• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

film: Alexander

rate this movie

  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img]

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11

wendisoul

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
493
Alexander the movie

Anyone know where I can find information about the reasons that this movie is rated R? I am taking my class to see it and want to be prepared for what sex / violence is in the movie. I know that there is some homosexual stuff, but any help as to how far it goes would be appreciated.
 
Review: 'Alexander' far from great

By CHRISTY LEMIRE
AP Movie Critic





Far from great, "Alexander" sporadically lumbers toward watchable, but mostly it's just bad.

And we're not just talking kitschy, B-movie bad. At least that would have been fun. We'll talking all-out, big-budget-bomb bad.

About a third of the way into this exceedingly earnest, three-hour epic, I wrote in my notepad, "This movie is going to tank." About two hours in, I wrote, "Ready for this to end."

Probably not the reaction director and co-writer Oliver Stone had hoped for when he began dreaming of this project decades ago. Then again, nothing about "Alexander" feels like a Stone film, at least not until a breathtaking battle toward the end involving elephants in India.








Despite the efforts of cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto, known for his visceral work on films including "Amores Perros" and "8 Mile," "Alexander" lacks the daring and stylistic flair of Stone's best, such as "Platoon" and "JFK."

But perhaps Stone was doomed from the start. In telling the story of the Macedonian warrior-king, who had conquered the vast majority of the known pre-Christian world by the time he was 25, he has created a film that feels both too long and too cursory. We hear Alexander (Colin Farrell) talk a lot about wanting to bring various lands and people together, but we never truly understand what drives him.

Part of the problem is the dialogue - Stone wrote the script with Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis - which alternates between stilted speeches and laugh-out-loud anachronisms. My favorite is when Alexander's dad calls him "an arrogant brat."

If he is a brat, at least he's a stylish one, dressed in a micro-mini of a toga and tressed like Brad Pitt in "Troy." (Though as the movie goes on, his bleach-blond bowl cut grows out to something resembling a mullet, and by the end he's sporting the flowing locks of Fabio.)

Interactive
Christopher Reeve Photo Gallery



Latest Movie News
Hollywood writers approved contract
'Bad Education' gets NC-17 rating

Review: 'Kranks' Christmas not a keeper

Review: 'Alexander' far from great

Fishburne, Hawke to co-star in thriller






Farrell gives it his all - sometimes he gives too much, showing every smidgen of ambition and anger on his puppy-dog-cute face - but despite his undeniable enthusiasm, he lacks the gravitas necessary for the role. Alexander was young, but he was no lightweight. They didn't call him "the Great" for nothing.

Also going way, way over the top is Angelina Jolie as Alexander's mother, Olympias, who has a fondness for snakes and may or may not be a sorceress. In an accent that seems to have been borrowed from George Hamilton in "Love at First Bite," Olympias repeatedly insists that Alexander's father was Zeus, though biology would suggest it was King Philip (Val Kilmer, back in Jim Morrison mode, blustering beneath a beard and a beer belly).

Posing the question every mother thrusts upon her son mid-guilt trip, Jolie's Olympias asks, "What have I done to make you hate me so?" (This line elicited laughs at the screening I attended.) Well, for starters, she planted the seeds for a major Oedipus complex and stage-mothered him into trampling across Western Asia, Persia and parts of India.

At the same time, "Alexander" sometimes fails to go far enough: His bisexuality is merely suggested. He tells his lifelong friend, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), that he loves and needs him more than anyone else in the world, and Hephaistion responds that he's jealous of losing Alexander to the worlds he's conquering. But that's it. Like Matt, the lone gay character on "Melrose Place," Alexander gets to give and receive meaningful glances and heartfelt hugs, and he shares a quick kiss with a servant boy. But it's almost as if Stone was afraid of alienating much of his audience with an all-male love scene.

(Alexander does get it on during his wedding night, though, after marrying exotic dancer Roxane, played by Rosario Dawson.)

Considering that he's supposedly the most important person in Alexander's life, though, Hephaistion gets little to do: Leto is Farnsworth to Farrell's P. Diddy, though his long, stringy hair and permanent eye liner make him look more like Ozzy Osbourne.

He's at Alexander's side for the film's two major battles - the first, against the Persians in the CGI-laden Battle of Gaugmela; the second, a gritty, magenta-hued forest fight against Indian warriors sitting atop armored elephants.

Just when things get going, though, Stone drags the film's energy to a halt by returning repeatedly to Alexander's ally Ptolemy, now aged and played by Anthony Hopkins, toddling around barefoot in a white tunic and deifying his buddy years later while surveying an incredibly fake-looking harbor of Alexandria.

"A friend to man, he changed the world," Ptolemy recalls, ever the reverent narrator. In today's vernacular, we'd say he was a uniter, not a divider.

"Alexander," a Warner Brothers release, is rated R for violence and some nudity/sexuality. Running time: 175 minutes. One and a half stars out of four.

---

8(
 
i saw this movie tonight, simply because of angelina jolie being in it (obsessive, i know). i went knowing that this wasn't really my kind of movie, but i decided to go anyway. IT SUCKED!!! honestly. it was really lame, overdramatic, drawn out. a large portion of the audience snickered at the parts that were supposed to be touching. after about 3 hours (between the commericals and previews beforehand) of this crap we finally decided to walk out.

it was pretty gorey. there was a lot of blood and violent fight scenes. there were a lot of homosexual undertones, but it only went so far as to show 2 men kiss briefly. there was a topless chick. that was about all.
 
I was pretty disappointed in this flick.

There is no chemistry between the actors, the anachronisms *are* obvious and laughable, the pacing is slow and choppy, and the dialogue is uninspired and chock full o' cliche.

Two stars -


*One star for Rosario Dawson's big tits and full frontal nudity.
*The second star is for the indian battle scene involving the elephants. That was cool.
 
I just realized that you had asked what made this film R but xena seems to have answered it. The gory parts are all in the fight scenes, and there's only two big battles.
 
It is movies like this that remind me that internet piracy isn't what's "killing" media profits (according to them anyway), its overbudgeted shitty products.
 
I saw this one yesterday. Not quite what I was hoping for. It seemed very melodramatic and overdone to me. The characters were just too fucking boring during the last 2 hours, all though Olympias was somewhat interesting. The performances were decent, and even Colin Frarell didn't do as bad as I thought he would, but I don't think even the best acting could've saved this film. I enjoyed Val Kilmer's performance the most, it's actually one of my favorites of his that I've seen.

Good battle scenes nd some great sets, but other than that, it just wasn't anything special.
 
I checked this movie out on turkey day... Boo is all i can think of.

For a war epic, it is not all that violent.... It shows many scenes of death, but none of them are too gorey... braveheart was much more gorey in this aspect...

The story drags on and on and on... and on...

The obvious gay overtones were a little annoying.. He was a great conqueror and leader who happened to be gay... nothing more... Sometimes it went into his desire to "lay with a man" too much...

I heard that this film cost some 150+ million. It only took in 13 mil for the weekend and 22 for the long weekend...
 
^^and considering the reviews it's been getting, it's probably not going to bring in much more money.
 
I liked this movie. I think it was a really honest portrayal of his life, not that we'll ever really know. Troy and Gladiator were good but so formulated and hollywood. I thought this movie was strange and beautiful.
 
Some parts of this film were really terrific, and some parts were terrible.

The acting was very hit or miss, and the dialogue ranged from good to tripe. The anachronisms in a lot of the speeches definitely grated on my nerves. I understand that it's easier to just say "pension" then find a more authentic way of articulating that concept, but if this film was in development for so many years you'd think Stone would have thought of something. On the whole, the visual aspect is fantastic. The battle sequences are entertaining, and I like them because they are fairly historically accurate. Flashing between the Macedonian Center and Left Flank during Gaugamela was cool. The sound editing was good, but the soundtrack was kinda doo doo.

Every single scene with Philip or Olympias was pretty much unwatchable. Angelina Jolie was so bad in this it was monumental. Why did she keep talking in a Russian accent? And making Philip look like a caveman was a poor creative decision in my opinion; this is the man who perfected the phalanx, revolutionized warfare, shaped Alexander and set in motion one of the greatest military undertakings in the history of mankind. Let's make him look like a defrosted Neolithic carpenter!

Furthermore, the sexuality issue bugged me. For one, Philip having mistresses was not only expected, it was (probably) tacitly approved. Olympias was Philip's third wife, and he had five (possibly seven) in total. Certainly, Alexander would not have harbored his father any ill-will, and the friction between Philip and Olympias was contrived. The goal was to get an heir. Marriage was more of a business relationship designed to achieve a practical goal than anything else. And the bisexuality stuff bugged me too, not because I'm a homophobe but because we try to impose our modern, Western notions of sexuality on the ancient world. Alexander didn't have much interest in sex with women; this is true. He wanted an heir but sex was distasteful to him. I think, however, that it had more to do with his blind ambition and burning, obsessive desire to carve out an empire than being gay or bisexual. And furthermore, the suggestion that Alexander admired Achilles because he and Patroclus were lovers made my bowels watery. First of all, it's not conclusive that they were lovers; Greek men could be close without being lovers. It's a kind of dynamic that doesn't really exist anymore. I hate the modern tendency to jump on homosexual undertones. There is such a thing as reading too much into subtext. But Alexander admired Achilles because he believed himself to be a descendent, and he admired Achilles because he was one of the baddest motherfuckers in the history of of the world, like a Greek Sonny Corleone. This is crucial to the character! The Iliad was treated as actual history in those days. They got that all wrong.

Which brings me to my last point, and the reason the film is a failure ultimately. The characterization of Alexander is all important in this film. He was a raging, egomaniacal, superhumanly ambitious man with a charisma and military genius that had never been seen before and have rarely been seen since (other than in Hitler, Saladin, Caesar, Napoleon and Darth Vadar). He was not a boy with an impish smile, and a burning desire to keep his homosexual urges under control. At certain parts they got it right, but for the most part they got Alexander wrong. Collin Farrel was the wrong choice, though he did the best he could.

It was at best mediocre, but could have been a lot better.
 
I thought it was okay. Worth maybe a second watching, to pick up anything previously missed, but not more.

What I liked:

1.) I actually thought the battle scenes were cool, especially Gaugamela.

2.) Loved the soundtrack by Vangelis, who's one of my favorite musicians.

3.) The F/X and scenery were often beautiful.

What I didn't like:

1.) Hopkins is totally wasted in this role. In fact, the movie would have been much better if he'd been cut out altogether. I love Hellenistic history, but people go to the movies to watch things, not get a lecture on Alexander's campaigns.

2.) The movie was chronologically disjointed; this may work for Pulp Fiction and Snatch, but it has no place in a historical piece.

3.) To second Benefit, Jolie's accent was atrocious.

4.) The movie felt scattered, like it never figured out what it wanted to do with Alexander. Did it want to make him a great general? A lover? An egotistical paranoiac? A modern character fighting an Oedipus complex? None of the parts fit together.


So, I can only give this one two stars.
 
Watched parts of this on HBO when it came out the other night...it is absolutely appalling. Anybody else cringe when they saw an oily faced Angelina with rubbery pouting lips and overdrawn eyeliner spout lines with a HORRIBLE accent? eeeew!
 
Top