West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Sikotic™ on November 20, 2004, 01:59:47 AM
-
I saw the screening for Alxander since I was so hyped about the movie. It turned out to be a huge disappointment for 3 reasons:
- It was just under 3 hours, which was just way too long
- The movie dwelled on Alexander's gay relations. He had 3 wives and they only talked about one of them
- The battle scenes were limited and had bad camera handling
It could had been a great movie, but it failed which is hard to believe since Oliver Stone directed it.
-
Angelina Jolie is in it :)
thats a good reason to go see it, fuck colin ferrell though, I dont like that guy
but almost 3 hours.. thats shitty, mind you though, Gangs Of New York is 2:45 about, thats one of my favourite movies.
-
Angelina Jolie is in it :)
thats a good reason to go see it, fuck colin ferrell though, I dont like that guy
but almost 3 hours.. thats shitty, mind you though, Gangs Of New York is 2:45 about, thats one of my favourite movies.
gangs of new york sucks.
-
gangs of new york is awesome. this movie looks dope, I"m gonna see it fa sho. I thought it wasn't out til the 24?
-
Angelina Jolie is in it :)
thats a good reason to go see it, f
word
still gonna see it ;D
-
"Alexander" under fire over bisexual king
Sat Nov 20, 1:45 AM ET
By Arthur Spiegelman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Oliver Stone's new film about Alexander the Great depicts the king as bisexual, fuelling outrage from Greeks and prompting Hollywood to ask if a world conqueror with dyed blond hair and waxed legs will be able to attract box office hordes.
One newspaper calls it a case of "Queer Eye for the Macedonian Guy." Others have speculated that Stone, always a controversial filmmaker, is taking a big risk with a $160 million (86 million pound) epic by including scenes of passionate embrace between Alexander and his best friend, Hephaestion.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (news - web sites) (GLAAD) says the film breaks new ground for a big-budget epic because it shows Hephaestion "as the true love of Alexander's life".
A line from the film says: "Alexander was defeated only once -- by Hephaestion's thighs."
Last summer's blockbuster film "Troy", which could have portrayed Achilles and Patroclus as lovers, brushed aside any homoerotic elements to concentrate on Achilles' desire for a Trojan princess.
Everyone associated with "Alexander," from Stone to star Colin Farrell, insist the film, which opens on Wednesday, is historically accurate and reflects the pagan mores of around 330 BC, when the Macedonian king captured the world's mightiest empire, Persia, and pressed on to the ends of the Earth.
Farrell, in a recent interview with Reuters, said he had no problem with the role because "Oliver made the film as historically accurate as possible, and ambivalent sexuality was something of the times and part of the character."
Stone said he kept the movie accurate and had an historian on the set. He added there was no question that Alexander had "a polymorphous sensuality and was an explorer in the deepest sense of the world."
British scholar Robin Lane Fox, author of a biography of Alexander and historical advisor to the film, said homosexuality and bisexuality were not "issues in ancient times" and that Alexander had extensive relations with women.
But a group of angry Greek lawyers say Stone and the film's distributor Warner Bros. should be sued for twisting history. The lawyers said they have asked Stone and Warner Bros. to include a reference in the title credits saying the film is fictional. Spokesmen for Warner Bros. and Stone did not have any immediate comment.
"We are not saying that we are against gays, but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander," Yannis Varnakos, who is spearheading the legal campaign, told Reuters in Athens.
Two years ago, hundreds of Greeks from Alexander's home turf Macedonia, stormed an archaeological symposium after one speaker presented a paper on the homosexuality of Alexander.
Stone's film, which he had been trying to get on the screen for 15 years, was filmed mainly in Morocco and Thailand. The Athens News Agency said no scenes were shot in Greece because of government opposition to Stone's portrayal of the Greek hero.
Asked if he toned down scenes, Stone maintained he shot the film the way he wanted. The only overtly sexual scene in the movie is a wedding night love scene between Alexander and his wife Roxanne that starts with her putting a knife to his throat after she catches him accepting a ring from Hephaestion, who is played by Jared Leto wearing eyeliner.
-
its true though, he was homo
-
thats one homo i would'nt make fun of...nope
-
And if you're seeing it just for Angelina Jolie, prepare to be disappointed. She's hardly in it,
-
^^i still gotta watch and see 8)
-
my thoughts on the movie were pretty similar to sikotics....it was way too long....my thoughts on the bisexual crap though are a little different
i felt like there was a lot of homosexual stuff....but it was a big part of the story....without that it wouldn't have accurately told the story....they did actually talk about his first wife a tiny bit (you may not have caught it)....his first wife was a couple years before (right around the time he became king i believe)....and somebody (can't remember who) had her and his 1st born son assassinated.
now think about this....he had 3 wives....but if they would've showed more of his life (wives and children) the movie would've been even longer....and thats definitely something i wouldnt want to happen....the movie really should've been about 2 hours or so...
the homo stuff really didnt bother me that much because they really didnt show anything....there was a few scenes of dialogue...alexander professing his love for that other dude....and 1 scene where he kissed that guy that looked like a girl....but for the most part they didnt make it too graphic and they didnt leave out too much....it was pretty accurate from what i remember from my humanities class...
on the upside...angelina jolie did a good job, colin farrel did too actually....i thought val kilmer did an awesome job as philip...he was probably my favorite character.
-
This movie has flopped big time by the way.
Cost something like 135 million to make and so far its only made about 30 mil back.
-
i saw it
I loved the fighting scenes and stuff..especially the war in India with the elephants..greater than any lord of the rings scene lol ;D
-
Shitty movie. I love movies, but I didn't love this one, several reasons why.
The first reason is: Colin Ferrell doesnt' adequately support the Alexander character. Earlier this year, Brad Pitt played Achilles in Troy, and did the role well, because he can support a mythical legend like that. In modern America, Brad Pitt is every bit as famous as Achilles is. So it works. Colin Ferrel doesn't fill the boots of Alexander at all, he doesn't have the presence, and he doesn't have the weight an actor would need to do this role... which could POSSIBLY be overlooked, if it wasn't for....
Angelina Jolie, who is probably the most beautiful woman in the world (after watching this movie). If she's not "The", she's "One of The". She's only in a few scenes, but with even a few minutes on screen, TOTALLY outshines Ferrell, and upstages him in his own fucking movie. When you're sitting around wondering when the next time you get to see Angelina is, and ignoring Colin on screen... there's something wrong.
Also, Val Kilmer, as Alexander's dad, was a much weightier and heavier figure than Colin, again fucking up the whole point of the movie. Alexander isn't the 'great' whenever both of his parents are more interesting, more famous, and stronger than he is. HORRIBLE casting job, if you ask me.
All the gay shit about turned my stomach. I don't mind them mentioning it, but all these fuckin' "I Love you" scenes with him and his boyfriend were disgusting. Sorry, that's just how I felt. In the movie, he talks to his wife in 1 scene... and talks to his boyfriend throughout the entire movie. Urrrgh.
Finally, it was just boring. Most of it was about his romantic life, and his gay romantic life at that. There weren't even many war scenes. Blahghghgh. Don't pay to see it.
-
I agree that Colin Farrel wasn't the best pick for Alexander. I just don't know who could have taken his place.
-
ima go see it in few hours, ill tell u what i think then ;)
-
Angelina Jolie, who is probably the most beautiful woman in the world (after watching this movie). If she's not "The", she's "One of The". She's only in a few scenes, but with even a few minutes on screen, TOTALLY outshines Ferrell, and upstages him in his own fucking movie. When you're sitting around wondering when the next time you get to see Angelina is, and ignoring Colin on screen... there's something wrong.
they even made her look older than she really is...and still damn sexy 8)
-
Shitty movie. I love movies, but I didn't love this one, several reasons why.
The first reason is: Colin Ferrell doesnt' adequately support the Alexander character. Earlier this year, Brad Pitt played Achilles in Troy, and did the role well, because he can support a mythical legend like that. In modern America, Brad Pitt is every bit as famous as Achilles is. So it works. Colin Ferrel doesn't fill the boots of Alexander at all, he doesn't have the presence, and he doesn't have the weight an actor would need to do this role... which could POSSIBLY be overlooked, if it wasn't for....
Angelina Jolie, who is probably the most beautiful woman in the world (after watching this movie). If she's not "The", she's "One of The". She's only in a few scenes, but with even a few minutes on screen, TOTALLY outshines Ferrell, and upstages him in his own fucking movie. When you're sitting around wondering when the next time you get to see Angelina is, and ignoring Colin on screen... there's something wrong.
Also, Val Kilmer, as Alexander's dad, was a much weightier and heavier figure than Colin, again fucking up the whole point of the movie. Alexander isn't the 'great' whenever both of his parents are more interesting, more famous, and stronger than he is. HORRIBLE casting job, if you ask me.
All the gay shit about turned my stomach. I don't mind them mentioning it, but all these fuckin' "I Love you" scenes with him and his boyfriend were disgusting. Sorry, that's just how I felt. In the movie, he talks to his wife in 1 scene... and talks to his boyfriend throughout the entire movie. Urrrgh.
Finally, it was just boring. Most of it was about his romantic life, and his gay romantic life at that. There weren't even many war scenes. Blahghghgh. Don't pay to see it.
see i thiink collin farrell was a good pick for the character...but if they are going to have someone like collin farrell as alexander they need to not cast bigger names as his parents (so i agree)....angelina jolie looked soo good in the movie it was awesome.
you can't say he only talked to his wife in one scene....there were a bunch of scenes with him talking to her and one of him banging her lol. there were only 6 or 7 scenes with the boyfriend....probably about equal to that of his wife....which was probably pretty accurate seeing as they were his 2 love interests.
i will also agree....a lot of it was boring
-
I'm not sure anybody else could have done the Alexander part, but like I said (and you did too) Angelina Jolie was too much, she was so beautiful it was distracting.
-
I'm not sure anybody else could have done the Alexander part, but like I said (and you did too) Angelina Jolie was too much, she was so beautiful it was distracting.
Hypothetically speaking, a young Heston, Olivier, Tracy, or Cooper would do a fine job taking the attention away from Jolie. As for todays actors; well Gibson is too old, so maybe Johnny Depp, well maybe. There aren't very many great actors anymore. At least they aren't stars.
-
OK i saw the movie and i have to say, its not as bad as you all make it out to be, but really the WORST part was that it was so factually WRONG, they left out major points and twisted up the story A LOT. whoever that historian was he was one big dick wad. They spent too much time on shit that didnt matter in the movie too. It just felt like a huge mess. but overall, i enjoyed it because i love these types of movies like this, troy, gladiator, etc etc.
-
^ Yeah, but Troy, and Gladiator, were 2 or 3 times better than this one, so it was just hella dissapointing. I shoulda tried for a refund.