Alexander Final Trailer Available
- Thread starter J.R. Hudson
- Start date
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Alexander Final Trailer Available
That sucks to hear; Stone is a great filmmaker and Im surprised. Was it too much hype or does it just suck?
That sucks to hear; Stone is a great filmmaker and Im surprised. Was it too much hype or does it just suck?
Re: Alexander Final Trailer Available
I think the movie is bad because it tries to hard to be great, but it's really unfocused.
The movie is about a man who is too ambitious and who really can't decide what he wants because of his ambition. He's sexually confused, he's at times a liberator and at others a tyrant, and he ultimately comes off quite ambiguously. For a man who had such a strong desire to conquer the known world, he seems confused and prone to self-doubt.
I think Stone fails for the same reason he sees Alexander as failing: the movie tries to be great but doesn't know how to go about it. It's very careful to be historically accurate--at least compared with other movies of in the same genre, but it never really knows how closely to stick to history and this bogs it down. It also wants to be a great action movie, but the fight scenes are dull. Random shaky cam violence, big swooping shots of huge armies, and slow motion can work, but they don't work together. There are shots copied from Lord of the Rings, and tinting copied from Hero, but it's all random and there's no continuity of style. Each fight scene is shot differently and there are some shots which stand out as being out of place in each. It seems the cinematographer didn't have a very long attention span. The fast cuts and shaky camera also keep us from ever identifying who's fighting well enough to care about anyone. Also, a lot of the movie is dictated by Ptolemy (I think) and a lot of the more exciting parts are skipped over. We hear him talk about great battles, but we see mostly character development--of characters who never really come to mean anything at the end or whos motivations are never explained fully, perhaps because Stone doesn't want to imply anything too historically offensive. But I like movies which are historically innacurate as long as they have fun with it; Amadeus, for instance, was great.
The cast is good but the script is sometimes pretty weird and I think that hurts the acting a lot. Anthony Hopkins is bad, Val Kilmer is pretty bad, and Angelina Jolie is bad and they are all very talented people. Rosario Dawson's not so great either, and while Colin Farell is decent, he doesn't make a great Alexander and he has a weird accent like everyone else. Also, for such a gorgeous cast, the sex scenes are oddly shot. They're mostly unpleasant, violent, and poorly lit. A weird choice. And the motifs are obvious and stupid and don't reinforce any plot points. What's the deal with all the snakes? They don't mean anything and they pull you right out of the movie every time you see them.
Still, it's not all bad. A few scenes work and the cinematography is very strong in places, though the eclectic styles don't mix so well together. A few very cool shots, but the movie is so long that it's mostly boring. It's too bad, too, because Stone wanted clearly wanted to make a historically accurate, beautifully and artfully shot movie with interesting, ambiguous characters (I think he wanted Alexander to be a bit of a Charles Foster Kane), and some interesting insights (psychonalytical and political) into the life of a great man. But he can't have great history and great fiction, so the whole thing is mediocre. A real shame.
I think the movie is bad because it tries to hard to be great, but it's really unfocused.
The movie is about a man who is too ambitious and who really can't decide what he wants because of his ambition. He's sexually confused, he's at times a liberator and at others a tyrant, and he ultimately comes off quite ambiguously. For a man who had such a strong desire to conquer the known world, he seems confused and prone to self-doubt.
I think Stone fails for the same reason he sees Alexander as failing: the movie tries to be great but doesn't know how to go about it. It's very careful to be historically accurate--at least compared with other movies of in the same genre, but it never really knows how closely to stick to history and this bogs it down. It also wants to be a great action movie, but the fight scenes are dull. Random shaky cam violence, big swooping shots of huge armies, and slow motion can work, but they don't work together. There are shots copied from Lord of the Rings, and tinting copied from Hero, but it's all random and there's no continuity of style. Each fight scene is shot differently and there are some shots which stand out as being out of place in each. It seems the cinematographer didn't have a very long attention span. The fast cuts and shaky camera also keep us from ever identifying who's fighting well enough to care about anyone. Also, a lot of the movie is dictated by Ptolemy (I think) and a lot of the more exciting parts are skipped over. We hear him talk about great battles, but we see mostly character development--of characters who never really come to mean anything at the end or whos motivations are never explained fully, perhaps because Stone doesn't want to imply anything too historically offensive. But I like movies which are historically innacurate as long as they have fun with it; Amadeus, for instance, was great.
The cast is good but the script is sometimes pretty weird and I think that hurts the acting a lot. Anthony Hopkins is bad, Val Kilmer is pretty bad, and Angelina Jolie is bad and they are all very talented people. Rosario Dawson's not so great either, and while Colin Farell is decent, he doesn't make a great Alexander and he has a weird accent like everyone else. Also, for such a gorgeous cast, the sex scenes are oddly shot. They're mostly unpleasant, violent, and poorly lit. A weird choice. And the motifs are obvious and stupid and don't reinforce any plot points. What's the deal with all the snakes? They don't mean anything and they pull you right out of the movie every time you see them.
Still, it's not all bad. A few scenes work and the cinematography is very strong in places, though the eclectic styles don't mix so well together. A few very cool shots, but the movie is so long that it's mostly boring. It's too bad, too, because Stone wanted clearly wanted to make a historically accurate, beautifully and artfully shot movie with interesting, ambiguous characters (I think he wanted Alexander to be a bit of a Charles Foster Kane), and some interesting insights (psychonalytical and political) into the life of a great man. But he can't have great history and great fiction, so the whole thing is mediocre. A real shame.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Alexander Final Trailer Available
Interesting insight and a nice review. You know, speaking of eclectic styles; I always felt the reason JFK lacked was for the 'various' style footage in it. I loved the film but thats the one part I could have done without.
Interesting insight and a nice review. You know, speaking of eclectic styles; I always felt the reason JFK lacked was for the 'various' style footage in it. I loved the film but thats the one part I could have done without.
Re: Alexander Final Trailer Available
Policar I agree with you on Stone's lack of focus. Stone has really suffered from a lack of organization in his last few films. He's really lacked the focus and restraint he showed in Wall Street and Born on the 4th of July and he really seems to have lost it. Too many lofty ideas and dilluted execution.
Snakes usually signify temptation, perhaps of the devil or something more general that symbolizes the fatal hubris of a character. Stone also used Snakes in Natural Born Killers.
It sucks that this movie sucks. Alexander is an incredible historical figure and you can't help feel that the material is tainted. But I also think the Gladiator/Troy/Roman Greek epic film has been bled to death.
Policar I agree with you on Stone's lack of focus. Stone has really suffered from a lack of organization in his last few films. He's really lacked the focus and restraint he showed in Wall Street and Born on the 4th of July and he really seems to have lost it. Too many lofty ideas and dilluted execution.
Snakes usually signify temptation, perhaps of the devil or something more general that symbolizes the fatal hubris of a character. Stone also used Snakes in Natural Born Killers.
It sucks that this movie sucks. Alexander is an incredible historical figure and you can't help feel that the material is tainted. But I also think the Gladiator/Troy/Roman Greek epic film has been bled to death.
Woodson
Well-known member
Re: Alexander Final Trailer Available
Policecar... I don't agree with you on "Val Kilmer was pretty bad" part... I thought he did an amazing job, one of his best acting performance ever... I won't be suprised if he gets a nom for best supporting actor. When I was watching the movie.. that's the only interest I had in it... I want to see more of his acting, more and more scenes with him... he did an amzing job.
How is Amadeus historically innacurate ?
Policecar... I don't agree with you on "Val Kilmer was pretty bad" part... I thought he did an amazing job, one of his best acting performance ever... I won't be suprised if he gets a nom for best supporting actor. When I was watching the movie.. that's the only interest I had in it... I want to see more of his acting, more and more scenes with him... he did an amzing job.
How is Amadeus historically innacurate ?
Re: Alexander Final Trailer Available
Kilmer was okay, but I never felt too much for his character. Unlike Jolie and Hopkins he didn't embarass himself, but I didn't feel it was a great performance either. He did a good job considering the script was weak and I was too harsh in judging him in what I wrote above, but I still don't think he was great and I don't think he deserves an Oscar nom.
Amadeus is historically inaccurate because Salieri never plotted Mozart's death and it was a student of Mozart or something who transcribed his last Mass and not Salieri. There are plenty of other smaller issues, but it was considered pretty accurate when it was released and is now known to be quite inaccurate. Still, I really liked it because it had fun with its characters and stuck to its focus.
Kilmer was okay, but I never felt too much for his character. Unlike Jolie and Hopkins he didn't embarass himself, but I didn't feel it was a great performance either. He did a good job considering the script was weak and I was too harsh in judging him in what I wrote above, but I still don't think he was great and I don't think he deserves an Oscar nom.
Amadeus is historically inaccurate because Salieri never plotted Mozart's death and it was a student of Mozart or something who transcribed his last Mass and not Salieri. There are plenty of other smaller issues, but it was considered pretty accurate when it was released and is now known to be quite inaccurate. Still, I really liked it because it had fun with its characters and stuck to its focus.
Slimothy
Veteran
Re: Alexander Final Trailer Available
I heard some historian talking about Alexander saying it was TOTALLY historically incorrect. Said something about him having generals and such fighting battles that in actuality had died many many many years before the battle took place. Who knows, I haven't heard anything good about it yet, and I'm getting kind of bored of all the bad epic films coming out. Braveheard/Gladiator were the best!
I heard some historian talking about Alexander saying it was TOTALLY historically incorrect. Said something about him having generals and such fighting battles that in actuality had died many many many years before the battle took place. Who knows, I haven't heard anything good about it yet, and I'm getting kind of bored of all the bad epic films coming out. Braveheard/Gladiator were the best!