Alexander: Best film of 2004

[Johann]

Oliver Stone's Alexander gets my vote for best film of the year- it's one roiling, grand guignol of a movie.


It opens with Alexander's death: he drops the ring Hephaistion gave him which represented "the sun and the stars".
We are then told of his magnificent life by Old Ptolemy, played perfectly by Sir Tony Hopkins.


His mother was a major force in his life, as was his father, but he could have done without both I think- his mother claimed Zeus & Dionysus both had a hand in his creation and his father is an alcoholic womanizing spectre of war hanging over his head.
(Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie stand out among a litany of things that stand out in this film).

Colin Farrell should be proud of his performance- he has never acted like this before. He's never cranked it up like this before.
He's lit like a roman candle for much of the movie, and it's great to see. I was proud watching him. He's got a picture in the can that'll be revered forever by film buffs.

And what film buff doesn't get excited by a production designed by Jan Roelfs- the production designer on Peter Greenaway's
The Baby of Macon and Gattaca? Or how about that lush, stylized artistic camerawork by the guy who shot 8 Mile and Frida?

Nirvana, children, nirvana!

This film has everything you could ask for in a historical epic. How on earth Ebert thinks this flick "isn't that great" is beyond me. This film is beyond great- it's classic, it's Stone's best to date, it's history baby.

With our extensive empire,
with the varied action of our thoughtful adaptations,
and our common Greek, our Spoken Language,
we carried it into the heart of Bactria, to the Indians.

ARE WE GOING TO TALK OF SPARTANS NOW!

[arsaib4]

Johann, I greatly admire your passion for film, something that is often missing in the reviews and other posts that we get to read. One can smell it out in your posts.

Val Kilmer is great in Alexander and I mentioned him in my post along with Jared Leto. Jolie and Farrell do the best they can since there isn't a "right" way to play these characters. They're in a film by Oliver fucking Stone, after all, who refreshingly cares more about their inner "beings" than how bleached their hair is.

Stone said that this is a 160 million dollar independent film and that's exactly what it is. Independent German producer started the idea and they helped finished his vision since no one else wanted to get on board. Other companies from France and the U.K also helped along the way. One shouldn't forget WB for at least trying to market it the best way they can.

Good job mentioning Rodrigo Prieto, I also mentioned him earlier. Lets not forget his awesome work in both Amores Perros and 21 Grams, he also worked with Stone on both of his recent docs, Comandante and Persona Non Grata.

Best of 2004? And best of Stone? I'm not going to say that since I've seen better this year. It's certainly the best from Stone in a decade since Natural Born Killers exactly ten years ago.

[Johann]

The feeling is mutual, arsaib.

Alexander is the best film Stone's ever done and the best of the year.

So much symbolism! So much mythic resonance! Like doors- like portals to a new time, a new old world, a place that I wish I could go to.

Babylon? We missed a PARTY, y'all

Bravo Oliverrre

[HorseradishTree]

I'm not going to go out and say it was the best just yet, because the year's not quite over, and I have some things to catch up on. But it's definitely in my top ten for the year.

And while I found this film a masterpiece, I think Platoon still remains Stone's greatest.

[Johann]

The only film that might give Oliver a run for his money is Scorsese's Aviator.

The Life Aquatic looks good for a few laughs as well.

[anduril]

Alexander was indeed a great film. That being said... as a sucker for historical epics, it was unlikely that I wouldn't think so. Still, Stone does many things right in this movie. The sets/CGIs and Gaugamela battle sequence are outstanding. The soundtrack by Vangelis is a masterpiece from a great composer. The pace of this movie is impeccable... it never dulls in my opinion. Some scenes are truly great, such as the boy Alexander learning from Aristotle, taming Bucephalus, or Philip the Barbarian's "Everything you need to know about Classical Myth to Rule the World in Five Minutes" speech. I was also impressed at the way Stone captured the idealism of Alexander, something very appropriate for contemporary events taking place in today's Babylon. Finally, Ptolemy's narration and the use of maps seemed oh so very Kubrickesque to me. I loved it... a movie that didn't talk down to its audience!

On the downside, I agree with Ebert's evaluation of Colin Farrell. Farrell just didn't convey that intrinsic charisma that you would think would have been necessary to lead 40,000 men to the ends of the known world. I found Connor Paolo and Jessie Kamm much more convincing as Alexander than Colin Farrell!!

Although I believe Stone may have been trying to capture the deterioration of Alexander and Hephaistion into luxury and despotism, they both look like they are suffering from AIDS by the end of this movie. Hephaistion, in particular, is sidelined in the latter parts to look on, drearily, as Alexander takes a wife and approaches madness; his appearance becomes gaunt and pale. Was Stone suggesting something by this? Is he advocating a common stereotype? Still, on the whole, I think Stone did well in portraying the homosexuality in the film. It was a little less blatant than I'd been expecting but he captured nicely the fact that in the classical world, homosexuality was not an alternative lifestyle but a common aspect of classical and Hellenistic Greek male sexuality. There were even some hints of pederasty in the early stages of the movie, which kind of surprised me.

Angelina Jolie, while stunningly beautiful in this movie, uses an accent here that makes it sound like she's from Transylvania and about to "suck your blooood." It's really bizarre and awfully distracting.

Although I liked the performances of Val Kilmer and Anthony Hopkins, they were too obvious for their roles. It took a moment but as soon as I recognized them under their makeup, I just couldn't forget that I was looking at Kilmer and Hopkins and not Philip and Ptolemy.

The camera work and the endless swelling of the music leading to Alexander's injury on the battlefield was poorly done. The red filter was completely unnecessary and detracted from the feel of those scenes and the endless swelling of the music felt abusive. One also has to wonder why Stone couldn't have had Alexander's injury take place in a siege as described in the classical sources.

This brings me to my final disappointment with the film. There was no siege of Tyre. I had hoped to see that done on screen and would have given ample, as they built the siege craft, to develop characters and intrigue between generals. In fact, lots of stuff missing from this film that I might have wanted to see but at three hours in its present cut one can understand the need to edit some of this out.

All in all... great stuff... I have to disagree with Johann though... this isn't Stone's best... JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Heaven & Earth, Nixon, Joy Luck Club, and Platoon are all better in my opinion and I have a feeling I'd even think NBK and the Doors are better. I liked Alexander more than some of these because it's my particular interest area but it wasn't a better movie per se. Too many shortcomings...

...now if only Scorsese would have stayed the course on his Alexander project... if Luhrman still completes his... I'll look forward to that.

[Johann]

As a student of Stone let me tell you that this film is indeed his best to date. He improves with every film.


If you paid attention you could clearly see that Oliver is on the vanguard. Why? Because he's learned a thing or two from the Wachowski's, Mel Gibson, and Peter Jackson.

Jackson's recent trilogy is without doubt one of the biggest landmarks in cinema history. Already classic. The special effects went a long way to convince the viewer of Mordor's existence.

You'd have to be blind to not see that Oliver has incorporated and even adapted to the standards in sfx that were ushered in with The Matrix & LOTR. The battle in the forest where Alexander takes a spear to the chest is perfect cgi. Nearly flawless. More believable than Jar Jar, that's for sure.

Stone's story arc is told majestically, with almost poetic dialogue.
It seems like Stone wants the viewer to leave the theatre with a feeling of history, and one definitely gets that, but more than anything he wants to make a great film about a great man.

He told it over three hours and I could have watched it for ten.

I wanna see the fifteen-hour version OLIVER!

[anduril]

I certainly agree. I could have watched ten or fifteen more hours of that movie but... as much as I enjoyed the movie, I simply can't agree in your appraisal of the battle in the forest (well, aside from the fact that it's better CGI than Jar-Jar but that's not saying much). As I stated before I feel the red filter is pointless and detracts from the scene considerably as does the swelling music. I did, however, like the idea that Bucephalus seemed to tell Alexander that it was time to stop; that certainly brought the story arc full circle in a wonderful way.

I have no doubt in Stone's greatness as a director but he seems lost in this material and unsure of himself. As Ebert observes, Stone "fails to find a focus for its elusive subject." I don't think Ebert's analysis of where the problem lies is entirely accurate but Stone never quite wraps himself around the issues of power and destiny that are central to the subject. In truth, though, I think this is largely Colin Farrell's fault rather than Stone's. Farrell is an enemic Alexander and he never really inhabits the role. You get the sense that Farrell doesn't understand the character and what drives him (whereas the boys who play Alexander actually do). One of the most enduring scenes of this movie is the taming of Bucephalus, wherein the boy captures perfectly the complex of vulnerability and yet unbridled confidence and ambition of Alexander. It's a wonderful scene.

Anyways, that's my take...

[hengcs]

Originally posted by anduril
The red filter was completely unnecessary and detracted from the feel of those scenes and the endless swelling of the music felt abusive.

Due to the "recency effect" of HERO, I just wonder whether the "red filter" scene was an inspiration or copy of HERO. Or is there an older movie that does that? Recall the scene whereby all the leaves turn red in HERO? (because Zhang Yimou didnt want to have blood, he opted for that depiction). I wonder if Oliver was inspired by HERO.

[arsaib4]

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.

[anduril]

I agree with you that the accents don't matter as far as authenticity goes because, yeah obviously, they didn't speak with Greek accents... they SPOKE Greek... I just thought Jolie's put on accent sounded very Dracula-esque.

The flashback sequence is another one of those flaws in the movie... I agree with that.

[hengcs]

I actually treated my friend to this movie, so I have watched it for a SECOND time ... ha ha ... critics must hate me for this ... So, the production company should thank me for being so supportive?! ;PPP ... I pay about US$30 for this movie ...

Watching it a second time,
- I still think Jared Leto has the best performance. ;)
- I see Colin Farrell trying very hard.
- The 3 VERY VERY VERY NICE choreography are
(i) opening and ending credits
(ii) the first battle, esp. panoramic view of the eagle ...
(iii) the second battle and what happens to Colin Farrell

- I still think it is better than what the critics have claimed, com'on, it does NOT warrant a 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 10 -- It is much better than that!!! I have seen much much much worse movies than that ... Critics might have such a high expectation that they become quite harsh on their score ...

- BUT I don't think it is as superb as what some of you may feel i.e., 9/10 or 10/10 ... SORRY ... this is because, I still do NOT feel anything when any of the characters die ... there is simply NOT enough written to the characters to feel for them despite Oliver Stone's very laudable effort to make it a "literature/humanity study", as opposed to an "action flick".

In fact, my friend don't like it at all ... my friend think it is boring ...

I guess people either really like or really hate the film ... hiaks hiaks ...

[Johann]

This is the dichotomy- and something I hate- Oliver Stone is that kind of filmmaker which polarizes people.
"Giving it up" for a Stone film puts one in a tough spot.

His "takes" on history draw a lot of criticism because he takes many liberties (accents, increasing drama/entertainment value by staging some things) but to me it doesn't matter- all Stone wants to do is draw attention to things he finds interesting or important.

Myself, the accents can be distracting, and I can even see a person hating the movie because of it. But it takes nothing away from the movie.

All I can say to critics of this film is CAN YOU DO IT BETTER?

[anduril]

Give me what $120m and I'll definitely give it a go...

[oscar jubis]

After JFK, I knew better than to walk into the theatre expecting to get a history lesson. A "feeling of history"(Johann), or perhaps a polemic, is a more reasonable expectation. I was hoping perhaps to get more of a sense of the innovations Alexander brought to the battlefield, since I learned somewhere in my past that Alexander was a master strategist. I didn't quite get that, despite an exhilarating bird's-eye view of the Battle of Gangamela. That shot is followed by impressionistic, "you are there" scenes that convey the chaos of war, but make battle logistics inscrutable. Oliver Stone is more interested in presenting Freudian entanglements and political scandals.

The major problem here is the casting of Colin Farrell in the lead role, and Angelina Jolie. While not ludicrous (John Wayne as Genghis khan!), Richard Gere's performance as King David comes to mind. Mr. Farrell is simply not up to the task. A hysterical, over-the-top performance that threatens to cross over into camp. Ms. Jolie is also, in my opinion, a limited actress who fails to provide any shading to her role as Queen Olympias. Some may find the slavic accent she adopts here laughable, but I believe it was necessary to make apparent the class differences between Olympias and King Phillip. Perhaps the script shackles her. Hard to say after a single viewing. Alexander aging sixteen years while Jolie retains her youthful looks cements the impression that she's simply a Hollywood star out of her depth.

The main concern regarding the structure of the film was mentioned by arsaib and anduril. Why did Mr. Stone and his collaborators chose to interrupt showing us how Alexander came to power, opting to flashback to Phillip's assassination during the final hour? Maybe one of the posters lauding this picture can tell us what was gained by it?

Kudos to Stone, Prieto and Roelfs for giving us a movie consistently worth looking at. "One roiling, grand guignol of a movie" indeed (but is that all you want?). Several scenes are simply majestic. I am surprised by the vicious response from a large segment of the audience and crits towards the picture. Alexander does not deserve walk-outs and trashings. Objections from Greek-American groups to a rather tame presentation of Alexander as a bisexual character are quite provincial, perhaps paranoid. Mr. Stone continues to generate rather extreme responses from viewers, which I find undeserved.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
The main concern regarding the structure of the film was mentioned by arsaib and anduril. Why did Mr. Stone and his collaborators chose to interrupt showing us how Alexander came to power, opting to flashback to Phillip's assassination during the final hour? Maybe one of the posters lauding this picture can tell us what was gained by it?

Let me give my 1 cent worth. There are several objectives, I believe, and I will list the most important to the least ...

(1) By opting for a flashback scene nearer the end rather than in a chronological order, Oliver allows the audience to feel in two ways -- what happens if the King indeed was assassinated by OTHERS? Would that have "answered" how Alexander was behaving now? -- and what happens if I quickly flashback to tell you that Olympias, or even Alexander might be a partner in crime? Would that have "changed" your original feeling of why Alexander was behaving as such now? IF Oliver had opted for a chronological order, the audience would simply have the mindset that Alexander should behave as though he was guilt driven and hysterical ... By doing the flashback, Oliver sought to achieve the "wow and enlightenment" effect (like in a mystery/thriller film), now I understand why better ...

(2) It allowed a parallel of the mutiny scene and the overthrowing of King Philip by the assassinators/rebels ...

(3) It let you wonder about the repetition of history ... the circle of life ...

(4) It makes you wonder, is there such a thing as retribution ...

(5) This is simply UNINTENTIONAL ... critics or audience at times try to CREDIT the director too much ... ha ha ha
e.g. the blizzard scene in House of Flying Daggers was compelled by nature (an early snowstorm). It was NOT planned in advance nor was it in the script. However, I like the scene a lot and thought it helped convey the moods and emotions VERY well ...

that's all
;PPP

[oscar jubis]

I appreciate the effort to sustain some type of discussion here. It's obvious to me that, by waiting until later to show Philip's assassination, a sort of mystery is created. Several possible explanations remain plausible, including the possibility that Alexander himself had his father killed (after all, he was the main beneficiary). You bring up the issue of how Alexander's actions (particularly his reluctance to return to Macedonia I imagine) can potentially be explained in relation to Philip's murder and the possible culprits. But the script and Farrell's performance are not focused enough to make it a compelling experience for the viewer. It's the eye that is engaged throughout, not the mind.

As for the murder scene itself, as scripted and filmed, it's clear to me that Alexander himself was not involved and that he suspects Olympias played a significant role. According to most historical sources, Pausanias killed Philip on behalf of others, not conclusively identified. Alexander is said to have had several individuals killed because of their alleged involvement. I think the film hints strongly that Olympias was at the least a co-conspirator. But the film, faithful to the vague historical record, leaves several possiblities open.

Another issue I didn't bring up in my previous post is the use of the aged Ptolemy as narrator. Hopkins is fine but, at least after one viewing, I failed to connect the aged Ptolemy to the young one as a participant in significant events. Why is Ptolemy the one narrating? I found out from reading comments and reviews after viewing that several feel the same way. Others in the audience seem to simply tune out upon hearing a barrage of unfamiliar names of persons and locales right off the bat, without the necessary context.

[Johann]

The flashbacks are a Stone hallmark. He does "the flashback" better than anybody in cinema. JFK- the whole movie is practically a flashback; The Doors- Oliver flashes back to the dead indians on the road several times; Natural Born Killers- Mickey and Mallory are shown in flashback and verite-style re-created events abound. It should be no surprise that Oliver is using this device, in fact one could expect it. And with this film, he's used it brilliantly.

Think about how you would make a film showcasing Alexander the Great. How are you gonna convey in two, three hours what that man was like?

I give a standing-o to Oliver Stone.

[arsaib4]

I hope this isn't true but according to the NY Post Stone is making some changes to the film for its upcoming DVD release.

"January 6, 2005 -- OLIVER Stone is disappointed in the response to his "Alexander the Great," and plans to alter the movie for its release on DVD. "There's a raging fundamentalism in morality in the U.S.," Stone fumed at the movie's London premiere this week. "From day one, audiences didn't show up. They didn't even read the reviews in the South because the media was using the words, 'Alex the gay.' " Earlier, Stone griped to the London Telegraph, "The gays lambasted me for not making Alexander openly homosexual, and, in the Bible Belt pastors were up in the pulpit saying that to watch this film was to be tempted by Satan." Stone said he'd change the offending scenes for the DVD: "The bond [between men] can be suggested in different ways."

[HorseradishTree]

As if they weren't changed enough already!

That makes me disappointed in Stone, who appears to be taking the road of Lucas in his reediting decisions! Damn!

[Johann]

It's tough, man.
Alexander is awesome cinema, but you can't drag people into the theatres. Their loss. I don't know if it's the timing, the "gay" aspects or the audience, but I do know that most moviegoers are damn ignorant of a lot of shit. And being bored by Stone's film is easily forseeable with so many millions of malignant consumers of reality T.V. and video games...

Stone's vision is unacknowledged and misunderstood yet again.
He's made a "flop" so to speak but, for what it's worth Oliver:---- 'em. They just don't get it.

[cinemabon]

Everytime Angelina Jolie opened her mouth, all I could hear was Anne Baxter under the direction of that pompous ass DeMille. I have to agree with the majority on this one fellows. Everyone has a flop from time to time, even my buddy Steven. Stone got in over his head and came up short. The "hysterical" epic is not his cup of tea. Perhaps he should try a musical next...

[arsaib4]

Alexander has just crossed the $100m mark in international markets.