2 minutes of opening credits that I was in safe cinematic hands. The Stone is still in full control.
Oliver's still making giant strides in his career.


Agree.
That was why I listed that as my BEST about the film ...

see ...

What is good?
----------------
- Definitely the choreography of the opening and ending credits! It is very well choreographed, with a very nice blue hue and imagery. The English letters/characters backed by the Greek letters/characters are nice too!

I surfed the web, and few (if any) mentioned about the opening and closing credits. So, I felt VERY COMPELLED to highlight it.
;)

[Fan of Kubrick]

I don't understand why so many people who choose to post on this thread feel that this was a good movie. I enjoy Oliver Stone a great deal. I own his ultimate collection, and I saw this on opening night. I was expecting something great, and possibly masterful, but what I saw was a bunch of jumbled performances, mediocre directing and an upliftiing score all mixed together. I enjoyed about two things about this movie, the score by Vangelis which does not fit the movie at all, and the battle scene in India with the elephants.

This was Oliver Stone's dream project. He spent 10 years of his life writing the script. And what does he do? He makes Alexander the Great out to be a nice person forced to do things that his people do not want him to do. After the movie, I walked out wondering what Stone was thinking? I had a great interest in Alexander the Great when I was a bit younger, and I had always imagined Alexander to be a war tyrant, but a genius as well. That reminds me, what happened to Alexander's phalanx? He had come up with a new phalanx that helped him win many battles, and it was no where to be found in the movie.

Like mentioned before, the editing was rough and jumped everywhere, making it impossible to know what style Stone would use next. To me, Stone seemed to be trying to be more artful than usual, but it ended up being a mix of bad performances (with russian accents too), mediocre direction, strange writing, bad editing and a mismatched score. I wonder if the next two Alexander the Great movies will be any better (one produced by Martin Scorsese.)

[tabuno]

Unlike Troy, Alexander was a refreshing, non-cookie cutter big budget, epic movie. I enjoyed this movie immensely, mostly because of Alexander's character and the different side of antiquity that rarely is shown regarding sexuality. Alexander is definitely portrayed as a "nice" guy forced to do things... Instead the Alexander portrayed in this movie unlike Anchilles, is a much more complex character with both a penchant for impulsive and harsh, sometimes cruel measures along with a vision quest as well as a longing at social reform. It is the tension within Alexander that was compelling about this movie. His mother is also well acted and convincing is a strong, dramatic role that is performed by an actress that goes against her type. The editing was cut in a way that made the movie have depth, bringing together an intelligible storyline along with a nice narrative giving the movie added qualitative substance. More me, Alexander was the historic epic movie of 2004 and one of my top ten movies of that year.